INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality, of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of die page in the adjacent frame.

3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 76-19,445

BENNETT, Linda Anne, 1943- PATTERNS OF ETHNIC IDENTITY AMONG SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES IN WASHINGTON, D.C, The American University, Ph.D., 1976 Anthropology, cultural

Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 4sio6

0 1976

LINDA ANNE BENNETT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PATTERNS OP ETHNIC IDENTITY AMONG

SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES

IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

by

Linda A. Bennett

Submitted to the

Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Anthropology

Signature of Committee:

Dean of the College .. '6 mzs Date: '

1976

The American University Washington, D.C. -20016

t h e AMERICAM UNI7EHSITY LIBRARY

f 17 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION.

Brief description of the Ethnic Groups Theoretical Framework The Ethnic Groups Discussion of Concepts "Identity” "Ethnic Group" and "Ethnic Identity" "Socialization" "Values" Research Methods Personal Background Inclusion or Exclusion of Ethnic Groups Making Contacts Interviews and Participant-Observation

II. THE BROADER PICTURE: SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES IN YUGOSLAVIA AND THE UNITED STATES...... 37

Ethnic Variability in Yugoslavia Ethnic Profiles by Republic Slovenia IStoveniga) Croatia (Hrvateka) Serbia {Srbiga) Bosnia-Hercegovina XBosna-Hevoegovina) Montenegro {Cma Gora, "Black Mountain") Macedonia [Makedoniga) The Spirit of South Slavic Nationalism South Slavic Migration to the United States Emigrant Statistics Reasons for Leaving Geographical Roots of the Study Group Settlements of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the United States Post-World War II Influx of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes

ii Chapter

III. SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES IN WASHINGTON, D. C...... 101

History of Their Migration to Washington Census Data on Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes Availability of Data Place of Birth and Mother Tongue Information Estimating Total Numbers of Ethnic Group Members in Washington Social ^ d Economic Characteristics Sex, Age, and 1965 Residence Education, Occupation, and income Summary of Census Data and Social and Demographic Characteristics of the Ethnic Groups

IV. SOCIO-CÜLTURAL SPHERES OF ETHNIC IDENTITY...... 164

Names Kinship Translation of the Term "Family" Household Makeup Marrying-in and Marrying-out Distinguishing Characteristics of Families Family Rituals: Christmas, Easter and Krana Stava Adoptive Ties : Godparenthood Ethnic Bonds Beyond the Family Friendship Informal Social Groupings and Formal Organizations Political Inclinations Religious Affiliations Ethnolinguistics Language Learning and Maintenance Reading Orientations Ethnic Identity and Washington, D. C. The Study Group's Perceptions of Washington as a City Advantages and Disadvantages in the Maintenance of Ethnic Identity Historical Heroes as Symbols of Ethnic Identity

V. SUMMARY OVERVIEW AND PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH...... 300

Indications of Ethnic Identity Maintenance Domains in Which Incentives and Constraints Operate The Historical Domain The Demographic Domàin The Societal Domain Ihe Organizational Domain The Familial Domain The Individual Domain

iii Decision-Making Areas of Ethnic Identity Changes in Surnames Giving Children Ethnic or Non-Ethnic Names Marriage to Ethnic as Opposed to Non-Ethnic Spouse To Learn or Not to Learn tdie Ethnic Language Religion as tJie Primary Focus of Ethnic Identity Prospects for Future Research

Appendix

A. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR ETHNIC IDENTITY STUDY...... 342

B. LIFE-HISTORY INTERVIEW TOPICS ...... 351

C. SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERVIEWEES. . .352

D. FAMILY ORIGIN OF ETHNIC IDENTITY INTERVIEWEES ...... 357

E. PERSONS DESIGNATING SERBO-CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN AS THE MOTHER TONGUE, BY CITY, 1970...... 359

P. MEDIAN SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED BY FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION YUGOSLAV-AMERICANS, BY CITY, 1970...... 362

PRONUNCIATION GUIDE TO CERTAIN CONSONANTS IN SERBO-CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN...... 364

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 365

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Yugoslav Nationalities by Republic...... 46

2. Changes in Ethnic Composition of Yugoslav Republics, 1953-1971 ...... 47

3. Ethnic Composition of Yugoslavia, 1961...... 48

4. (a) Yugoslav Immigration to the United States, 1899-1923. . . . 71

(b) Yugoslav Immigration to the United States emd Emigration to Yugoslavia, 1924-1940...... 73

(c) Yugoslav Immigration to the United States, 1941-1973. . . . 74

5. Interviewees' Reasons for Emigrating, by Period and Generation...... 85

6 . Population Characteristics of Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area, 1970...... 121

7. Residence of First and Second Generation Yugoslav-Americans in the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area, 1920-1970 .... 123

8 . First Generation Persons Designating Serbo-Croatian as the Mother Tongue, Washington Metropolitan Area, 1910-1970. . . . 128

9. First Generation Persons Designating Slovenian as the Mother Tongue, Washington Metropolitan Area, 1910-1970 ...... 128

10. Languages Designated as the Mother Tongue by First and Second Generation Yugoslav-Americans in the Washington Metropolitan Area, 1910-1970 ...... 133

11. Place of Birth Designated by Persons Speaking Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian as the Mother Tongue, Washington, D. C.r Metropolitan Area, 1970 ...... 134

12. Persons Designating Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian as the Mother Tongue— Ranking by City, 1970 ...... 139

13. Sex and Age Distribution for First and Second Generation Yugoslav-Americans, 1970...... 141

V Table Page 14. Changes in Residence 1965-1970 Among First and Second Generation Yugoslav-Americans Living in the Washington Metropolitan Area...... 146

15. Number of School Years Complete by First and Second Generation Yugoslav-Americans, Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Area, 1970 ...... 148

16. Economic Characteristics of First and Second Generation Yugoslav-Americans, Washington, D. C.,Metropolitan Area, 1970 ...... 153

(a) Occupational Category...... 153

(b) Class of Worker...... 154

(c) Income Level in 1969 ...... 154

Vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Maps Page 1. The Republics, Autonomous Provinces, and Regions of Yugoslavia, Showing Major Cities and Towns...... 39

2. The Linguistic Divisions of Yugoslavia...... 4 1

3. Major Physical Features of Yugoslavia ...... 43

4. Family Origin of 56 Ethnic Identity Interviewees...... 88

5. Washington, D. C. SMS A, Showing the Location of the 56 Interviewees...... 106

Figure 1. Model Showing the Connection between Individual Ethnic Identity Patterns, the Ethnic Groups, and the Wider Society ...... 8

2. Domains of Incentives and Constraints on Individual Decision-Making ...... 304

vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Doing research, whether within the humanities, social sciences, or physical sciences, entails extensive work done individually by the researcher, apart from other people. Yet, as any researcher well knows, a substantial part of the work is also done in close cooperation with other individuals vdio are responsible in both tangible and intangible ways for much of the success of the study.

Of the dozens of individuals for whcxn I feel great appreciation,

Thomas N. Bethell, my husband, is the first to be acknowledged because he has provided the most fundamental support through his unending encouragement to me over the course of this research project as well as invaluable editorial improvments to the manuscript. Dr. Katherine

Spencer Halpern, Dr. Ruth H. Landman, and Dr. Bela C. Maday— the three members of the dissertation committee— also gave inexhaustable direction during all stages of the research and writing. Dr. Halpern's advisory role in ny professional development extends back through my years as a graduate student during which time she served as my faculty advisor.

Her willingness to be chairman of the dissertation committee and her enthusiastic and helpful assistance have been very much appreciated.

Apart from offering cogent suggestions for the theoretical and methodo­ logical approaches used in this study. Dr. Landman also made major contributions during the final writing stage while she was on sabbatical in London. Dr. Maday not only provided useful advice throughout the

viii course of the research, but I am especially obliged to him for making

the original suggestion to me of an ethnic identity study that would

be able to draw upon my earlier fieldwork experience in Yugoslavia.

The availability of funding is, of course, an important factor in

the realization of any research project. In this study a Predoctoral

Research Fellowship Award from the National Institute of Mental Health

(# 1 FOl MH53630-01 CUAN) from October .1, 1972,.through September 30,

1974,made it possible to do preliminary fieldwork in Yugoslavia and to

complete the data collection for this study.

Consultation in the early stages of this research with certain members of the ethnic groups was both an inspiration to roe and was

immeasurably helpful in developing rapport with other ethnic group

members. Mrs. Jelisaveta S. Allen, Associate Librarian for Collection

Development and Bibliographer at Dumbarton Oaks, provided some of the

strongest reassurance I received while conducting the research through her willingness to share with me her knowledge and perspective on the

ethnic groups in Washington and to personally introduce me to many

ethnic group members. Furthermore, she instructed me in Serbo-Croatian

for more than a year. Without the considerable tangible and intangible

assistance from Mrs. Allen, it is clear that this study would not have proceeded nearly so smoothly.

While I am indebted to all those ethnic group members who parti­

cipated in one way or emother in this research, I cannot begin to note them all because of my promise of anonymity to them. Yet, it does seem

appropriate to mention four people who, because of their occupational

ix position and their familiarity with their ethnic groups in Washington, provided some particularly helpful direction to the research, especially

by advising me on the selection of potential interviewees who had

maintained their ethnic identity in different ways. Those four indi­

viduals are as follows: Miss Rul^ica Popovitch, Senior Reference Librarian

in the East European Division of the Library of Congress; Mr. Vladimir

Pregelj of the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress;

Mr. Edward Yambru6 ic, Senior Copyright Examiner for the Library of

Congress; and Mr. Nick Maksimovic, an instructor in Serbo-Croatian and

Slovenian and my first Serbo-Croatian teacher.

Two non-Washingtonians lent important assistance to the research.

Dr. Milovan Gavazzi, Professor Emeritus of Ethnology at the University of Zagreb in Yugoslavia, provided ethnographic and bibliographic infor­ mation through personal correspondence on certain aspects of ethnic variability in Yugoslavia. Dr. Michael B, Petrovich, Associate Professor in the International Studies Institute at Grand Valley State Colleges in

Allendale, Michigan, read an earlier version of the historical summary of the South Slavs and offered detailed and useful comments on that material.

Since October, 1974, the Center for Family Research at the George

Washington University Medical Center has been my professional home. In part because of the warm supportive attention to my research by ny colleages at the Center, the writing of the dissertation has been a satisfying experience. Special appreciation is given to Denise Noonan,

Janet Moyer, Dr. Steven Wolin, and Dr. Howard Shapiro. In addition to the editorial assistance provided by Tom Bethell,

Dr. Halpern, Dr. Landman, and Dr. Maday, production of the final manu­ script was ultimately dependent upon the work of Maria Tokic, who typed it as it was given to her in bits and pieces over a five month period and to Church Myers, who did the graphics on the maps and figures. Work­ ing with them was a pleasure.

In the end, however, the responsibility for the contents and the presentation of this study rests with me.

xi CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

When people meet me for the first time, they can very easily tell that I am somehow different. I think the number one indication is ray name. At times I've considered it a real burden in social situations. It's rather like wearing a brand. At times it's uncomfortable; at other times, I don't mind at all. Most people try hard, especially in adolescence, to set themselves apart and distinguish them­ selves in some way. I've never had that problem— my problem has always been trying to integrate myself. — Second generation Croat

At a time when ethnic identity and cultural pluralism have gener­ ated renewed interest and enthusiasm in America, the desire to be dis­ tinctive or to be similar— or ambivalence about being either one— is a basic theme in the lives of many individuals. For white ethnics, the late

1960's and early 1970's has proven to be a congenial period for ethnic identity. In fact, many would now argue that ethnic identity is a form of socio-cultural affiliation and attachment that offsets a sense of anomie endemic in this increasingly mobile, rootless, urban, and anonymous society.

This study was undertaken to learn something of the patterns of ethnic identity among individuals for whom the decision to maintain or discard ethnic identity is primarily a matter of personal choice, with relatively minimal pressure brought to bear by the environment in which they live. For Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes— the largest ethnic groups in contemporary Yugoslavia ("land of the South Slavs")— Washington, D. C., provides such a climate. An underlying assumption of this research is that an investi­

gation of ethnic identity patterns in these circumstances can provide

clues to the relationship between socialization, decision-making, and

values, as found among members of these three ethnic groups.

Socialization, decision-making, and values are seen as interdepen­

dent phenomena, with a change in one necessarily affecting the other

two? yet each has a distinct reality of its own in terms of influencing

human behavior— including ethnic identity.

Socialization is the means by which an individual leams what

society expects of him with respect to proper behavior, social affili­

ations, and values, and the means by which he leams to respond to these

expectations of him in ways that maintain his individuality.

Decision-making is an outgrowth of socialization. The individual

responds to society's expectations in part by choosing among alternative

forms of behavior, social affiliations, and values that he perceives to

be open to him. This study addresses itself specifically to those

decisions that affect the continuation and maintenance of ethnic identity

in one's own life and into the next generation. From perceived alterna­

tives, an individual makes selections in innumerable socio-cultural

areas, among them occupation, education, geographical mobility, the

naming of children, family ties, marital patterns, friendships, and

language usage.

Values held by an individual in reference to his ethnic identity help determine his decision-making and are influenced in turn by the

effects of decisions already made. Values cannot be dissociated either

from the socialization or the decision-making aspects of ethnic identity.

Rather, values are developed through socialization and are most clearly expressed and reflected in the decisions the individual makes. Basic­ ally, values discriminate between desirable and undesirable ways of behaving, and function as the individual’s guides to action.

Viewed together, and examined in the context of an individual's lifetime experience, these three phenomena can provide clues to how and why ethnic identity is or is not maintained differently from one person to the next both in emphasis ëind degree. By clarifying the interplay between socialization, decision-making, and values, some insight can be developed toward an understanding of the direction of ethnic identity in the United States.

In this study "ethnic identity" is defined as a feeling of attach­ ment and affiliation toward an ethnic group based upon social roles thought to be appropriate for interaction within the group and upon meaningful cultural symbols, values, and behaviors.

An "ethnic group" is one form of social category of people who together hold a subjective belief in a common ancestry or people who hold an adoptive tie to that ancestry through intermarriage or voluntary ascription.

Brief Description of the Ethnic Groups

Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington typically identify them­ selves as part of three ethnic groups whose membership is historically tied to distinct regions within Southeastern Europe. Since 1945, Serbia,

Croatia, and Slovenia have comprised three republics within the state of

Yugoslavia. Some ethnic group members have also resided within the remaining three republics and the two autonomous provinces of Yugoslavia and have constituted minority groups within Austria, Italy, and Hungary (see Map 1).

Members of these ethnic groups, as studied in Washington, repre­

sent two separate major migrations from Southeastern Europe to the

United States. On the one hand, there are descendants of families who

immigrated during the 1890-1920 period. That migration wave carried

most immigrants to industrial cities of the East and the Midwest; to

coal and metal mining areas of the Appalachian states, Pennsylvania, and

the West; to fishing and shipping regions in California and Louisiana;

and to the Great Lakes farming country. Then there are first and second

generation members of the post-World War II immigration period, settled

primarily in urban areas across the country, including Washington, D. C.

In sum, the Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian populations in

Washington are composed of descendants of the earlier immigration wave,

who moved to the area from other parts of the United States, and post-

World War II emigres and their children. With very few exceptions, the

Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington have settled in the area since

World war II.

Between September 1973 and January 1975, 56 people were inter­

viewed using an ethnic identity interview (see Appendix A: Intewiew

ScJ^dule fox* Ethnio Identity Study) ; those 56 interviewees constitute

the "study group." Additional interview material and information

from participant-observation were collected over the period of 1973-

1975. The U.S. Census for Washington, D. C.,Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Area (SMSA) served as the residential-occupational-educational-

church affiliation base from which interviewees were selected out of

approximately 3,000-3,500 Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the area. Theoretical Framework

The data collected falls into two general categories: indirect and direct information. Interviews, participant-observation, historical literature, and census reports provided information of an indirect nature about the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington. Thus, "indirect data" encompasses an overview of the history of settlement by the three groups in the area: who came, when, and why; their educational and occupational backgrounds; residential trends; the development of organi­ zations; eind other general socio-cultural patterns.

In contrast, "direct data" is that information collected from interviewees specifically about their own life history aind ethnic identity. Because the ethnic identity interview was followed in gathering that material, the direct data is of a more consistent nature than the indirect data and, as such, provides a basis upon which individuals in the study group can be compared.

Both the indirect and direct data have been used in this study to describe the range and focus of ethnic identity expression within the three ethnic groups as well as within the study group. Using that material, the historical roots of each ethnic group are explored, in­ cluding their Southeast European, American, and Washington experiences.

This approach facilitates some discussion of those characteristics that distinguish these groups from their counterparts in other American locales.

Because this study is based primarily upon the accounts of 56 interviewees, Fredrik Barth's 1966 essay on "transactional behavior" is pertinent to developing a theoretical framework for this study.

Barth argues that anthropologists are, in fact, observers of "'cases' of human behavior" and not "customs," and as a result, their central

objective should be to identify "the constraints and incentives that

canalize choices" that people make (1966: 1). The social activities

that people engage in to obtain something they value Barth calls "trans­

actions." Transactional behavior takes place with reference to a set

of values which serve as generalized incentives and constraints on

choice..." (1966: 5).

Furthermore, Barth's assertion is that "cases" of human behavior

can be used to explain social regularities when it can be demonstrated

that they represent the decision-making process based on incentives and

constraints that they are operating under.

I wish to explore the extent to Wiich patterns of social form can be explained if we assume thht they are the cumula­ tive result of a number of separate choices and decisions made by people acting vis-a-vis one another. In other words, that the patterns are generated through processes of interaction and in their form reflect the constraints and incentives under which people act. I hold that this trans­ formation from constraints and incentives to frequentative patterns of behavior in a population is complex but has a structure of its own, and that by an understanding of it we shall be able to explain numerous features of social form [1966: 2],

In a similar vein, this study deals with "cases" of human behavior

as instances of choices made by ethnic group members in respect to how

they desire to be ethnic. Those decisions, in turn, reflect the incen­

tives and constraints operating on people as they attempt to obtain

valued results through their social interaction. The individual draws upon the cumulative experiences of socialization in making his choices

and he operates out of a consideration of the opportunities provided by his social environment at the time of making decisions. Because people

have limits on the time and energy they have available for obtaining goals during their lifetime, they are forced to make decisions about

the goals they most desire to attain. In this study behavior reflecting

ethnic identity provides the central decision-making area that is to be

investigated. It is recognized, nonetheless, that such behavior cer­

tainly occurs within a broader social interaction framework than simply

the ethnic group.

A model developed from Barth's concept of transactional behavior

(as presented in Figure 1) is suggested as a framework for understanding the connection between individual ethnic identity patterns, the ethnic group, and the wider society. The relationship between individual

"case" level observations and patterns of ethnic identity in an ethnic group is portrayed as part of a feedback system in which the individual the ethnic group and the wider society constitute three components.

Each of those components is represented by a triangle, with each triangle consisting of incentives and constraints (point A); values (point B); and decisions (point C). Influences from one component to the other two are conveyed via decisions and are acquired via incentives and con­ straints. Values for each component have no direct contact with the other two components; instead they mediate between incentives and con­ straints and decisions and their impact is, in turn, mediated by decisions.

This model is not only helpful for generalizing from "cases" of human behavior to patterns of ethnic identity in a population, but it also allows us to explore the process of decision-making first on the individ­ ual level and second on the ethnic group level. Beginning with incen­ tives and constraints that the individual is operating under at the time he is making particular decisions, the next step is to learn what those decisions are. Based upon the reasons given for making such choices. 8

FIGURE 1

III. ETHNIC GROUP INDIVIDUAL PATTERNS OF ETHNIC IDENTITY

J^-lncttiitlvM and Conatralnta jj^'Valuaa ^ - Dacialona

Modal ahowing tho connactlon batwaan Individual athnic idantity pattarna, tha atlinic group, and tha widar aociaty. we can then record some of the values they reflect. Decision-making is a very complex process, and this study is clearly only exploratory in

its objectives.

The following is a hypothetical example of a "case" level of observation and analysis: Ivo S., a third generation Serb, grew up in the United States in a family where the parents wished to improve their own ability to speak English at the expense of dropping their native

Serbian language in the home. They also hoped that Ivo would leam

English as his primary tongue, in order to enhance his chances of going on to college and entering a professional occupation. Therefore, Serbian was seldom heard in Ivo's home; in fact, he eind his siblings were actively discouraged from speaking it. Yet Ivo's godfather and maternal grand­ parents— all of whom lived nearby— encouraged him to leam enough Serbian so that he could communicate with them, since they spoke very little

English, During Ivo's adolescence, his maternal grandparents died and his godfather moved to another city, removing a major incentive for him to speak the ethnic language. No one remained in his immediate environ­ ment who actively encouraged him to speak it. Furthermore, none of his younger brothers and sisters had ever learned enough words or phrases to be able to practice it with him.

As a college student, Ivo moved away from home and out of contact with other Serbs except for when he returned home on vacations. But when he had to select a foreign language to study in order to meet university requirements, Ivo found that a course in Serbo-Croatian was offered by the university; because he remembered bits and pieces of

Serbian from speaking it as a child, and because he felt a vague emotional attachment to speaking the language, he decided to enroll in 10

the course for the last two years of college. The class was a mixed

group of students in terms of ethnic background, eund for the first

time, Ivo made friends with others his own age who came from Serbian

families as well as with other students who had an interest in eventu­

ally studying in Yugoslavia. Over the next two years Ivo not only

learned to speak and read Serbo-Croatian, but he also became very

interested in returning to the country of his parents and grandparents.

He was encouraged in this pursuit by a close friend, also in the

language class, who wanted to return to the motherland.

By his senior year Ivo's family recognized the revival of his

interest in speaking the mother tongue cind in knowing about his Serbian

ethnic identity. Additionally, they had obseirved some radical changes

in attitudes prevalent in American society toward ethnic groups such

as theirs. When they had arrived with their parents in the United

States in the 1920's and 1930's, they had painfully felt the hostility

of Americans toward new immigrants. By the 1970's Americans had become

increasingly open-minded about people of varying cultural heritages;

and by supporting educational programs in ethnic studies and folk festi­

vals, the United States encouraged ethnic revivalism. When Ivo broke

the news that he planned to visit Yugoslavia and wanted to meet family members remaining there, his parents decided that they would pay for his trip. They also made the effort to trace the names and locations

of relatives who were still living there. While they had not spoken

Serbian for some while, they spent time conversing with Ivo, who dis­

covered the differences between the dialect that they had learned as

children and the literary form of Serbo-Croatian he had learned at the

university. 11

After three months of traveling in Yugoslavia, meeting extended family members and making friends of his own, Ivo returned to the United

States speaking the language much better than when he had left. He also returned with a strong détermination to continue studying it, and he entered a field of study in graduate school where he would be able to apply his facility to read and speak Serbo-Croatian and his knowledge of his ethnic background and Yugoslav history.

* * *

Taking this hypothetical case of ethnic language learning ,we might divide its various elements into the following parts of the model, pro­ ceeding chronologically through Ivo's lifetime :

A. Constraints; 1. Lack of encouragement by parents to speak ethnic language. 2. Death of grandparents and geographical distance from god­ father. 3. Inability of siblings to speak Serbian with Ivo. 4. Lack of friends his own age who spoke Serbian.

Incentives; 1. Encouragement by maternal grandparents and godfather to learn Serbian. 2. University requirement to study a language. 3. Availability of Serbo-Croatian in university curriculum. 4. Exposure to others in own age range with an interest in Serbo-Croatian. 5. Encouragement by good friend to return to Yugoslavia for visit. 6 . Wider societal acceptance of ethnic identity. 7. Parental support to his anticipated travel to Yugoslavia. 8 . Exposure to dialect of the area parents had been b o m in. 9. Travel in Yugoslavia providing £in opportunity to speak Serbo-Croatian continually for three months.

B. Decisions: 1. Not to insist that parents teach him the language. 2. To cooperate with grandparents and godfather to leam some Serbian as a child and as a young adolescent. 3. Not to continue speaking the language upon the death of grcUidparents and during geographical distance from godfather, 4. To study Serbo-Croatian for two years in college. 5. To make friends with students also interested in learning Serbo-Croatian cuid in going to Yugoslavia. 12

6 . To visit Yugoslavia and to meet relatives there. 7. To enter a field of graduate study where Serbo-Croatian could be applied.

C. Values (at the time of the interview); Strong positive intellectual and emotional commitment to maintain his own facility in Serbo-Croatian and to en­ courage his own children to learn the ethnic language.

D. Pattern of behavior (throughout lifetime): Alternating constraints and incentives throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood with the strongest positive value toward learning the ethnic language occurring in early adulthood, moderate positive feelings in childhood and early adolescence, and neutral sentiments throughout most of adolescence. Overall, the incentives outweigh the constraints and the decisions are clearly on the side of learning Serbo- Croatian when the opportunities were available.

Once the case level observation and analysis has been completed for a particular pattern of ethnic behavior for an entire population, it is possible to proceed to the level of analysis where social regularities are determined. When a certain type of ethnic behavior is being con­ sidered— such as ethnic language learning— the entire population* should be accounted for in terms not only of the cumulative patterns of ethnic identity, but also in terms of the relationship between constraints and incentives, decisions, and values contributing to those patterns. In the analysis of interview material, therefore, conclusions will be based first upon individual cases as they contribute to overall patterns of ethnic identity among Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington and ■ second upon the relationship loetween constraints and incentives (in turn reflecting socialization experiences and the perceived social reality of the time), decisions, and values throughout the study group.

*In this research the study group of 56 interviewees constitutes the "population." 13

The Ethnic Groups

The rapidly growing literature of the 1960's and 1970's on ethnic groups in the United States has underscored some of the more vivid aspects of ethnic identity maintenance: political power associated with ethnicity; widespread development of ethnic studies programs in schools and universities; evidence for or against acculturation and assimilation as opposed to the continuation of cultural pluralism in American society; the survival and revival of cultural expressions of ethnicity as seen in folk festivals and other artistic endeavors; and the impact of residential mobility on ethnic identity. These ethnic identity issues are relatively visible and relatively widely expressed and dis­ cussed. *

In this research a different approach to the study of ethnic identity has been taken, one that explores some of the less vivid aspects of ethnic identity as found among less visible concentrations of ethnic groups. Contrasted with other areas where studies have been conducted of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Washington is an atypical city in many respects. Most such studies have been conducted in indus­ trial cities or mining areas of the East and West as well as in the West

Coast and the Gulf of Mexico fishing, oystering and sailing areas.**

*As examples of literature dealing with such issues, see Bengelsdorf 1972; Feinstein 1970; Pishnuui 1966; Glazer and Moynihan 1963; Gordon 1964; Greeley 1974; Levy and Kramer 1972; Lieberson 1963; Weed 1973; and Wynar 1972.

**EXcUi^les of studies in these locales include the following; Albin and Alexander 1972; Arnez 1966 and 1971; Babies 1964; Brentar 1951; Eterovich 1971 and 1973; Ga%i 1956; Gobetz 1975; Ledbetter 1918; Lovrich, Frank 1963; Lovrich, Nicholas 1971; Meja^f 1955; Mihanovich 1936; Niland 1941; Stipanovich 1974; Vrga and Fahey 1975; and Vujnovich 1974. 14

The South Slavs in Washington are few in number; the individuals and families have settled in the area mainly since the end of World War

II; and while they are employed across a wide spectrum of occupations from blue collar work through the professions, there is aLclear tendency for them to work in governmental and professional occupations. Addi­ tionally, while most United States Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian communities that have been studied have a neighborhood base in which large numbers live or have lived in the past, Washington's South Slavs are clearly dispersed to all parts of the metropolitan area; there are no ethnic neighborhoods for these three groups. Because of such characteristics as well as others that will be discussed in detail later in this study, the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington are not like the ethnic communities in other parts of the United States that have been studied.

Simply because they are not typical, the Washington groups offer unique opportunities for exploring the problem formulation set out in this research. In order to investigate the interplay between sociali­ zation, decision-making, and values in ethnic identity expression, it is incumbent upon the researcher to draw upon people who represent diverse backgrounds— historically and in terms in individual sociali­ zation. In other words, heterogeneity rather than homogeneity is a desired quality for the research population. Additionally, it is preferable that the individuals making up the ethnic groups are not isolated from ethnic group members in other locales. In contrast to many small community studies, this research necessitates having a heterogeneous research population that has social links to ethnic 15 group members outside the residential community.

Those ideal requirements are clearly met by the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington. Almost all members have close social ties, either through immediate and ejctehdëd family or friends to other

South Slavic ethnic concentrations in other American cities. Thus, they are not isolated ethnic populations. Secondly, rather than representing single regions of Yugoslavia in their ancestry— as many of their counterpart communities across the nation do— ethnic group members in Washington represent all regions of Yugoslavia (or Austria-

Hungary, depending on when emigration occurred). Furthermore, they incorporate a spectrum of the contrasting geographical and socio­ economic backgrounds in Yugoslavia over the past 100 years : rural, town, and urban; coastal, hinterland, mountain, and plains; peasant, sailor-fisherman, worker, and professional; peasant, middle class, and elite. All such backgrounds are found in Washington.

The span of time covered by their immigration or their family’s immigration is long, providing another element in the heterogeneity of their backgrounds. Individuals or their families who had emigrated from Yugoslavia from the 1890's through the early 1970’s are located in the area. Therefore, they represent varied backgrounds with respect to direct or indirect familiarity with their European homeland.

Several constraints on ethnic identity maintenance confront ethnic group members in Washington. Ethnic organizations— sacred and secular— were only recently instituted. The numbers of members are relatively small. Ethnic activities must compete against occupation-related activities and such competition can be very strong. Additionally, there is little active pressure either from outside or from within 16 the ethnic group to "be ethnic." All in all, the range of options facing ethnic group members is considerable in terms of the degree of ethnic identity maintenance both for the form of such maintenance arid for the chances of continuing it into the next generation. A social environment such as found in Washington provides a wide variety of constraints and incentives upon the individual ethnic group member that requires considerable decision-making around the issue of ethnic identity maintenance.

For these reasons, the Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian populations in the Washington area provide a choice opportunity to relate the direction of ethnic identity maintenance to backgrounds in Yugoslavia and the United States by accounting for some of the variation in ethnic identity expression by way of socialization, decision-making, and values as evidenced by "cases" of human behavior.

In making some predictions about the direction of ethnic pluralism in the United States beyond the mid-1970's, it is necessary to do more than to examine such macro-indices of ethnic identity maintenance as found in the size of memberships of ethnic societies and churches; polit­ ical movements; journal and newspaper subscriptions; or enrollment in ethnic studies classes. It is also important to trace the life histories of individuals in order to understand more fully their reasons for wanting or not wanting to maintain an ethnic identity in their lives and to continue it into the next generation. 17

Discussion of Concepts

"Identity"

In the fields of anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, and soci­ ology the term "identity" or "identification" has come to have different connotations in reference to the individual, his society, and his culture. In writing about "ego identification," Erik Erikson uses the term

...to denote certain comprehensive gains which the individual at the end of his adolescence must have derived from all his preadult experience in order to be ready for the tasks of adulthood. ... The term identification connotes both a per­ sistent sameness with oneself (selfsameness) amd a persistent sharing of some kind of essential character with another [1959: 101].

While Erikson in his work focuses on the individual's sense of self or ego, he also stresses the development of an individual's ego identification based upon social experiences. In treating identification as a multi-dimensional concept, Erikson considers three aspects of it: individual identity on both a conscious and unconscious level and the bond between individual identity and group identity.

Erving Goffman also distinguishes between different dimensions of identity: social, personal, and ego. In the following quote he con­ trasts personal and social identity, on the one hand, with ego identity on the other:

Both types of identity can be better understood by bracketing them together and constrasting them to what Erikson and others have called 'ego' or 'felt' identity, namely, the subjective sense of his own situation and his own continuity and character that an individual comes to obtain bb a result of his various social experiences. ...Social and personal identity are part, first of all, of other persons' concerns and definitions regarding the in­ dividual whose identity is in question. ... Of course, the individual constructs his image of himself out of the 18

same materials from which others first construct a social and personal identification of him, but he exercises im­ portant liberties in regard to what he fashions [1963: 105- 106].

In a later reference Goffinan'distinguishes further between personal and

social identity.

By social identity, I mean the broad social categories (and the organizations and groups that function like cate­ gories) to which an individual can belong and be seen as be­ longing: age-grade, sex, class, regiment, and so forth. By 'personal identity,* I mean the unique organic continuity imputed to each individual, this established through dis­ tinguished marks such as name and appearance and elaborated by means of knowledge about his biographical and social attributes— knowledge which comes to be organized around his distinguishing marks [1971: 189].

If ego identity or identification is an individual's conception of

himself vis-a-vis his social surroundings, personal and social identity

can be viewed as society's way of categorizing or labeling an individual

according to the social groups they consider him to belong to and the

cultural markers they attribute to the group and to him. In turn, the

individual responds to the labels society attempts to impose upon him by selecting from among those labels he perceives available to him.

Thereby, an individual's personal and social identity gains a subjective

component; both perceptions— society's and the individual's— operate

to reinforce one another over time and this reinforcement is one of the many pressures impinging on an individual's ethnic identity that will be examined in this study.

The distinction that Goffman makes between an individual's self

identity and society's identification of the individual has some re­

semblance to the distinction that Thomas Fitzgerald makes between social

and cultural identity. According to Fitzgerald, identity has social 19 and cultural componenls which "are closely related but by no means identical dimensions" (1974: 3). He suggests that social identity involves learning roles that are expected of an individual in order to perform in particular social situations. In contrast, cultural identity exists only when cultural heterogeneity exists between two or more groups. It is the cultural identity of a group that provides a "unifying principle as people strive toward consistency from one situation to another" (1974: 3). In his perspective, the individual learns various social identities applicable to appropriate social situations while drawing from a group-wide cultural identity.

Identity, then, is of two sorts: a more or less fixed identity, involving a fairly exact equation of self with group which is the source of cultural or ethnic identifi­ cation; and a more situationally specific, implying a close resemblance of the individual with his role. The former might be called cultural identity, and the latter social. identities [1974: 3].

From these various distinctions between different sorts of identity, there is clearly a general division between identity thàt is primarily the individual's concept of himself vis-à-vis his social context (e.g.,

Erikson's ego identification) and identity that society bestows upon an individual. In this study each of these types of identity is important to the overall conception of an individual's ethnic identity and no concerted attempt is made to distinguish between them. Nevertheless, since patterns of ethnic identity are discussed on both an individual level and on the group level, perhaps some clarification of how these terms are used should be attempted. While it is recognized that all identification is dependent upon an individual learning social cues from people around him which he uses to help develop his sense of self, his sense of position or role in the social order, and his sense of 20 belonging to a cultural order, ethnic identity as presented here in­ volves all of these components of identity. But essentially the data that the study draws upon originates not from society's perception of someone's ethnic identity, but from the individual's perception of his own ethnic identity and its evolution.

"Ethnic Group" and "Ethnic Identity"

While this study is not primarily concerned with determining what an ethnic group is or with what constitutes the boundaries of an ethnic group, the use of these terras needs cleurification. In following Barth, designation of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes is based upon self-ascription and identification (Barth 1969: 13}. He argues that social factors, not cultural or overt "objective" differences between ethnic groups, are the best indicators of who is a member and who is not. In other words, it is what people do or say that they do vis-à-vis the ethnic group and their reasons for doing so and less how they appear to outsiders that

Barth would use as a criterion for metiü3ership.

Similarly, Wsevolod isajiw has written a review article in which he sets out various definitions for ethnicity suggested by anthropologists and sociologists. He divides those definitions into subjective and objective categories; clearly the perspective of this study falls within the subjective.

In constrast to the objective approach by which ethnic groups are assumed to be existing as it were "out there" as real phenomena, the subjective approach defines ethnicity as a process by which individuals either identify themselves as being different from others or belonging to a different group or are identified as different by others, or both identify themselves and are identified as different by others [1974: 1151. 21

In summary, "ethnic identity" as used in this study is a feeling of attachment to and affiliation with an ethnic group that is based upon learning meaningful cultural symbols, values, and behaviors that are incorporated into the social life of the individual and upon learn­ ing social roles appropriate for interaction within an ethnic group.

An ethnic group is one form of social category whose members hold a subjective belief in a common ancestry or who hold an adoptive tie to that ancestry through intermarriage or voluntary ascription.

"Socialization"

The concepts of "socialization" and "enculturation" have been the objects of major terminological debates over the past decades, especially in respect to the overlap of their meanings and the nature of the relationship between individuals undergoing socialization and the wider society.

Spindler (1968) and Herskovits (1964) differentiate between the terms "socialization" and "enculturation." To them "socialization" designates the adoption of social roles to become a member of a group, while "enculturation" implies a transmission and acceptance of culture.

While the usefulness of the distinction between learning social roles appropriate to a society or to a social group (socialization) and learning behaviors, values, and symbols that fit a society's cultüfë"^'

(enculturation) is recognized in this study, it is argued that both

Spindler and Herskovits restrict their concept of socialization to relatively passive experiences on the part of individuals--e;qperiences in which they supposedly play little active part in selecting and modifying social and cultural features. 22

A major shift in the use of these terms has come out of the work of Mary Ellen Goodman (1967, 1968) and Nobuo Shimadiara (1970) as well as others. They note that enculturation has most often been viewed as a process in which children acquire culture primarily in a passive manner and not a process in which children play an active role by sort­ ing through choices available to them and then choosing from among those alternatives. In contrast, Shimahara (1970: 146) observes that in the small Japanese city where he worked, the children resisted conformity to traditional values and attitudes and made choices from among con­ flicting alternatives. In his conclusion Shimahara notes that encul- turation

...is a construct, a process in a behavioral sense, that delineates the dynamics of transmission and transmutation of culture throughout human growth. Cultural transmission is a process of acquiring the traditionally inherited cul­ ture; cultural transmutation, on the other hand, is a process of psychosocial transmutation through deliberate, reflective, functional, yet occasionally incidental processes of learning. Both these processes operate on a level of early years; thus this level involves both unconscious and reflec­ tive responses to culture [1970: 148].

Goodman also stresses the selective aspect of a child's enculturation experiences and the modes of enculturation he makes use of— absorption, selection, and improvisation.

Each child absorbs the culture accessible to him, but he also selects among the elements and alternatives of that culture and he improvises on or beyond them (by invention, innovation, and re-combination). ... The child must absorb the culture of his group if he is to survive and to become socially adult. ... But he leams selectively because to do so is in his nature as an individual; he finds certain aspects of his culture difficult, impossible, uncongenial, and others easy, attractive, congenial [1969; 177-178].

There are, of course, unconscious responses on the part of individ­ uals to the influences in the sociocultural environment, but this study 23 e:>q>lores those consciously observed and expressible e;q)eriences of

ethnic group members as they reflect back on different stages of their

lives. Perhaps the term "aware" would describe those experiences more appropriately than the term "conscious" since what has been unconscious at an earlier stage of life might become subject to awareness as the individual grows older and gains increased insight into his surroundings and his position in society. Therefore, for the purposes of this research the terms "aware" and "unaware" will designate those socio­ cultural experiences that an individual is or is not capable of de­ scribing which he perceives pertinent to the development of his ethnic identity.

Since both social and cultural factors are considered to be important to the development, maintenance, and transmission of ethnic identity, neither the term "socialization" nor "enculturation" is technically more applicable to this discussion. Therefore, throughout this study the term "socialization" is seen as encompassing the realms of both "socialization" and "enculturation” as discussed above.

Linton (1949), in explicating the relationship between individual personality and culture, introduces the term "feedback " as a mechanism important to socialization:

The relationship between 'normal' individuals and the culture of their society is unquestionably a reciprocal one. It is a 'feed back' phenomenon. ... On the one hand, the culture shapes the personalities of a society's members. On the other, the members of a society are responsible, in the long run, for shaping the society's culture. The processes involved are com­ plicated but quite recognizable....

At the very moment when the culture is shaping the personali­ ties of young individuals and reinforcing many of the personality characteristics of their elders it is also being shaped through the activities of inventers, innovators, or simple selectors [1949: 152-1541. 24

Individual members provide such feedback to the ethnic group, thereby shaping its social form and cultural content. Conversely, the ethnic group in its reciprocity with its members helps to shape the personality of individuals.

Arden King suggests the metaphor of the labyrinth as a model of how the individual acquires and retains his cultural identity. He draws, in part, from Lévi-Strauss ' s metaphor of the b’üiooZevœ ("put- terer" or "handy-man" ) as someone who "... faces the task on his own in ■ a do-it-yourself fashion, adapting further his set of conceptual tools to the particular experiences that confront him. He selects and arranges his percepts and concepts, including some and excluding some"

(King 1974: 108). In turn. King suggests that the metaphor of the labyrinth is more applicable to modem complex societies than Wallace's mazeway metaphor (Wallace 1961: 16-20).

A mazeway implies a specific route to given goals, and by learning those one leams culture. The idea of the laby­ rinth seems a better metaphor. Here the individual is not bound by a structure to discover the preordained structuring of experience through a specific mazeway. Instead he is inserted into an aspect of culture, the content of which he begins to organize, constrained only by the boundaries of permissible behavior. The individual constructs a route representing his own organization of the content to a core of the cultural stratus. But before he completes the con­ struction of the first labyrinth he finds himself translated into another cultural stratus where the process begins again. In a lifetime one will construct many labyrinths and undergo many translations from one stratum to another. ... We further suggest that these routes constitute the means of gaining cultural identity in modem culture [1974: 109].

Goodman (1967, 1968), Shimahara (1970), Linton (1949), and King

(1974) contribute to the understanding of the process of. socialization as understood in this research: on the one hand, individuals are socialized into a society and its culture while on the other they wield 25

considerable influence on changes in the society. As such,in ethnic groups each new generation makes its presence felt in the changes that it undergoes in both its social form and cultural content. In short, in this study socialization is not viewed as society's imprint upon the individual, but rather is considered to be the reciprocal relationship between the individual and society and its culture.

Decision-meücing, although separated from incentives and constraints in the model that this research adopts, is thus in fact combined with the constraints and incentives which together constitute socialization; although for the purposes of analysis they can be segregated they are part and parcel of the same process.

"Values"

The Five Cultures Study of Values (Vogt and Albert 1966) provides the definition of "values" as used in this research. The fieldworkers for that study drew heavily from Clyde Kluckhohn’s formal definition of values. "A value is a conception, explicit or implicit/ distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action" (1952).

Extending Kluckhohn's definition, they composed the following:

Values, positive and negative, are (1) elements in the effective definition of the situation of action that desig­ nate desirable and undesirable modes, means cuid ends of action, i.e., normative orientations related in varying ways to cognitive and affective processes; (2) may be ex­ plicit or implicit, i.e., given directly in value judgments or inferred from verbal or non-verbal behaviors that involve approval, blame, praise, reward, punishment, support, and suppression; (3) are persistent through time and manifest directionality, i.e., there is observable consistency of 26

response to recurrent situations; and (4) are interrelated as elements in culturally or individually distinctive pat­ terns or systems, i.e., as differentiated but interdependent parts of a whole [1966: 6].

In short, values are defined as em individual's or a group's con­

ception of the desirable and undesirable qualities associated with

particular behaviors as opposed to other possible behaviors. As such,

they encourage certain actions and discourage others; common values

provide the bond between people in such social units as ethnic groups.

Research Methods

Personal Background

As in all social research, the success or failure of the research

methods used in this study was dependent upon the rapport with and

cooperation of those individuals and organizations included in the re­

search. The Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes contacted as prospective inter­

viewees were hospitable and supportive. No overt instances of hostility were enco'.uitered. Overwhelmingly, people were cooperative and enthusi­

astic, although some were perplexed about why they, as individuals,

or their ethnic group in Washington had been selected for an ethnic

identity study. The hospitality which I encountered often appeared to

reflect an intellectual curiosity amd a concern that am accurate and

thorough view of their ethnic identity would be recorded.

Depending on how ethnic group members interpreted the motivation

of my interest in conducting this study, the following factors in my personal background might well have contributed to the rapport which developed with interviewees. .First, neither side of my family

includes any South Slavic ancestors {in fact, the family ethnic heri­ tage is strongly Anglo-Saxon). I had been raised with a Protestant 27

church affiliation and not within the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or

Moslem faiths, which are the three major religions found in Yugoslavia.

While the absence of a South Slavic heritage might possibly have been

thought to place me at a disadvantage for the purposes of conducting

this reseaurch, the predominant viewpoint of interviewees— whenever this

issue was openly discussed— was that it was, in fact, advantageous;

they felt that only by my being a non-member of any of the three ethnic

groups could I conduct this study without exhibiting strong bias toward

or against any one of the ethnic groups.

Despite the absence of a South Slavic emcestry, I was not unfamiliar with its heritage when the study commenced in 1973. By that time I

already had some familiarity with the Serbo-Croatian language, although I

could not converse fluently; after traveling in Yugoslavia in 1970, I had studied Serbo-Croatian intermittently since 1971 and was continuing

to study it during the time of research. I knew no Slovenian, but it was possible to understand portions of conversations and written materials because of the similarity between the two languages. While it was seldcxn necessary to speak Serbo-Croatian for more than ceremonial purposes, the

fact that I could generally understand the language and participate in brief conversations and could read in the language perhaps indicated a

seriousness of intent on ny part toward a more than superficial study of Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian ethnic history.

Perhaps of even greater significance was the fact that my husband and I have lived for four months on a Dalmatian island in a fishing, boat building, tourist, and farming community in early 1973 while I had conducted preliminary field research on a culture change study.

Having lived in this community and having traveled throughout other 28 parts of Yugoslavia both in 1970 and in 1973, I had gained first-hand familiarity with many of the areas from which interviewees or their families had emigrated, and I had developed a greatly sharpened aware- - ness of the sociocultural variability found within Yugoslavia.

Inclusion or Exclusion of Ethnic Groups

The decision to include members of all three ethnic groups rather than only one was made at the very beginning of the study, partly on the basis of the anticipated small size of these ethnic groups in the area. As research progressed, I found that I might very well have restricted the study to only one of the three groups had I been making that decision solely on the basis of numbers of individuals available.

But differences in relative numbers (approximately 2,000 Serbs, 500

Croats, and 500 Slovenes in the Washington area) eind differences between the three groups in the social and religious organizations available to them warranted including all three groups. Because of the variation in numbers, institutions, and general sociocultural background, useful comparisons in ethnic identity patterns could be made between the three.

I was sufficiently familiar with the economic and political dif­ ferences in Yugoslavia to have a vague sense of the boundaries between ethnic groups. In retrospect, though, I assumed at first that those demarcation lines might have become somewhat blurred in the context of the United States. Had I fully realized then that nothing of the sort had occurred, I might have been inclined to include only one of the three in the study on the assumption that I would encounter overwhelming resistance to the research. As it was, I was never directly challenged on this issue by ethnic group members; many appeared to assume, as I had, that numbers were too small to conduct a legitimate study with 29 only one group.

Although the ethnic boundaries between Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes who actively maintain intra-ethnic ties tend to be strong, there are some individuals who bridge those boundaries because of their own ideology; because of intermarriage; or for some other reason. Because

I preferred to be inclusive rather than exclusive in the selection of interviewees, several individuals who cross the boundaries between the three ethnic groups were included in the study.

Making Contacts

At the beginning of the research, I knew only a few people of

Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian background in Washington and only two or three people fairly well. Extending my contacts to a broader group was a task of primary and immediate importance. I was unsure how to proceed at first; following all the leads given to me, however, it was not very long before I came to recognize certain obvious distinctions be­ tween doing field research in a metropolitan area and in a small community such as in a Dalmatian town in Yugoslavia.

In Washington there was, first, the great advantage of the tele­ phone. Second, some of the interviewees had themselves written scholarly papers and theses, and empathized with the basic purposes of research.

Third, there was the obvious advzmtage of communicating primarily in

English. Fourth, my contact with interviewees typically began with a businesslike arrangement, with little or no expectation of a continuing relationship; in certain insteinces, however, these meetings led to continuing friendships. Overall, one objective which I shared with my interviewees was to get down to the business at hand, i.e., the inter­ view, relatively quickly; this situation was in major contrast to my 30

previous field work experience in Yugoslavia, where actual interview­

ing took place only after long periods of becoming familiarized with

the community and individuals.

In two respects there was some similarity between conducting

fieldwork in Washington and in the small Dalmatian community. First was the hospitality of the interviewees, which I came to appreciate very much, to accept comfortably, and to reciprocate.

Of even greater import to the success of arranging interview sessions was an awareness that prospective interviewees would be much more cooperative when contacted via people we knew in common rather

than without the appropriate intermediary. Once I had talked with half a dozen or so people about what I planned to do in the study, it was only a matter of time before more than enough people were ready to cooperate in being interviewed and in suggesting others to contact.

In fact, virtually all interviewees had suggestions of other potential interviewees and were willing to have their name mentioned and many

contacted people themselves on my behalf. Very few people refused to be interviewed.

Interviews and Participant-Observation

The original data collected for this study consists of five types of source material: participant-observation at religious and social events; background "resource" interviews; semi-structured ethnic identity

interviews, open-ended life history interviews; and recorded and written descriptions of holiday celebrations.

In the course of the research between July 1973 and December 1976, well over 100 interview sessions were held averaging two to three hours for each session. Additionally, more than 30 social and religious 31 events were attended during which time no interviews were conducted.

Although participant-observation, which occurred mainly during the religious and social occasions, was an integral part of the research, as a method of study it was clearly secondary to interviews in terms of the information that had to be collected and noted in a structured way. Participant-observation was especially important for meeting new people; fortalking informally with an array of individuals about various subjects; for letting a wider group know that the project was being conducted; for seeing people who had been interviewed earlier; and for making first-hand observations of some of the ethnic identity issues people had discussed in their interviews. Although participant- observation proved to be an important part of the experience of con­ ducting the study, it did not, in and of itself, provide the information that was specifically desired.

Four types of interviews were conducted; "resource" interviews, ethnic identity interviews, life-history interviews, and holiday inter­ views. The interviews began with exploratory sessions with approxi­ mately 12 Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes during the summer and early fall of 1973. Those sessions provided background information on the three ethnic groups in Washington and opportunities to discuss with two of these individuals, in particular, some of the procedures for contacting ethnic group members. These people have been referred to as "resource" interviewees.

Even before those sessions, a search of the Washington, Maryland, and Virginia suburban telephone books was undertaken as a preliminary attempt to compile a list of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the area; although in the beginning this method was useful to stimulate the 32

memories of the two ethnic group members Wio reviewed the lists, in the long run it was not especially productive in locating people.

In the "resource" interviews topics such as the following were discussed: the migration history of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes to

Washington, including the times, the reasons, and the numbers; settle­ ment patterns; the development of ethnic institutions; certain social and cultural characteristics of the three ethnic groups; marriage patterns; other ethnic communities in the United States; and practical suggestions for developing a focus for the study and for the collection of material.

It was from this background material and from library reading that a semi-structured interview schedule was formulated (see Appendix A:

Inteiyoiew Schedute for Ethnia Idznt-ity Study).', using that interview core, data on ethnic identity patterns was collected between October 1973 and

January 1975.

Additional "resource" interviews continued to be conducted through­ out 1973-1975 whenever pertinent issues needed cleurification. Leaders of social and religious organizations, people who had lived in the area before World War II, and people who had been collecting ethno­ graphic and historical material on the ethnic groups, among others, were contacted. In total, these "resource" individuals number approxi­ mately 25.

The semi-structured ethnic identity interview schedule was designed in such a way as to encourage both specific factual and interpretive ■ responses as well as to allow extended discussions of the interviewee's observations and attitudes about the ethnic group in Washington. All inter­ viewees were guaranteed anonymity in the final manuscript; additionally 33

they were given the option to refuse to answer questions they found inappropriate or sensitive. Depending on the interviewee's background, certain sections of the interview schedule or particular questions might not have been applicable to his or her experiences.

In taking written notes on the ethnic identity interview, answers were automatically indexed according to sections of the interview sche­ dule. No tapes were made of these sessions, but by keeping responses in the notebook keyed to the index numbers and letters of the interview schedule, it was not very difficult to follow the interview in writing.

No questions needed to be noted unless they deviated widely from the interview schedule.

Using this schedule, 56 individuals were interviewed; they con­ stitute the "study group." Five of the 56 were spouses of other interviewees; four of those five were interviewed at the same time as their spouses and one was interviewed independently. Additionally, the study group includes three children of other interviewees, all of whom were interviewed separately. In short, 48 families are represented in the study group.

Perhaps some technical statistics in regard to the number of sessions required to complete each full interview and the location of interview sessions are worth noting. Of the 52 separate interviews in which the ethnic identity interview was used, four were conducted in three sessions each; 14 in two sessions; and 34 in one session, for a total of 74 sessions. They ranged from a total of one-and-a-half hours to seven hours, averaging slightly more than three-and-a-half hours for a completed interview and totalling approximately 180 interview hours.

In addition to resource interviews and ethnic identity interviews. 34

-taped life-history interviews were conducted with four people from the study group (see Appendix B: L'Cfe-H'iatovy Intevryiew Tcfpios). Approxi­ mately ten hours of this type of interview data were recorded and tran­ scribed.

Finally, in 1975 three others from the study group agreed to provide accounts of holiday occasions as celebrated in their homes. In one instance, this was a written account, while in both others they were taped by the researcher.

Selection of study group interviewees was based upon a combination of the following characteristics: generation, age and sex, ethnic group membership, occupation euid education, marital patterns, period of time in Washington, and degree of involvement in ethnic group life. An attempt was made to provide as much variation within the study group in respect to the above characteristics as possible, but interviewees do not constitute a random sample. Because first generation individuals tended to be the most visible to both other ethnic group members and non-members, the study group is composed of more first generation than second and third generation persons. First generation individuals also tended to be, on the average, more involved in ethnic group life than second and third generation persons. Referrals by ethnic group members to others who might be interviewed frequently took into account the different background characteristics of those individuals, such as occupation and marital patterns. Thus, while the study group is not a random sample, it does provide considerable internal variation for purposes of comparison in terms of degree and focus of ethnic identity. 35

Analysis of Interview Data

Similarities and differences within cind between the three ethnic groups in respect to overall patterns of ethnic identity are derived from tiie indirect data which is mainly provided by resource interviews and ethnic identity interviews. This information is of a generalized nature, having to do with demographic and social characteristics. In combination wi-th material collected from participant-observation, census data, and cbher printed sources (newspaper articles, books, newsletters, and announcements of social events by organizations), tdie interviews provide an ethnographic overview of the ethnic groups.

What has been called "direct data"— tdiat provided by each of the

56 study group interviewees on his own ethnic identity— has greater consistency from one person to tdie next. Because essentially the same information was collected from most of the 56 interviewees, this data lends itself to comparisons within each ethnic group and between the three. An attenpt is made to show patterns of ethnic identity for the entire study group, for each ethnic group, and for different generations within the study group.

The following procedure was adopted for analysis of the ethnic identity interviews: each interview was typed; answers were matched to the index system of the interview schedule and analyzed in relation to the specific questions posed in each interview; lists were made of those answers according to the identifying number of the interviews and ethnic group membership; and generalized patterns were culled from those answers on the basis of common characteristics. In most instances those generalizations are stated as frequentive patterns. This procedure permits generalizations to be made about specific topics covered in the 36

Interview, such as traditions in selecting godparents or naming children in the family. Additionally, multiple variables can be analyzed by drawing data from the summary lists. For instance, by using this method relationships can be drawn between friendship preferences, marital choices, and selection of children's godparents.

Finally, by organizing certain information from individual inter­ views into the following categories— incentives and constraints, decisions, and values— as presented in the model of the theoretical framework for this study, patterns of ethnic identity over the lifetime of individuals can be determined. Subsequently, those patterns can be summarized in terms of social regularities in ethnic identity for the study group. CHAPTER II

THE BROADER PICTURE: SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES

IN YUGOSLAVIA AND THE UNITED STATES

Social, economic, and political turbulence within the Balkans over the past century stimulated substantial emigration of South Slavs from their homeland to distant parts of the world. Many settled in the United

States, which at times has actively encouraged immigraticm and at other times has erected substantial barriers in the form of stiff immigration restrictions and quotas. Since the 1890's, a combination of political and economic developments within the Balkans, the rest of Europe, and the United States has had particular impact upon out-migration; some of these factors will be explored in this chapter.

It is not within the scope of a study such as this to explore the conplexities of South Slavic history with a thoroughness that would permit the reader to appreciate all the particulars the impact that political, economic, environmental, and other social realities had upon the heterogeneous development of their ethnic identities among the South

Slavs. Rather than attenpt such an exhaustive detailing of the chronology of South Slavic history, this study will touch only on those aspects that clarify: 1} the conditions of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that had pcurticular impact on the decisions of vast numbers of people to emigrate and 2) the historical roots of the maintenace of strong ethnic boundaries dividing the various South Slavic peoples in

Yugoslavia and the in the United States today.

37 38

Ethnie Variability in Yugoslavia

Yugoslavia today is composed of six republics (Slovenia, Croatia,

Serbia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, and Macedonia) and the two autonomous provinces of Serbia (Vojvodina and Rosovo-Metohija) (see

Map 1). Although the ethnic groups (or nationalities) among the South

Slavs correspond roughly to particular republics, except for Bosnia-

Hercegovina, population movements within the region make it impossible to speak of a one-to-one relationship between the location of an ethnic group and a particular republic.

Often depicted as a mosaic of cultures, Yugoslavia is replete with evidence of its historical contacts with both eastern and western societies. When the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was formed in 1918 out of the previous holdings of Austria-Hungary and the

Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro, it was a political composite of heterogeneous ethnic groups. The presence of two alphabets (Latin and

Cyrillic), three religions (Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Moslem), three

South Slavic languages (Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, and Macedonian*), and several nationalities and minority groups (Serbs, Croats, Slovenes,

Macedonians, Albanians, Turks, Hungarians,Rumanians, Gypsies, Vlachs,

Austrians, and Italians) contributed to a profound sense of ethnic variability within the new state; and the political transition to an independent nation was— and still is— deeply influenced by this often discordant structure, which reflects the dissimilar histories of the ethnic groups. While Croats and Slovenes had traditionally been tied politically, culturally, and economically to the West through Italy,

*The inclusiveness or exclusiveness of Serbian and Croatian as one or two languages constitutes an ongoing controversy that will be explored later in the study. 39

y

ill I! 40

Austria, and Himgary, the Serbs, Macedonians, and Montenegrins had strong affiliations with the East through Greece, Turkey, and Russia.

Another dimension in the confusing sociocultural landscape is.a result of Turkish influence on the South Slavs. With Turkish expansion overrunning the Balkans, the Serbs in the seventeenth century migrated in great numbers into the Croatian-populated regions then under the political control of the Austrians and Hungarians. The picture was further complicated by the influence of five centuries of Ottoman Turk rule in Serbia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Through the ages Bosnia-

Hercegovina came to symbolize the meeting of the East and the West in its long-term position as a buffer zone between the Austro-Hungarian and

Turkish powers. In the twentieth century Bosnia-Hercegovina has the distinction of being home to Serbs, Croats, and Moslems— who, in turn, are most often also Croatian, Serbian, or Turkish— and the meeting ground of the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Islamic religions.

With the exception of Slovenia, which is the most ethnically homogeneous, the republics of Yugoslavia encompass more than one ethnic group. Map 2, vdiich depicts the linguistic variability within Yugoslavia today, illustrates this point. Since language (and the two alphabets) and religion are the most frequently cited elements of culture signalling ethnic differentiation of the South Slavs, they delineate ethnic boundaries and overlap of those boundaries within Yugoslavia more accu­ rately than do territorial borders.

A major contributing factor in the sociocultural variability in the Balkans is physical. Cultural geographers (Cvijic 1918, Hoffman

1963, and Mellor 1975) and historians (Jelavich and Jelavich 1963,

Kostanick 1963, and Stavrianos 1963) have suggested that the topography 41

m m

% 1

S 42 and environment of the region have played an important role in the nature of sociocultural contacts among the South Slavs and their connections with other peoples that, in turn, led to greater internal distinctiveness.

The word "Balkan" in Turkish means "the high mountain range," and much of the land mass of Yugoslavia is dominated by mountains (Map 3 indicates the various ranges). Mountains have divided valley from valley, neighbor from neighbor, one people from another. They have also limited the amount of terrain that could be traversed on navigable waterways, thus further restricting access from one region to another. And the mountain chains paralleling the Adriatic coast provide a sharp break between the Mediterranean climate of the coast and the more temperate climate of the interior.

The mountains of Yugoslavia have for centuries posed military leaders with formidable strategic barriers; the movement of armies from west to east or vice versa across the Balkans has been impossible, for all intents and purposes, and invasions have had to travel north-south or south-north. Defenders have retreated into mountain strongholds— as recently as 1941-1945, when the western world drew encouragement from reports of Nazi failure to dislodge Montenegrin guerrillas— and adapted their ways of life to the natural defenses around them.

The physical terrain of Yugoslavia has also influenced the relationship of regions to adjacent national states and civilizations— creating allegiances that inevitably influenced the South Slav ethnic character. On a large scale, this is seen most clearly in the orientation of Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia toward cultures to the East

(particularly those of Greece, Turkey, and Russia); the orientation of

Slovenia and Croatia toward the West (Italy, Austria, Germany, and 43

Worm#* ^ r 44

Hungary) ; and the orientation of Bosnia-Hercegovina, in the middle of

Yugoslavia, toward both East and West. There is also considerable overlap of ethnic or minority groups between regions of Yugoslavia and adjacent nation states (e.g., Albanians in Kosovo-Metohija and Albania;

Macedonians in Macedonia, Greece, and Bulgaria; Hungarians in Croatia,

Vojvodina, and Hungary; and Slovenians in Slovenia and Austria).

These circumstances help to explain the cultural and ethnic divi­ sions of Yugoslavia today. Slovenia, for example, is tied to Italy and

Austria not only by physical proximity but also by the Julian Alps, which continue eastward from Switzerland and the Tyrol into Slovenia and beyond. The Dinaric Mountain range running along the Adriatic coast sharply divides Croatian Dalmatia from interior Croatia and Bosnia-

Hercegovina; the Dalmatians constitute a fusion of Slavic and Italian

(especially Venetian) culture while interior Croatia to the north developed greater affinity to Austria and Hungary. Vojvodina is primarily a cultural mesh of Serbian and Hungeirian connected by the fertile

Pannonian plains. Mountains and the Danube River separate the autonomous province of Vojvodina from Serbia proper, which is culturally tied in language and religion to Montenegro and in religion to Macedonia. The official borders between Vojvodina and Croatia follow, in part, the River

Drava and, between Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia, the River Sava.

Internal migrations since the South Slavs settled in the Balkans in the sixth and seventh centuries have created considerable cultural overlap between topographically divided regions; yet topography is one important dimension, among many, to understanding the extraordinarily strong ethnic diversity found within such a relatively small area. 45

Ethnie Profiles by Republic

The ethnic composition of each republic in Yugoslavia is documented by Table 1, a compilation of the 1953 Yugoslav census statistics on

Nationalities by Republics (Vucinich 1969: 254-255*). In addition, I have drawn from census figures reported for the 1971 Yugoslavia census

(Toina!éevi6 1972) as a comparative measure with the 1953 reports on ethnic membership within the various republics. Table 2 provides a summairy of the total population figures for 1953 and 1971 for each republic and the percentages of the major ethnic groups or nationalities within each.

Table 3 summarizes 1961 census figures for total numbers and percentages of ethnic group members throughout Yugoslavia.

Slovenia {Stovenija) While disagreement was expressed among interviewees as to whether or not the Montenegrins and Macedonians constitute distinct ethnic groups sepcirate from the Serbs, there was concensus about the Slovenes being a sepeurate and homogeneous nationality. As both the 1953 and 1971 Yugoslav censuses attest, Slovenia is clearly the most ethnically homogeneous of the six republics with 97 per cent of its population in 1953 reporting that they were Slovenian. This calculation changed little between 1953 and 1971, when 96 per cent of the inhabitants identified themselves as

Slovenian. According to the tables, there are very few Austrians or

Italians within Slovenia; on the other hand, sizable numbers of Slovenes remain in the region of Carinthia in Austria and in the Italian city of

Trieste.

*Vucinich credits this table as "Unpublished results of the census of 1953, as given in Paul shoup, Cormamism and the Ivugoalao National Question (New York, 1968), Appendix A. StatietiSki godiSnjcâc SFRJ 1964^ XI (Bel­ grade, 1964 ^ p. 84)," 46

m o o_ .r- mcotnmmr^(n^4yr*inioo

•HfO G CM O m Oi IP H o O CO H m r* IP V O m r* CP CM H c CM m TJ» O pH 00 01 CM 01 CM CM CM H CM TP m o m CM IP o CM m IP H 00 t2 00 M TJOJ pH Ol IP in in in Ol iH CO CM H Ip M M Ol Tf M Ip m in U m CM o CM fH CM CO m o H 3 m o CM o g s s CM r>

ko CT> ^^(MCMlO^OmHlPCOfM 00 O »-* CM P*« I IP r« (M O 53> H 00 IP lOMViPOOfMIPMCMin00 CO Ip m IP

CNO>0^lDOCOr^COOO*4'lPOiOO'HH (MMMini^lPOHO s t*»CMOOOnOr*-COOrOp^CMOH^r-4lD Oir^moicMOiinip 1 m N m €0 m 00 in Hiorn oiriHHH ^ ^ nt H 01 Ip *Hisu& SS'® H H G u CM Ip CO V) s Xÿ a î 01 IP F~ r* H m in r~ V nt n Tf H r« 10 00 H Ol m in *H Ol CM CM o o in CM m H A M CM O r* IP H in IP H CO 0> <*l « 00 pH 01

rO H rn O in 00 in H 01 V V o in IP m pH CM in •H pH iH iH 00 CM CD Q IP in cs o M pH pH V r^ Mcor*ipcg^wn A in O en rM rH 5 r~ 01 in H m ^ r~ CM in ^OiCMCMHinHOO IÜ CO CO CM in IP H in 01 rn r~ rH rH GO H Tf H CM en rH S in pH m

in in m CM ■H inoocooipr*»oioipir<»OM*^mc7ir*>ino>HiPoon^omoo cMi^^^inf^ipooHOipcMinHHHr* ^^ipioinooim S CMOl^iPmiP HCM 00 GO OiPCM IP M in IPOi 1 i-4t^inHH M M *i - C Oi pH r4 ^ ^ ^ (0 V .1 s 1? s p4rs a 0) I 1 in 01 sId J 47

TABLE 2

CHANGES IN ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF YUGOSLAV REPUBLICS, 1953-1971

Republic 1953 1971

Slovenia

Total Population 1,446,425 1,725,088 Percent Slovenian 97 96

Croatia

Total Population 3,918,817 4,422,564 Percent Croatian 79.5 83.5

Serbia

Total Population 6,979,154 7,612,227 Percent Serbian 74 75

Bo sn ia-Hercegovina

Total Population 2,847,790 3,742,852 Percent Serbian 44 43 Percent Croatian 23 22 Percent Yugoslav 31 — — Percent Moslem — 34

Montenegro

Total Population 419,873 530,000 Percent Montenegrin 86.5 75

Macedonia

Total Population 1,304,514 1,647,104 Percent Macedonian 66 75

Sources: Compiled from Toma^evic 1972: 5-45 and Vucinich 1969: 255. 48

TABLE 3

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OP YUGOSLAVIA, 1961

Percent of Nationality Population Total Population

Serbs 7,806,000 39.8 Croats 4,294,000 21.9 Slovenes 1,586,000 8.1 Macedonians 1,046,000 5.3 Moslems 973,000 5.0 Montenegrins 514,000 2.6 National Minorities Albanians 915,000 4.7 Hungarians 504,000 2.6 Turks 183,000 0.9 Slovaks 86,000 0.4 Bulgare 63,000 0.3 Romanians 61,000 0.3 Ruthenians 39,000 0.2 Romany (Gypsies) 32,000 0.2 Czechs 30,000 0.2 Italians 26,000 0.1 Germans 20,000 0.1 No Declaration of Nationality 317,000 1.6 Unreported 1,100,000 5.6

TOTALS 19,595,000 99.9

Source: Adapted from Tomalèevic 1972; 45. 49

Although Serbo-Croatian (Srpeko-hrvataki), the national and official language of Yugoslavia, is taught in the schools of Slovenia, Slovenian iSlovenaki or SlovenaSki), which is a closely related South Slavic language, functions as the primary literary or official language* within Slovenia with Serbo-Croatian as the secondary tongue. Slovenes use the Latin alphabet and are primarily Roman Catholic. One interviewee observed, "While not all Catholics are Slovenian by any means, all Slovenes are Catholic," indicating the strong degree of religious homogeneity among Slovenes. This homogeneity is not absolute— Protestantism is found among Slovenes, and, by way of example, of the 12 Slovenes interviewed for this study, ten were Roman Catholic and two were agnostic; but

Catholicism was overwhelmingly dominant.

Historically strongly tied to western Europe, especially Austria,

Slovenia has benefited economically and educationally from its contacts with the West. At the time of unification with the Serbs and Croats in

1918, elementary schools were found in almost every Slovenian village, and 15-20 per cent of the children went on to secondary school. Only in Vojvodina, in the valleys of Serbia and Croatia, and in the towns of

Dalmatia had educational expansion kept pace with that of Slovenia

(Trouton 1952: 100). In 1929 an act was passed in Yugoslavia requiring eight years of compulsory education for all children, but only Slovenia,

Dalmatia, cuid Vojvodina enforced the law (Tomich 1963: 9).

By World War II, 14.49 per cent of the Slovenian population was attending elementary school (first through eighth grades) while the

♦"Official," "standard," or "literary" are all terras used to refer to the language form that is taught in the schools, spoken in public ceremonies, and written for official, literary, and scholarly purposes. 50

Yugoslav average was 9.42 per cent; Serbian, 10.11 per cent; Croatian,

9.53 per cent; Montenegrin, 10.07 per cent; Macedonian, 9.14 per cent; and Bosno-Hercegovnian, 5.55 per cent (Kicovic 1955: 9). According to

Yugoslav statistics, in 1971 the following percentages of the population in each republic over the age of 10 was recorded as illiterate;

Slovenia, 2.5 per cent; Croatia, 8.9 per cent; Vojvodina, 9.4 per cent;

Montenegro, 17.2 per cent; Serbia proper, 17.7 per cent; Macedonia,

18.0 per cent; Bosnia-Hercegovina, 22.7 per cent; and Kosovo-Metohija,

32.2 per cent. All of the Yugoslav population average 15.2 per cent, ^ making Slovenia clearly the most literate republic (Hoffman 1972: 290).

Economic development before 1918, between the wars, and after

World War II has also been uneven from republic to republic.

This uneveness was partly due to the unequal endowment of the various regions with natural resources, partly a reflection of differing historical backgrounds, and partly an effect of the very uneven rates of population growth among the national groups. If the average per-capita income in Yugoslavia is taken as 100, then the following index for various parts of the country is obtained: SR (Socialist Republic) Serbia 90, SR Croatia 113, SR Slovenia 188, SR Bosnia and Herzegovina 80, SR Macedonia 71, and SR Montenegro 61 [Tomasevich 1969: 62].

The Slovenian economy is broadly based, characterized by intensive farming, including herding and fruit growing, as well as highly developed engineering, automobile, chemical, electrical, iron, and steel industries.

From an initial experience with foreign rulership under the

Bavarians (745-785) until the formation of the Kingdom of the Serbs,

Croats, and Slovenes in 1918, the Slovenes were subject to an almost unbroken stream of foreign domination. After the Bavarians came the

Franks, then the Magyars (907-955). Fragmented German authority con­ trolled the Slovenian duchies between the eleventh and thirteenth 51 centuries, then to be replaced by the Hapsbturgs who remained in power until their defeat in World War I (Dvornik 1962: 132).

Even while living under centuries of foreign rule, Slovenes— especially peasants in the rural areas— maintained much of their Slavic cultural identity while adapting to technical, economic, and political changes introduced by the Germans. Important in the continuation of their ethnic identity was the remarkable survival of the Slovenian language throughout centuries of intensive Germanisation. In the nineteenth century the Slovenian tongue became a national symbol and was extended to literary functions. Slovenian peasants rebelled against their Austrian overlords on several occasions; but overall the energies of the Slovenes seem to have been directed toward religious and linguistic and literary objectives as an ethnic expression rather than toward political upheaval. The survival of that tradition is seen today in the high value Slovenes in Yugoslavia place upon the publication and collection of books written in the mother tongue for home and public libraries.

One interviewee commented on the tie between language and religion by noting that Slovenia was strictly Roman Catholic and that historically religion had been the stronghold for language maintenance. Both in

Slovenia and atmong immigrants in the United States, it was the priests, he said, who supported the Slovenian people's interest in the Slovenian language. Another Slovene interviewee observed that the Vatican's shift to the use of secular languages in the celebration of Mass in the 1960's provided a major source of support for the continued viability of the

Slovenian language. 52

Croatia {Hvvataka,)

In comparison with Slovenia, the ethnic composition of Croatia

is a more complicated phenomenon to describe. The census of 1953

indicates that its population was conposed of 79.5 per cent Croats,

15 per cent Serbs, 1 per cent Hungarians, 1 per cent Slovenes, and less than one per cent each Czechs and Italians. By 1971, there was a slight increase in the numbers of Croats to 83.5 per cent. Although Croatia's population was the second most ethnically homogeneous in 1971, an indication of ethnic variability in Croatia is the fact that there are many villages inhabited by Serbs in Croatia today as well as villages with both Serbian and Croatian populations.

Croatia is geographically divided into three regions—

Mediterranean, mountain, and Pannonian plain. Paralleling the Adriatic

Sea, the Mediterranean region of Dalmatia is made up of the narrow, highly indented coastal plain, the abrupt ascent of the massive Dinaric mountain system behind the coast, and hundreds of hilly rocky islands off the coast. To the northeast of Dalmatia is the mountain region of

Croatia consisting of several chains of mountains, and to the east of that lies the Pannonian Plain, the largest lowland and most densely populated area in Croatia.

An ongoing and spirited debate among linguists in Yugoslavia over whether it is appropriate to refer to the language that Croatians speak as Serbo-Croatian (Srpeko-hrvatski), Croato-Serbian {Hrvatéko- a v p sk, i) or Croatian (H w ataki) will be discussed more fully later in this study. Meanvdiile, this study follows the practice of most

American linguists by using the word "Serbo-Croatian" {Srpako-hxvataki) when referring to the language in general, but "Croatian" {Hxvataki) 53

will be used when referring to the literary or standard dialect as

spoken and written by Croats, and "Serbiêin" [Srpaki) will be used when referring to the literary or standard dialect as spoken and written by Serbs.

Three dialects of Croatian are spoken in Croatia: (Sakavaki on

the Dalmatian littoral and islands; kajkaüaki in the far northwest

around the capital city of Zagreb; and two varieties of the third dialect Stdkavaki (see Map 2). In Croatia, the internal ethnic diver­

sity is accompêinied by two variants of the standard Stokaoakii Stokaoaki

■igekavaki which is dialect variant for the standard or literary language form for the Croats and ëtokccoaki ekaOaki variant, the standard

form for the Serbs. Among the Croatian Eli interviewees, awareness of dialectal differences among Croats from different regions and between Croats and Serbs was frequently noted. The difference between the kagkataki variant around the city of Zagreb and the Sakaoaki along the Dalmatian coast and the difficulties in being understood by speakers of the standard Croaticui and Serbian dialects were also pointed out.

Except for the 15 per cent Serbian population which is primarily

Orthodox, the predominant religion in Croatia is Roman Catholicism.

Lesser numbers of people follow the Islamic and Protestant faiths. Of the 14 Croats interviewed, all were raised in and continue to follow the Roman Catholic faith.

Among the Yugoslav republics, Croatia's 1953 per capita income is second only to Slovenia's (Tcnnasevichl9e9: 62). Agriculture in the

Pannonian region; tourism, shipping, or boat building along the

Adriatic coast; and chemical and petroleum industries in the interior are especially well developed. 54

The early political history of Croatia had some similarities to

that of their Slovenian neighbors in that they too had become absorbed

by the Prankish empire in the eighth century, A revolt against the

Franks in the ninth century was followed by a takeover by the Byzantines

in 899. Another successful Croatian insurrection erupted in 910, and

the first independent Croatian kingdom was established by the venerated

Croatian King Tomislav vflio centralized the various tribal leaders

iSupani) . Over the next two centuries the Croatian kings found them­

selves in conflict with, among others, the Italians and Venetians over

the control of the Adriatic, with the .Serbs over regions of Bosnia, and

with the Byzantines over coastal cities. They combined forces witJi the

Magyars of Hungary in the eleventdi century to fight off the Byzantines

and the Germans. After a period of internal anarchy in Croatia,

Hungary's King Laszlo invaded Croatia and in 1102 made Croatia and

Dalmatia an autonomous kingdom under the union of the Hungarian

crown. This relationship, with some variation, remained in effect for

some 800 years.

Throughout the latter part of the four centuries of Hungarian-

Croatian union, the Turks made serious inroads on Croatian territories, posing a major threat to the Austrians, Hungaricuis, and Croatians.

When in 1526 all of Croatia was under either Hungarian or Turkish

control, Serbs, who were fleeing from Turkish advances, began to settle

in great numbers among the Pannonian Croats. After the expulsion of

the Turks from Hungary at the end of the seventeenth century this migration accelerated when the Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Arsenius III personally led thousands of the Serbs into Hapsburg territory. King

Leopold I of Hungary received them with open arms and offered land in 55 the Vojvodina in return for military support against the Turks. The hospitality of the Hapsburgs to the Serbs was strictly a matter of protection from the Turks, who had designs on all the territory between them and Vienna (Govorchin 1961: 300-301, Heppell 1961: 88, Guldescu

1964: 119).

From 1687 through the end of World War 1, Croatia and Slavonia remained in a politically dependent position to the Hungarian crown; some expansion of autonomy was granted to them in 1868 {Govorchin

1961: 301). By the nineteenth century in the general atmosphere of growing nationalism in Europe relations between Croatia êind Hungary had become considerably strained; Hungary discouraged national movements among the Croats, leading to strong intra-Croat and intra-South Slav consolidation, a movement that came to the fore during the nineteenth century.

Special mention should be made of the political history of

Dalmatia, as a separate cultural region of Croatia. Mainly Croatian in its ethnic background, Dalmatia was part of the Croatian kingdom until the twelfth century when it, along with Pannonian Croatia, fell under Hungarian control. Venice occupied many of the coastal towns and islands in the fifteenth century, and Turkey controlled all Dalmatia, with the sole exception of the city-state of Dubrovnik. Among the spoils of Napoleon's victories in the latter eighteenth century was

Dalmatia, which he promptly turned over to Austria only to incorporate it later into his brief experiment with the Illyrian Provinces in 1809.

After a short tenure as part of the Illyrian Provinces, citizens of

Dalmatia and Dubrovnik in 1814 became Hapsburg subjects and retained that status until 1918 (Govorchin 1961: 305). 56

Serbia tSrbiga)

The largest of the six republics, Serbia includes two autonomous provinces: the Vojvodina which was once part of Hungary, vdiere there

are large minority groups of Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukranians, and

Romanians; and Kosovo-Metohija (the Kosmet), where Albanians core the

dominant ethnic group. Most of the Albanians are Moslems and are

sometimes referred to as Shiptars (Halpern 1969: 320).

In 1953 74 per cent of the population of Serbia reported that

they were Serbs, 8 per cent Albanians, 6 per cent Hungarians, and

2.5 per cent Croats. Minor changes occurred over those two decades according to 1971 statistics: 75 per cent Serb, 9.2 per cent Albanians, and 6.1 per cent Hungarians.

Located in the center of the Balkan peninsula, Serbia is at the confluence of three mountain systems: the Dinaric, the Carpathiëm-

Balkans, and the Rhodopes. To the north of the mountains lies the hill region of ^uroadija ("forest") which is an extension of the Pannonian

Plains located in the far north of Serbia.

With an average standard of living in the context of Yugoslavia, the Serbicui economy is characterized by large-scale agriculture in the northern plains and the ^umadija where grain, livestock, and vegetable products are comnonly grown. The textile, electrical, chemical, woodworking, and automobile industries and copper mining contribute heavily to the national income.

In line with the ethnic structure of Serbia, most Serbian Christicuis belong to the Orthodox Church. Hungarians and Croatians as well as certain other minority groups are usually affiliated with the Roman

Catholic Church, and the Albanians with the Islamic religion. It was 57

repeatedly pointed out to me by Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs alike that

while Slovenes and Croats are part of the non-ethnic universal Roman

Catholic Church, the Serbs consider themselves to be Serbian Orthodox

or members of a national or ethnic church body. While this distinction

was made often, with different evaluations depending on whether a Serb

or Croat was making it, in actuality some Slovenes and Croats feel

that their Catholicism has some ethnic meaning and some Serbs would

like to deemphasize the Serbianness of their Orthodoxy. This point is

described more fully in Chapter IV.

The ekavski dialect of Serbo-Croatian is spoken widely throughout

Serbia, and is mutually intelligible with the igekavski and zkaoaki

Serbo-Croatian variants in Croatia. However, the Serbs have tradi­

tionally used the Cyrillic alphabet, which continues to be the official

script in the eastern parts of the country. Cyrillic was introduced to

the Serbs by Byzantine missionaries around the beginning of the tenth

century.

Serbia was an independent kingdom during medieval times. After

settling in the Balkans, the Serbs, like the Slovenes and Croats, were

organized and led by local tribal chieftains called Supani . Although

the Byzantines formally controlled the territories inhabited by Serbs,

the Serbs, in practice, were politically independent from the eighth

through the twelfth centuries. A degree of Byzantine influence in this period is indicated by the fact that the Greeks and Bulgarians intro­

duced the Orthodox faith to the Serbs (Govorchin 1961: 302).

In response to an attempt by the Byzantines to increase their

control of the Serbs in the twelfth century, the ëiqpani centralized

their power under the position of a Veliki 2tpan or Grand Chieftain. 58

Late in the twelfth century Stevan Nemanja, the VeViki 2iq>an of Raska, became the "Pounder of the Serbian Kingdom" when he further solidified the union of the Supani and expanded Serbian territories to the south

(Govorchin 1961: 302).

Succeeding rulers of the Neman] io dynasty annexed more eind more . land within the Serbian realms, and extended the Serbian Kingdom even farther to the east and the south. During the early thirteenth century

St. Sava, the brother of Stevan Provovenîiani (Stephen, The First Crown), became the Orthodox Church archbishop for Serbia and established the auto­ cephalous (self-governing) Serbian Orthodox Church (Govorchin 1961: 302).

From 1331-1355 when "Serbia reached the zenith of its power and influence" (Govorchin 1961: 302), King Stevan Du^an reigned over the kingdom. After proclaiming himself the "Tsar of the Serbs, Greeks,

Bulgars, and Albanians," Stevan Du^an enlarged his already formidable reputation by compiling the first Serbian legal code {DuëanoV Zakonik).

After setting out to conquer Constantinople in 1355, Stevan Du&an died enroute; his plans for consolidating the Balkans under Serbian rulership died with him. Rapid disintegration of the Serbian empire followed, opening the way for Turkish invasions beginning in the fourteenth century

(Govorchin 1961: 302-303).

Although the Serbs were defeated by the Ottoman Turks at the Battle of Kossovo in 1389, it was not until the middle of the next century that the Serbian kingdom was actually converted to a Turkish paahatik. For the next 350 years, Serbia remained a Turkish state. Uprisings in 1804 and 1815 resulted in Turkish recognition of Serbian autonomy in 1829 and full independence for the Serbs in 1878. Competition between Serbia and Bulgaria over control of Macedonia culminated in the Balkan Wars of 59

1912 and 1913, resulting in Serbian control of Macedonia (Govorchin

1961: 304).

Bosnia-Hercegovina (BoamxrHevoegotina)

Upon learning something about Serbian and Croatian histories, the reader should find the contemporary ethnic composition of Bosnia-

Hercegovina more understandable. In the census reports "...Catholics generally declare themselves as Croats and Orthodox as Serbs, with the Moslem segment listing themselves as undeclared or Yugoslav nationality" (Halpem 1969; 321). In 1953 no "Moslem" category was included in the census options, which helps to explain the identifi­ cation of the Bosnian-Hercegovinan population as 31 per cent Yugoslavs, undetermined, 44 per cent Serbs, and 23 per cent Croats. The puzzling

31 per cent Yugoslav figure appears to be accounted for in the 1971 census by the 34 per cent designation of Bosno-Hercegovinans as Moslems, in addition to 43 per cent Serbian and 23 per cent Croatian. Of the two interviewees from Bosnia-Hercegovina, one is Croatian and the other,

Serbicui. Other interviewees' families had come from Bosnia-Hercegovina in earlier times.

Located in the center of Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Hercegovina more than any of the other republics is characterized by a blend of the East and the West— in its architecture, its language, its religions, and its customs. The predominantly mountainous republic evidences combined

Turkish, Serbian, and Croatian character, seen symbolically in the presence of minarets on Islamic mosques, spires of Roman Catholic cathedrals, and frescoes in Serbian Orthodox churches.

All of Bosnia-Hercegovina falls within the ëtokavaki Serbo-Croatian language area although the ikavaki and igékccoaki varieties of the 60

ëtokavaki dialect overlap (See Map 2). In the mid-nineteenth century the Serbian linguist and folklorist Vuk Karadzic and the Croatian linguist and political activist Ljudevit Gaj adapted the ëtokavaki dialect as spoken in Bosnia-Hercegovina as the written language form for Serbo-Croatian speakers. Working independently of each other,

Karadzic devised a new Cyrillic script that permits direct phonetic character-by-character transliteration of spoken Serbo-Croatian and Gaj worked out a Latin orthography based on the same principle (Mellor 1975:

130). Karad&ië's axiom "Speak as you write, and write as you speak" was the foundation for the new orthographies that facilitate remarkably rapid learning of both the written and spoken language. Today both the

Latin and Cyrillic alphabets are used in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

After two centuries as peurt of the Croatian kingdom, Bosnia was conquered by the Magyars in the twelfth century. Yet Magyar control remained loose and was administered from a distance, permitting virtual independence for the Bosnians. Hercegovina, to the south of Bosnia, remained part of Serbia until it was conquered by the Bosnians in 1325

(Govorchin 1961: 306).

An independent Bosnian-Hercegovinan kingdom was founded in about

1377 when Bern Stevan Tvrtko I led the Bosnians and Hercegovinans in wars against the Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, and Veneticuns and brought new lands within his domain. Upon his death, feuding among the Bosnian nobility weakened the kingdom and made it vulnerable to Turkish conquest in 1463 (Govorchin 1961: 306).

Four centuries of Turkish occupation of Bosnia-Hercegovina ended when Austria-Hungary annexed it in 1908. Over that long time span, a substantial number of the Bosnian nobility converted to Islam and were 61

permitted to retain their lands. Many Bosnians, both Orthodox and

Roman Catholic, fled to Hungary, Dalmatia, and Montenegro in pursuit of religious freedom. Those Christian peasants who remained behind became "bitter and discontented because of their virtual enslavement"

(Govorchin 1961: 306). From 1908 through World War I, Bosnia-Hercegovina remained part of the Hapsburg Empire.

Montenegro {Cvna Gova, "Black Mountain")

There is disagreement among the South Slavs as to whether Monte­ negrins should be categorized as a separate ethnic group or as Serbs.

Except for the Turkish speaiking Albanians, the language of Montenegro is uniformly Serlxi-Croatian ëtokccoakii the alphabet is Cyrillic.

Montenegrins are Orthodox, binding them along with language and tribal kinship to the Serbs. There are Roman Catholics along the Adriatic coast and Moslems toward Bosnia-Hercegovina in the northwest.

Serbs and Montengrins have a common heritage, and contemporary differences are based in large part on specific ecological adaptations to open-field agriculture [in Serbia] as opposed to primarily pastoral economy [in Montenegro]. Some Montenegrins migrated to more fertile lowlands in Serbia and Bosnia after the Turkish withdrawal and thus became the ancestors of many now classified as Serbs [Halpem 1969: 321].

Among the 8 Montenegrins— families or individuals— that I know of in Washington, at least 5 are associated with one of the 2 Serbian

Orthodox parishes. The fact that each is Montenegrin is secondairy to being a Serb.

The 1953 census lists 86.5 per cent of the inhabitants as Monte­ negrins, 3 per cent Serbs, 5.5 percent Albanians, and 2 per cent Croats.

A drop in the numbers of Montenegrins to 75 per cent in 1971 may be 62 explained, in part, lay the rapid exit of many Montenegrins to other parts of Yugoslavia that had more to offer economically (Halpern 1969 :

321). In addition to the 75 per cent Montenegrin population, there are

Moslems, Albanians, Serbs, and Croats listed in the 1971 census.

The smallest republic in Yugoslavia and the least populated,

Montenegro is a land of steep, rugged, high mountains throughout its entire region, with a rugged sea coast south of Dalmatia.

In great part because of the restrictions of the mountainous terrain, of a warrior tradition, and of tribal feuds leading to devastation of people euid property over the centuries, Montenegro in

1953 had the lowest per capita income level of the six republics. In the past, herding in the mountains and shipping-fishing along the coast provided the mainstay of their economic livelihood. Between the demand of economic necessity and the warrior tradition, men frequently came and went from their villages and families. Today pasturing, fruit growing, tourism, shipping, mining, and industries processing aluminum, lead, zinc, iron, and steel contribute to the Montenegrin economy.

Called the province of Zeta, Montenegro was part of the Serbian kingdom until 1389 when the Serbs were defeated at the Battle of

Kossovo. Zeta lost its independence to the Turks in 1499, but the

Montenegrin tribes continued to stave off complete control and maintained virtual independence by taking refuge in their remote mountain villages, immune to attack by the Turks. Warfare between the fiercely proud

Montenegrins and the Turks continued for three centuries; in 1799 independence was finally won from the Turkish sultan (Govorchin 1961:

304). Meemwhile, the Venetians in the fifteenth century had taken over the coast of Montenegro. 63

The Montenegrins maintained their autonomous state until 1918, when they joined the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. In the interim, several outstanding manbers of the Petrovic-Njegolé family ruled.

Petar Petrovic-Njego^, bishop, prince, and poet, left as his legacy the

Mountain Wreath (GoTski Vijenaa), an epic poem which has been described as "a mirror of life in Montenegro" (Barac 1955; 93) and which has been widely translated from Serbo-Croatian into other languages. By the twentieth century, blood feuds were brought under control, governmental administration organized, frontiers expemded, and Montenegrin independence recognized abroad under the policies of the Petrovic-Njego¥ family rule.

Macedonia {Makedonija)

In 1953 66 per cent of the population in Macedonia reported itself as Macedonian with 15.5 per cent as Turks, 12.5 per cent Albanians,

2.5 per cent Serbs, 1.5 per cent Gypsies, and less than 1 per cent

Vlachs. By 1971 the Macedonian figure had risen to 75 per cent.

Among South Slavs today a major bone of contention exists over the issue of who the Macedonians are, since their history has been strongly tied with the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Greeks. Between World

War I and II their region was called "South Serbia" and in 1923 they

"...were not yet recognized either as a distinct nationality or as a

'South Slavic' group but merely as a ’population*" (Vucinich 1969: 241).

Even after World War II when Macedonia was proclaimed a republic within

Yugoslavia, the government could not resolve differences with Bulgaria over the drawing of the Yugoslav Macedonian and Bulgarian borders

(Vucinich 1969: 269). Although Yugoslavia conveyed the status of a republic to Macedonia after the war, not all Macedonians were pleased about the concept of a Macedonian nationality separate from Serbia 64

(Vucinich 1969: 268-269).

This theme of discontent and controversy continues to run through negotiations over the autonomous status of the Macedonian Orthodox Church and over the recognition of a separate Macedonian language. Today the

Macedonian language is recognized as separate from Serbo-Croatian; it is written in a slightly different form of Cyrillic from Serbian Cyrillic.

Yugoslavia, after being expelled from the Corainform in 1948, granted the

Macedonians a separate Orthodox Church government and a Metropolitan to head it, as a strategy to discourage pro-Bulgarian sentiment among the

Macedonians. This status remains today (Vucinich 1969: 269). Ethnic

Macedonians are Orthodox, while the Albanians living in Macedonia follow the Islamic religion.

Like Montenegro, Macedonia is composed of mountainous terrain, but lowland farming sections are present where valleys ëuid rivers intersect.

These fertile valleys produce cereals, tobacco, rice, cotton, grapes, wine, fruits, and dairy products. Iron and steel works, chemical plants, lumber and woodworking factories, textile industry, foundries, china manufacturing, food and tobacco processing constitute Macedonia's indus­ trial base. Compared with the pther Yugoslav republics, Macedonia has a slightly lower than average standard of living.

A period of independence as a Macedonian state at the beginning of the eleventh century was followed by defeat under the Byzantines in

1018. Bulgarian cuid Serbian rule alternated until the Turks invaded

Macedonia in 1371 and remained in control until the nineteenth century.

The Balkan War of 1912 resulted in Macedonia being divided between

Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece. In 1918 Macedonia was incorporated into the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. 65

The Spirit o f 'South Slavic Nationalism

To the question "Do you think there is such a thing as a cultural identity either in the Balkans or the United States that you would call

'South Slavic' or 'Yugoslav'?" the following observations and interpre­ tations were provided by four interviewees.

In the language, yes, but otherwise, no— on account of the two religions, idiich have split the whole area. — Second generation Serbian woman

Yes, I do. I think it may be more strong in the United states. Especially in terms of people who emigrated when Yugoslavia was part of Austria-Hungary, who consider them­ selves Yugoslav in origin pcurtly because, I think, their ancestors' identity wasn't polarized at that time. It was Austro-Hungarian or Ottoman or whatever. I think now in Yugoslavia, according to the census, 2 per cent of the people consider themselves Yugoslav. And I know the kids I met over there who consider themselves Yugoslav are usually those who have mixed parentage. I've met several who say they're Yugoslav; usually they have a Serbian mother and a Croatian father or a Slovenian mother and a Serbian father. And if you looked at that 2 per cent it would make an interesting study; I would bet that the vast majority is from mixed parentage. In Croatia the people I met called themselves Croats, including people in the party, people I know Wio are devout Catholics. — Second generation Croatian man

Yes. The thing that comes to mind is food, dances, religious festivities. If there is an identity that is as broad as that, it would be one that manifests itself in those areas. — Second generation Slovenian woman

There isn't really a Slavic identity because those nation­ alities have a different style, temper. I think the pan- Slavic idea was very idealistic and was probably abused by the Russians for their own national interest. It was idealistic and interesting enough for Croatia to go through a period pursuing it. In our case, it was almost a neces­ sity because of being surrounded by the Hungarians, the Germans, the Italians. I think there was a natural drive to find somebody whom we could relate to more easily than a totally foreign culture. But I think to call it a Slavic identity... I think there probably is some transcending Slavic tone, but it is so vague, so intangible you really can't make much out of it. There is something, I suppose. 66

I guess the common experience is there. But to speak of a Slavic identity is a mistake, I think. — Second generation Croatian man

The responses of these four individuals to the idea of a common

South Slavic identity include opposite themes of affinity and variance.

Each person cites aspects of commonality (e.g., language, early history, food, demce, religious festivities, and a general transcending tone).

Yet, South Slavic identity is viewed as having clear limits or boundaries.

For one, the religious element is the key variable to cultural diversity.

For another, parental intermarriage is the soliteury means of developing a sense of ethnic commonality. And for a third, different styles and temperaments among nationalities detract from Wiat might be called a

Slavic identity.

In a discussion with an American-born Serbian man, during which he drew a national character sketch illustrating his personal perception of how the Serbs are distinct from other ethnic groups in the United States— including other South Slavs— he asserted:

Other ethnic groups also have identity, but for Serbian people it is traditional to stick together. Even though other ethnic groups carry out traditions and there are some simi­ larities between them, there are major differences. Serbs have their own food and holidays, togetherness between dif­ ferent families. The music of the Serbian people is more sentimental, unique in sound and content. Music brings them closer together. Serbs, unlike Croats, have been held together in the church. We use our own language for the church literature and have our own church music. Church is a gathering place for Serbs, and friendship ties are stronger. Self pride is great also. Serbs become friends automatically and hospitality is always there, an open welcome.

This disposition toward distinguishing between the difference and similarities among the South Slavs, with a great emphasis on the differ­ ences, brings me to the question of how the theme of national or ethnic consciousness came to the fore in modern times within the Balkans and how 67 it became transplanted in the United States. How was the ethnic theme played out vis-a-vis the political and economic drive toward a Yugoslav identity in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? And what shifts over the past century in national consciousness among the South Slavs are reflected in the attitudes of contemporary Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in the United States?

IVO Lederer, a Yugoslav historian, has aptly described the devel­ opment of nationalism among the South Slavs:

It is a hallmark of eastern Europe in modem times that nationalism— that blend of national consciousness, ethnic passion, and cultural-economic politics, has long been its way of life. ... Nowhere has this been so clearly and agonizingly the case as in the letnds of the Yugoslavs. Moreover, nowhere in Europe can a more complex web of interactions be found. Among the Yugoslavs specific nationalisms have intertwined with an over-all nationalism, with regionalisms, and (if the word existed) with ’ethnocratisms' of diverse sorts: religious, linguistic, cultural, and economic. Such multi­ plicity characterizes a number of eastern European societies and has been further compounded by conflicting territorial ambitions and competing cultural claims. In these respects, the territory of the Yugoslavs has unfolded as a microcosm of the region as a vdiole [Lederer 1969: 396-7].

The term "nationalism" has come to have two meanings in respect to the experiences of the South Slavs: one connoting independence from external political forces, and the other connoting the expression of ethnic sentiments. Both kinds of nationalist fire were ignited in the early nineteenth century by the misrule of the Ottoman Turks, the French, the Austrians, and the Hungarians. The first type of nationalism, which came to the fore in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, refers to the movement among the South Slavs to rid themselves of foreign domination and to establish an independent nation. In essence, this was a move toward Yugoslavism, ".. .which propounded a theory of common 68 cultural identity, a program of liberation, and the unification of all southern Slavs" (Lederer 1969: 398}. In point of fact, Yugoslavism developed secondarily, on both practical euid idealistic grounds, out of nationalistic endeavors on the part of each South Slavic ethnic group.

Yugoslavism was strongest among Serbs and almost non-existent among

Slovenes. Serbian initiative and dominance has been a key problem ever since. Beginning in the late eighteenth century, certain South Slavs became advocates for independence by encouraging the development of a pan-Slavic state incorporating Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. It was not until the end of World War I that their goal was realized when the

Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was formed, to be renamed

Yugoslavia ("land of the South Slavs") in 1928.

Ethnic nationalism— an inclination toward separation and autonomy among the constituent ethnic groups in Yugoslavia— both preceded and then paralleled Yugoslavism and strongly reasserted itself after the formation of the Kingdom. United politically for the first time in 1918, the South Slavs found that their previous experiences as separate administrative and political units had not prepared them for a mutual and equal sharing of political power; immediate emd overwhelming problems came to the fore involving protracted struggling and jockeying for both economical and political supremacy. These struggles had not been resolved when World War II broke out and they colored the bitter experience of Yugoslavia during the War. Yugoslavia today remains confronted and confounded by strong ethnic nationalism. 69

South Slavic Emigration to the United States

Those Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes who left Southeastern Europe for

the United States reflect in their contemporary ethnic orientation the

happenings and conditions of the times when they or their families

emigrated. South Slavic emigration since the 1890's can be separated

into two main time frames during which dissimilar political and economic

conditions prevailed. The first was pre-1918 before the formation of

the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes and the second was after

World War II when Yugoslavia had become a Communist state. In general,

the social and economic policies of the Austro-Hungarians and impoverished

conditions within the Empire provided the push for emigration before

1918. In contrast, it was internal Yugoslav political and economic policies and developments that provided the main impetus to leave (or not

to return) after World War II. There was a general tendency for inter­ viewees to attribute the early twentieth century emigration to economic

factors and the post-World War II emigration to political reasons. It can be argued, though, that each period had at its root both economic and political causes that were, in peirt, internally, and in part, externally instigated.

Emily Balch sets 1880 as the date for the upturn in Slavic migration to America and 1890 for South Slavic settlement. She notes that in comparison with other Slavic groups, such as the Czechs,

Slovaks, Poles, and Ruthenians,

Ihe South Slavs began to come to America somewhat later. Though individual Slovenians came very early, as already mentioned, it was not till adxiut 1892 that the movement became noticeably important among them. In the Croatian group, the Dalmaticins, sailors and wanderers, had sent now and then an immigrant from very early times, but it was not 70

till toward the middle of the nineties that Croatians, and especially Croatians from the country back of the coast, began coming in numbers. Serbians and Bulgarians are still more recent comers, numerous only since 1902 or so, but growing rapidly [1910: 237].

Within the decade of the 1880's American immigration turned from

an earlier concentration of settlers from northern and western Europe

to a later emphasis on people coming from eastern and southern Europe.

Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were part of mainly the latter wave.

Emigrant Statistics

A thorough analysis of the early period of migration (1890-1924)

is hindered by the fact that neither European nor American immigration

authorities kept very accurate or complete information on those individ­

uals who left. Although limited in its usefulness, the American

information is the more complete; it usually notes the country of birth

but has been inconsistent in developing nationality (ethnic) data

(Colakovic 1973: 14). Before 1899, Yugoslavs were recorded in immigration

records as being either Austrians or Hungarians. The immigration records

for 1899 through 1923 list Slovenes and Croats together; Montenegrins,

Serbs, and Bulgarians as a group; and Dalmatians, Bosnians, and Herce-

govinans as a third category (see Table 4a). From the Department of

Labor statistics available for this period, we leam that the combined

emigration within these three classifications was greatest for the year

1907, when a total of 82,393 South Slavs came to the United States. The

World War I years produced the lowest immigrant rates since 1899. In

1918 there were only 198 and in 1919, 232 South Slavs. By 1922 and 1923

after strict immigration laws were passed by the United States Congress,

the numbers of South Slavs coming to the United States dropped off rapid­

ly and permanently. Of the three classifications of South Slavs, the 71

table 4(a)

YUGOSLAV IMMIGRATION TO UNITED STATES, 1899-1923

Dalmatians, Bulgars, Slovenes Bosnians and Serbs, and Year and Croats Hercegovinans Montenegrins Total

1899 8,632 367 94 9,093 1900 17,174 675 204 18,063 1901 17,928 732 611 19,271 1902 30,233 1,004 1,291 32,528 1903 32,907 1,736 6,479 41,122 1904 21,242 2,036 4,577 27,855 1905 35,104 2,632 5,823 43,566 1906 44,272 4,568 11,548 60,388 1907 47,826 7,393 27,174 82,393 1908 20,472 3,747 18,246 42,465 1909 20,181 1,888 6,214 28,283 1910 39,562 4,911 15,130 59,603 1911 18,982 4,400 10,222 33,604 1912 24,366 3,672 10,657 38,695 1913 42,499 4,520 9,087 56,106 1914 37,284 5,149 15,084 57,517 1915 1,942 305 3,506 5,753 1916 791 114 3,146 4,051 1917 305 94 1,134 1,533 1918 33 15 150 198 1919 23 4 205 232 1920 493 63 1,064 1,620 1921 11,035 930 7,700 19,665 1922 3,783 307 1,370 5,460 1923 4,163 571 1,893 6,627

TOTAL 481,242 51,833 162,609 695,691

Source: Colakovic 1973: 174. 72

Croats and Slovenes added up to the greatest number over those two and

a half decades. While they numbered 481,000, the Serbs, Montenegrins,

and Bulgarians totaled 162,000, and the Dalmatians and Bosnian-

Hercegovinans, 51,000 (Colakovic 1973: 17, 51, 176).

Between 1924 and 1940 the balance of immigration from Yugoslavia

to the United States and emigration from the United States to Yugoslavia

was evenly matched, totaling 19,000 coming and going in each direction

(see Table 4b). Then, as in World War I, immigration activity came to

an almost complete halt in the Second World War, only to pick up again

in 1950, when 9,154 Yugoslav immigrants reached our shores. The leading

year for post-World War II Yugoslav immigration was 1952, when 17,223

arrived. Altogether, between 1941 and 1973 118,314 Yugoslavs immigrated

to the United States (see Table 4c).

Although the national quota system was theoretically still in

effect until 1965, when the most recent Immigration Act was passed, most

Yugoslav prisoners of war and refugees were permitted to immigrate to

the United States as non-quota immigrants. Otherwise, nowhere near the

number of Yugoslavs who came during the 1950-1960 period would have been

able to enter legally.

Reasons for Leaving

In the following discussion of reasons for emigration during different historical periods. Sections VII and VIII of Appendix C:

Social and Démographie Charaoteriatios of Interviewees will be referred

to. Those sections demonstrate how the non-randomly selected study

group clusters into categories similar to those discussed in the

literature. Since the interviewee sample is weighted more toward first

generation, post-World War II immigrants, the numbers associated with 73

TABLE 4(b)

YUGOSLAV IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES AND EMIGRATION TO YUGOSLAVIA, 1924-1940

Immigration Emigration Year from Yugoslavia to Yugoslavia 1924 5,835 1,991 1925 724 2,464 1926 1,059 2,342 1927 1,190 1,911 1928 1,386 1,941 1929 1,369 1,524 1930 1,737 1,302 1931 859 1,317 1932 508 1,089 1933 229 1,089 1934 184 523 1935 282 443 1936 435 425 1937 632 335 1938 1,019 290 1939 1,090 302 1940 652 192

TOTAL 19,190 1.19,480

Source: Colakovic 1973: 181. 74

table 4 (c)

YUGOSLAV IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES, 1941-1973

Yugoslav '.Yugoslav Year Immigrants Year Immigrants

1941 81 1958 2,260

1942 37 1959 4,349

1943 46 1960 2,742

1944 94 1961 1,989

1945 119 1962 1,857

1946 271 1963 2,560

1947 617 1964 3,098

1948 573 1965 2,818

1949 784 1966 3,728

1950 9,154 1967 5,879

1951 8,254 1968 6,783

1952 17,223 1969 4,078

1953 1,272 1970 3,839

1954 1,432 1971 3,265

1955 2,567 1972 2,767

1956 8,723 1973 5,213

1957 9,842 TOTAL 118,314

Sources: Compiled from Colakovic 1973: 181 and Statistical Abstract of the United States 1974: 99. 75

the reasons given for emigrating after the war are naturally greater.

Allowing for that, it is interesting to note that there was a major shift

in both numbers and reasons for leaving first from pre-World War I to the

1940's and 1950's and second to the I960's and 1970's; those reasons

shifted from economic and military draft factors associated with Austria-

Hungary (pre-1918) to political factors associated with Yugoslavia

(1940's and 1950's), and finally to a variety of economic, educational,

political, and marital factors (1960's and 1970's).

Govorchin (1961) and Colakovic (1973) are the two primary recent

sources on Yugoslav migrations to the tftiited States; Prpic (1971) has

written the most comprehensive study on Croatian immigration. While

Colakovic's book is primarily a study of migration, Govorchin's has a

more general focus. Colakovic, a cultural geographer, investigates

reasons for emigrating, periods of migration, distribution of Yugoslavs

in the United States, settlement patterns, and mobility and assimilation.

Govorchin, a historian, also discusses the work experiences in America,

ethnic organizations, the ethnic press, case histories of immigrant

adjustment to American ways, famous and other interesting personalities,

and contributions to America by Yugoslav immigrants representing all

South Slavic ethnic groups. Prpic, also a historian, while concentrating

on the Croats and not the other South Slavic groups, covers many of the

same topics as Govorchin, with a particular stress on American Croats' political involvement in and sentiment about the developments in

Yugoslavia between the wars, during both World Wars, and after World

War II.

Colakovic suggests certain factors that were preeminent in the decision of some South Slavs to endgrate during the late nineteenth 76

century and early twentieth century. He asks the question, "Why did

Yugoslavs migrate to America and to what extent were spatial elements relative to this migration?" (1973: 3). In his approach, spatial elements include the diffusion of the idea to emigrate, the availability of transportation by rail to port areas, internal political and economic factors, and the needs of the American economic system (1973: 161-163).

From the very beginning of the increase in South Slavic emigration in the 1890's, the reasons for migrating not surprisingly varied depend­ ing on the areas that the South Slavs left and what was happening there at the time. In the case of Slovenia, which was the source of the heaviest early migration out of Southeastern Europe, several conditions seem to have weighed on the decision to leave.

Well before the end of the nineteenth century, Slovenia had become the most economically developed of the South Slav Ismds. Released from the feudal system in 1848, Slovenia soon began to benefit from the industrial revolution spreading across Europe. By 1862 new railroad lines linked Slovenia with Vienna to the north and Croatia to the south.

Transportation to coastal ports was comparatively accessible.

The spread of industrialization brought with it a general increase in the stcindard of living— but in Slovenia, as elsewhere in Europe, not everyone shared in the increased economic advantages of the times. As the gap increased between haves and have-nots, members of both groups paradoxically looked to emigration as a means of economic betterment.

Colcücovic has aptly noted that this was "a case of rising e:qpectations of a better life abroad than at home, while improvements in living conditions in the home country even speeded up the process of growing aspirations"

(1961: 26). Like other citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 77

Slovenians heard rumors of fortunes to be made— or even of more modest incomes under better working and living conditions— elsewhere in Europe or across the ocean in America; and if they were frustrated by their inability to participate in the economic development of their own area, they now had access for the first time to the greener grass on the other side of the fence.

In those areas of Slovenia which were becoming rapidly industri­ alized, emigration was relatively limited; most of the Slovenian emigrants were from peasant families struggling to make do in the adjacent rural areas, where tillable plots remained small and it was rarely possible to obtain enough land. Emigration was a logical solution to over­ population of these areas.

According to Govorchin, the greatest outmigration of Slovenians was from the provinces of Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria; from south­ west Austria and northeast Italy; and from the Austro-Hungarian coastal holdings in the northwestern Adriatic area (1961: 45). This appears to have reflected not only the comparative ease of access to the West and to ports from these areas but also the fact that in many instances

Slovenians constituted a minority group, less likely than the majority to be permitted full participation in economic development.

During the same period, most of the Serbs who emigrated came not from Serbia proper, but were living in the lands politically controlled by Austria-Hungcucy, and were often a minority group. In some of those areas substantial Serbian emigration occurred, especially during the troubled 1905-1913 period. Most of the emigrants came from "...Bosnia,

Hercegovina, Dalmatia, and Croatia, especially the Croat districts of

Lika and Vojvodina, where their Serb forebears had found refuge from the 78

Turks after the disastrous defeat by the Asiatic conguerers in 1389 at

Kosovo" (Govorchin 1961; 45). Lika was part of the Military Frontier settled mainly by Serbs in the sixteenth century. In return for serving the Austrians as soldiers, they enjoyed land, relief from taxation, and religious and political freedom. Between the ages of 16 and 60 all males were obligated to serve in a permanent militia to take up arms against the Turks should they attempt to cross the border. For practical purposes, the Licani were life-long soldiers, supported by the state; farming was clearly a secondary pursuit, and when the Military Frontier was closed in 1869, they found their land unsuitable for supporting more than subsistence agriculture— the harst type soil had become exhausted through mismanagement and erosion. Population increases, unproductive land, and the absence of industrial development combined to dim the prospects for economic survival in that region (Govorchin

1961: 25).

Notwithstanding the closing of the Military Frontier and the end of life-long military service, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, created in 1867, continued to require its subjects to take up arms. At the formation of the Monarchy, the Slovenes were placed under the Austrians, the Serbs in Croatiem territory under the Hungarians, and the Croats under both. Males in all three groups were required to serve three years in the Austro-Hungarian army or navy and could not marry until their obligation was completed. In a Europe torn by insurrections, repression, wars and rumors of war, there was nothing to recommend military service other than the dubious prospect of being fed regularly vdiile waiting for the next— and perhaps final— mobilization. Many young men chose instead to emigrate— and had to do so before their 79 sixteenth birthday if they were to leave legally (Govorchin 1961: 5,

23).

Even though the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs who lived under the

Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were living in better economic conditions than the Serbs and Montenegrins to the east— who by this time had again formed an independent kingdom— the relationship between the South Slavs and their Austro-Hungarian rulers was exceedingly conflict-ridden.

Large landowners of Austrian and Hungarian ethnic background held the best and the largest properties, and Slovenian peasants were relegated to smaller plots. The political and economic system had few democratic features; redress of grievances was a foreign concept. Poverty and over-population were endemic. Another serious problem for economic survival was brought by the phylloxera disease which destroyed most of the grape vines in the Mediterranean area in the 1880's, including

Dalmatia, Montenegro, Istria, and most parts of the Austro-Hungarian lands. This was a matter of particularly serious concern to the

Dalmatians, who were also experiencing a decline in the fishing industry and in shipping. Emigration from Dalmatia was already substantial by the latter nineteenth century, but these developments hastened the process (Colakovic 1973: 20-23).

Prpic notes another factor in the decision of many to leave

Croatia: the gradual extinction of the zadru ga, A communal, kinbased, patrilineal household, the zadruga declined as a residential-work group in the nineteenth century. "The extinction of the communal households necessitated a parcelling out of land. When many land-hungry peasants found it impossible to obtain more land, they left the country" (1971;

93). 80

Emigration to the United States was not, of course, simply a matter of men and women setting out entirely on their own in pursuit of a better life in America. There was a corresponding drive by American industrialists to find cheap labor for the mines, mills, factories, and sweatshops which provided the underpinnings of an economy expanding with unprecedented speed.

As American-born workers turned increasingly to the union move­ ment-demanding and slowly winning better wages and working conditions— their employers looked to Europe for workers who would be more grateful for whatever scraps they received and who would be less likely to rebel against Conditions they encountered. Prosperity in Germany in the 1880 ' s sent the recruiters further east and south. They ran advertisements in newspapers, posted handbills, contacted workers directly, and spread word of fabulous wages waiting across the sea.

Contract labor, under which an industrialist paid the cost of an immigrant's passage to the United States in return for a guauranteed period of virtual servitude, was declared unlawful in 1885, but loopholes were left open and the practice continued for many years. Once an immigrant arrived in the United States it was perfectly legal, even after 1885, for employer representatives to contract with him, as Balch notes, to be "drafted off to different places according as hands were needed in mine, coke oven, rolling mill, lumber camp, or, less typically, factory" (1910: 243).

South Slav immigrant workers concentrated most heavily in the industrial areas of Pennsylvania and the midwest; like other immigrants, they were used in great numbers in coal and metal mines in what was referred to as "a constant war of races" between the new arrivals and 81 those they followed (and often displaced during strikes). The railroad magnate Jay Gould had once boasted before a strike: "I can hire one half the working class to kill the other half." Sadly, the story of immigra­ tion around the turn of the century was, for many South Slavs, a story of being pulled unwittingly into just such a scheme.

The tide of immigration was drastically slowed first because of

World War I, then by American legislation in the 1920's designed to restrict further immigration from southern and eastern Europe. This was the start of the quota system that specified a maximum percentage permitted entry to the United States from each country. The New Quota

Act of 1924 set the percentage at 2 per cent of the number of immigrants from each country already in the United States in 1910. That, of course, substantially limited the number of South Slavs permitted to immigrate, since they had only begun to come in sizeable numbers after 1890.

National origin as a principle for immigrant admission to the United

States was retained in the 1952 McCarran-Walter Immigration and

Nationality Act, then eliminated in the 1965 Immigration Act. In the

1965 Act priorities were set for, first, reuniting families that had been split due to immigration (especially unmarried sons and daughters and spouses) and second, professional qualifications and labor needs in the American economic system at the time of immigration (Keely 1974:

587-8).

Between World Wars I and II the immigration quotas naturally had limited the numbers of Yugoslavs emigrating to the United States, but an additional factor operating on the even balance between those coming and those going was the return of a sizeable number of immigrants

(19,000) to Yugoslavia under the impact of the Depression. In some 82

Instances, where family farm plots and houses were available in the old

country, the decision to return was a matter of fundamental survival.

The Depression had not yet fully ended when World War II broke out,

ending the possibility of emigrating, and it was not until well after the war that Yugoslav immigration to the United States began again in significant numbers. From 1956-1968, 99,152 Yugoslav-born arrived in the

United States; of this figure about 16,000 were German ethnics. Of the

83,000 non-German Yugoslavs, 65,771 were displaced persons or refugees.

Most of these individuals and families were recorded as nonguota-

immigrants. The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and the Refugee Act of

1953 accounted for more than 50 per cent of the displaced persons and

refugees coming from Yugoslavia.

"The displaced persons were mainly Yugoslav prisoners of war in

Germany who chose not to go back to Yugoslavia because of the change in the Yugoslav political system" (Colakovic 1973; 70). In large part they were Serbs who had been taken prisoner en masse in the April, 1941, Nazi takeover of Yugoslavia. These Serbian officers and soldiers had been

imprisoned in German and Italian war camps for the remaining four years of the war. Upon their release, those who requested passage to the

United States often waited several more years before being resettled.

Through the 1950* s, and even into the 1960*s, former prisoners of Wcu: and their families remaining in Yugoslavia contributed a major percentage of the total group of Yugoslav-born emigrating to the united States.

At the outbreak of the war Yugoslavia had been a constitutional monarchy under a Serbian king; by 1945, with the Germans in retreat, the country Ccune under the control of Coimnunists led by Marshal Jos ip Broz

Tito. Throughout the war many opposing factions within Yugoslavia 83

Struggled on the one hand, for the liberation of the state from the

Nazis, and on the other, for control of the post-war government. A civil war raged in the midst of campaigns against the Italians and Germans.

Political and military events within Yugoslavia during the war and after­ ward very heavily influenced the decisions of many people to leave

(or not to return)to Yugoslavia.

According to Prpic, 45,000 Croats emigrated to the United States after the war. Of these approximately 5,000 came after the Displaced

Persons Act between 1948 and 1953, and 8,000 after the 1953 Refugee

Relief Act. Between 1954 and 1956 an additional 5,000 immigrated, and between 1956 and 1966, 25,000 more (1971; 406, 439). "In character this new Croatian immigration is different from all previous groups; it is partly economic, but considerably more so a political immigration"

(Prpic 1971: 406).

In the 1960's, when Yugoslav emigration laws were relaxed, the reasons for emigrating shifted, again, to those primarily with economic roots, although some people continued to leave for political reasons.

Many emigrants also pointed out that the economic and political reasons were inextricably intertwined. Even with the major economic recovery of the Yugoslav system after the war, unemployment, uncertain job security, inflation, a severe housing shortage, a short supply of land for the number of people dependent on it, a generally low rate of return on agricultural labor, and a growing awareness of the differences in income levels between Yugoslavia and western Europe and the United States pro­ vided reasons for the high rate of immigration from Yugoslavia

(Bau^ic 1974: 254-257). 84

This ndgratory wave has been primarily directed toward European countries, and most especially West Germany, Switzerland, France, Austria, and Sweden. In West Germany and Austria today, a million Yugoslav workers build Volkswagens and Mercedes-Benzes, computers and television sets, and generally provide much of the fundamental labor needs of the two coun­ tries. Australia and North and South America have received lesser numbers. According to Bau^ié's research on Yugoslav émigration, the number of Yugoslav workers in the United States in 1973 was only 36,000, or 3.6 per cent of the total number of Yugoslav emigrants. He points out the decided difference between the Yugoslav workers employed in

European countries who, more often than not, are there under a temporary workers exchange arrangement, and those going to America or Australia who are much more likely to stay permanently (1974: 260). The figure of

36,000 includes only those Yugoslavs in the United States considered to be "temporarily employed abroad" by the Yugoslavs; therefore, it does not begin to include everyone in the United States who had emigrated from

Yugoslavia since the war. (The 1970 U.S. Bureau of the Census lists a figure of 153,745 foreign-born Yugoslavs throughout the entire United

States.)

In light of the previous resume of the reasons Yugoslavs have emigrated, it is interesting to examine in greater detail the specific reasons given by the 56 Ethnic Identity Interview participants. As an aid to this discussion Table 5 is a cross-tabulation of the following information for each of the 56 interviewees: the period of emigration, the generation of the interviewee, and the reason for leaving.

According to Table 5, the third generation interviewees were all descendants of the pre-World War I emigration and the first generation 85

TABLE 5

INTERVIEWEES* REASONS FOR EMIGRATING BY PERIOD AND GENERATION

(This table sunuurizes the reasons given for emigration by 56 interviewees. In instances among second generation interviewees where the interviewee emigrated as a child, the family's reason for emigrating is indicated and the parenthetical notation (ch) indicates that the interviewee was a child at the time of emigration.)

P e r io d First Generation Second Generation Third Generation

Avoid draft Avoid draft k Economic Economic § Economic Economic Economic s Economic Economic Economic I Economic o in War (ch) m ffi Political (ex-POW) Political (ch) Political (ex-POW) Political (ch) Political (refugee) Political (ch) in o Political (refugee) Political (ch) O' Political (refugee) Political (refugee) Educational

Political (ex-POW) Political (ch) Political (ex-POW) Married to American (ch) m Political (refugee) inffl mO' Political (refugee) Political Married to American

Political Political (ch) lO o in ID Religious freedom Economic (ch) O' O' Educational Economic (ch)

Political Political Economic ii in iO \0 Economic m 0k Educational Married to American Harried to American

Political Political Political Economic to o Economic to r- O' O' Economic Economic Married to American Curiosity/housing

Political Fig Economic O' O' Harried to American 86

persons were part of the post-World War II ndgration. The second generation individuals range from pre-World War I through 1956-1960 immigrant families.

Reasons for emigration fall into the following time segments.

Before 1940, economic circumstances and avoidance of the draft were the only two reasons suggested. "Economic" was sometimes stated as just

"economic," sometimes as "for economic opportunity," and once as "because of the economic boom in the United States." Former prisoners of war and refugees and their families coming for political reasons were pre­ dominant in the immediate post-World War II period. In some instances these individuals had been held in prisoner of war camps in Italy and

Germany for years and, in other cases, they were refugees who had escaped political conditions within Yugoslavia. And in still other examples, they came with the hope of establishing a "government in exile" in the l&iited States that would gather support from the Americans in replacing the Communist government of Marshal Tito. As part of this general political emigration between 1946-1960, six second-generation individuals Ccune as children with their families who, in turn, had political reasons for leaving.

The recurrence of emigrating for internal political reasons pre­ vailed through the period of 1951-1960, but during the latter 1950's a slight shift to the economic and educational reasons occurred. From

1961-1965 a mixture of reasons— economic, political, educational, and marriages between Americans and Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes— developed that shifted even more so toward economic and educational factors in the late 1960's and the 1970's. Yet, even in the 1970's, political emigration continued. While all interviewees readily distinguished between economic 87 and political causes for emigrating, there was also a realization that economic emigration in the 1960's and 1970's arises, in part, because of the difficulties in working within the Yugoslav Communist system.

This holds especially for those individuals who were part of the middle class between the wars (although not exclusively so).

Geographical Roots of the Study Group

The geographical spread euid urban-town-rural distinctions in the

Yugoslav background of interviewees reveal some generational differences within the study group. The place of origin of each interviewee's family is indicated on Map 4. Those locations have been further sub­ divided in Appendix D by republic, city, town, village, or region; and rural-town-urban distinction. Because not all 56 Ethnic Identity

Interview participants ceune from the particular republic within which their ethnic group predominates, there is no direct relationship between the total numbers for each republic and the total number of inter­ viewees within each ethnic category.

Drawing from the data listed in Appendix D, the following matrix matches the rural-town-urban backgrounds with the generation of inter­ viewees :

Urban Town Rural Totals

First generation 21 5 9 35 Second generation 5 3 10 18 Third generation _0 0 3 3 TOTALS 26 8 22 56

Because the selection of the study group was weighted more toward the post-World War II first-generation immigrants, certain demographic characteristics stëtnd out as being different from those described earlier for the pre-1918 immigration period. First, over one half of the 88

/ y P

8 S ! 89 first-generation post-Morld War II interviewees came from urban areas, while none of the third generation and only one third of the second

(mostly children of post-war immigrants) had urban origins in Yugoslavia.

All third-generation families and over half of the second generation came from villages. While individuals of the first generation continued to represent rural areas, more commonly their places of origin were towns and cities. This data agrees with the observations of interviewees that the post-World War II immigration has consisted in great part of individuals leaving urban areas of Yugoslavia for urban areas of the

United States. The increasingly urban character of immigrants from

Yugoslavia also reflects its rapid urban growth after World War II.

Additionally, the immediate post-war immigration, especially, consisted primarily of well-educated, middle-class families and individuals who had been active in government, the military, education, and other pro­ fessions instead of coming from a peasant farming rural tradition.

Washington, in particular, was the recipient of a goodly number of individuals coming with such a social and economic background.

Map 4 and Appendix D also draw attention to the fact that a sizeable part of the study group originated in Serbia, especially the capital city of Belgrade. While other republics represented— Croatia,

Slovenia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, and Montenegro and the autonomous province of Vojvodina— were mixed in terms of the rural-town-urban distinction, Serbia was represented primarily by individuals coming from an urban background (17 of 20). This is clearly indicative of the character of the post-World War II Serbian immigration to Washington.

No one in the third generation came from family members whose origin was in Serbia proper cuid only one of the second generation originated in 90 rural Serbia. Of the second and third generation Serbs, four came from the Croatian areas of Lika cuid Kordun, often mentioned as the primary sources of Serbistn emigration early in the century.

Slovenes in the sample also break into an early-century-rural and a post-war-urban constituency. All Slovenian individuals of the second and third generations are from villages while five out of the seven post-war immigrants are fr

War II first-generation immigrants and only three out of the first- generation Croats came from villages. Among the nine post-war first- generation Croats, there was an equal division of 3 rural, 3 town, and

3 urban. The five second generation individuals clustered around the

"town" category with 1 rural, 3 town, and 1 urban.

Every interviewee but two out of the twenty from Serbia were

Serbs, as were the two from Vojvodina. All twelve from Slovenia were

Slovenes. Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia were ethnically mixed in the study group. One person from Bosnia-Hercegovina was Serbian and the other, Croatian. Out of the nineteen from Croatia, four were Serbs,

1 was Serbian and Croatian, and the other 13 were Croats. As this information indicates, not all interviewees come from the republic where their ethnic group predominates.

From an almost clear-cut pre/post World War II distinction among both Serbs and Slovenes in terms of rural/urban distribution, to the less distinct case of the Croats, we can conclude that as far as the interviewees are concerned, they conform to the descriptions in the literature which characterize the pre-World War I migration from

Yugoslavia as composed primarily of peasant farmers from rural areas 91

and the post-World War II imndgration as leaning more toward urban

immigrants. In Washington this trend appears even more accentuated.

If we go back a generation in time before the first family member

emigrated, the urban-rural balance tilts more toward the rural sector.

At least eight out of the 26 first-generation urban and town inter­

viewees' parents grew up in rural areas.

Settlements of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in America

Writing shortly after the Second World War, Eoucek (1949) describes

the settlement of the South Slavs in the United States— where they had gone and what kind of work they had done. In order to contrast the post-World War II immigrants with those of the early years of this century, we should begin back in the nineteenth century with the Slo­ venian missionaries, of whom four became bishops. They followed in the

tradition of Bishop Baraga, who missionized to the Indians of the Great

Lakes region in the mid-1800's (he also wrote a grammar and dictionary of the Chippewa Indian language, translated sections of the Bible into

Chippewa and wrote a prayer book in the Ottowa Indian tongue) (Roucek

1949: 138) .

When Slovenes began arriving in large numbers in the United States, they, more than any of the South Slavs, set out for rural areas where homesteads were still available. With farming as their goal, they settled in Michigan, Minnesota, and along the west coast. Michigan etnd

Minnesota still carry the Slovenian tradition in towns with Slovenian names and through the continued presence of sizeable communities of

Slovenes. When land became more scarce, Slovene immigrants headed for the copper and iron ranges of Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and 92

Utah. Leadville, Colorado, Is the home of the first Slovenian church in

America— St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Church. "Thousands of others swarmed into the mines and industries of the Ohio Valley, founding important settlements like that in Cleveland, 'the metropolis of American

Slovenes'" (Govorchin 1961: 76).

Dalmatian immigrants had also begun to leave the Balkans earlier than the most eastern South Slavs. New Orleans was one of their chief early settlements. In a 1963 sociological study of "Oysterville," a parish south of New Orleans located in the Plaquemines bayou area in

Louisiana, Frank Lovrich notes that very early in the nineteenth century, probably around 1820, Dalmatian seamen were on ships docking in

New Orleans. Those who stayed worked along the waterfront in New Orleans and on barges and established several boarding houses in their own neighborhood. In the Plaquemines area they found oysters native to the region. Dalmatians had harvested oysters at home in the Adriatic salt beds. They soon took control of the oystering industry in Louisiana, and by the 1890's and early 1900's great numbers of Dalmatian Croats were attracted to the New Orleans area and came to try their luck at oystering.

The roles of Dalmatian organizations in Louisiana indicate that there are about 55,000 Yugoslavs in the state with 15,000 in New Orleans and the rest in the area of Oysterville(Lovrich 1963: 59). New Orleans remained the chief settlement of Yugoslavs in the United States until the mid- nineteenth century (Roucek 1949: 139).

A second major settlement area for Dalmatians was California and, especially, the Los Angeles fishing community of San Pedro, where several studies of Dalmatian settlers have been conducted. Many joined the gold rush in the mid-nineteenth century, discovering the California climate 93 and economic opportunities that met the eaq^ectations of Dalmatians more than any other region of the United States.

...it was along the Pacific Coast, from the Columbia River in the north to San Pedro in the south, where they attained their greatest success, for it was here that they truly revolutionized commercial fishing and the fishing industry in general. In view of the fact that San Pedro, in addition to its excellent seaport, was characterized by a pleasant, mild climate and a hilly terrain very similar to that found in various parts of Dalmatia, it was only natural that the majority of Dalmatians coming to the Pacific Coast settled in the southern Californian community and established there one of their most prosperous settlements in the United States [Albin and Alexander 1972; 15].

Heavy settlement of Yugoslavs in San Pedro occurred between 1921-1940, some who came by way of other parts of the Pacific Coast and others, directly from Yugoslavia (Albin and Alexander 1972: 17).

Croatians from the interior tended to settle in regions where mines and factories were concentrated. Their largest colonies were in

Pittsburgh and nearby Allegheny County, New York City, Detroit, Cleve­ land, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Kansas City.

The earliest of these settlements was Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, where they began arriving in 1882. The steel mills provided employment.

For non-Dalmatian Croats, Pittsburgh remains today the major home base of Croats and the center of many of their ethnic organizations, including the Croatian Fraternal Union of America (Govorchin 1961: 76-78).

Serbs also settled in great numbers in industrial centers, including Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, and Gary. Detroit attracted

South Slavs at the beginning of World War I when automobile manufacturing was on the increase, drawing considerable numbers of Slovenes, Serbs, and Croats. The greatest concentration of Serbs in the United States was in Chicago. Serbs from Lika located there in the early part of the 94 century, and it has remained a major settlement area for Serbs as well as for Montenegrins (Govorchin 1961: 77-79).

Outside of the farming areas of the Great Lakes Region where

Slovenes homesteaded; the coastal and port regions of the west and the

Louisiana Bay where Dalmatians settled; the copper and iron mining regions of Colorado, Montana, Minnesota, and Utah where Slovenes developed their communities; the interior valley of California fruit and vine growing sections where Dalmatians also located; and the industrialized urban areas of Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, Detroit, and

Duluth, among others, where Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes settled, one other region stands out as having large concentrations of pre-World War II

South Slavic people : the coal mining areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Illinois. At the time Govorchin did his research (1950*s) almost three-fourths of the total South Slavic immigrant group was employed by the metal and coal mining industries (1961: 88). Those numbers were radically reduced beginning in the early 1950*s and extending throughout the 1960's when mechanization of the mines cut off a major source of employment, and oil increasingly displaced coal as the primary energy source of American life. Between 1940 and 1965, total employment in the industry dropped from 439,000 to 134,000 (UMNA Research Department).

The industry has recovered in recent years, but no longer constitutes a magnet for immigreufit labor; however, the telephone directories of countless mining communities still provide a panoply of South Slav surnames.

The decline in the coal industry resulted in many instances of children and grandchildren of immigrant miners moving on from mining towns to other parts of the country where work opportunities were 95

greater. Some went to Detroit to work in automobile plants. Others

stayed in school and ended up in Wiite collar occupations. Among the

56 interviewees, three came from coal mining families who had settled

in southeastern Pennsylvania.

Along with other European ethnic groups, the South Slavs played

an important role in the development of the United Mine Workers of

America— and the UMWA in turn succeeded in breêücing the vicious cycle

in which immigrants were first used as strikebreakers and then ostracized

by the strikers.

Victor Greene, in his 1968 social history Slaoio Community on

Strike, points out that "the thesis that waves of Slavic entrants killed

unions...still has never been countered" and that an image persists of

"hordes of docile, ignorant Slavs and Italians, being led dumbly into

[the mines] by crafty operators to break strikes" (60). Happily, when

UMWA president John Mitchell led the first great organizing drive in the

anthracite coalfields in 1900, he insisted that his orgamizers treat all

miners alike, regardless of the country they came from or the language

they spoke. This was in sharp contrast to the general contemporary practice among unions of turning away anyone not native-born or able to

speak English with some fluency. The immigrants rewarded Mitchell with an

unswerving loyalty that led to the defeat of the coal operators in a

succession of bitter strikes. Rie involvement of immigrant miners in

UMWA affairs was institutionalized with the unique practice of publishing

the UMWA Journal in forei^. lemgiuiges, a practice continued until 1933.

Across the coalfields today— particularly in Pennsylvania— local meetings

are still held in Croatian Halls, Serbian Halls, and Slovenian Halls,

and some UMWA officials still learn at least a smattering of Serbian, 96

Croatian, and Slovenian as a matter of political wisdom.

Post-World War II Influx of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes

Generally, the pre-World War II population of South Slavs in the

United States was composed of people coming from peasant background in the old country. They had little education when they arrived in the

United States, and they followed mainly industrial and mining trades, together with some agricultural and maritime pursuits. They shared these characteristics with other immigrants of the same period.

The educational and economic character of Yugoslav immigrants to the United States after the Second World War has been radically different.

They are not illiterate and unskilled peasants and laborers, but a very select group, highly intelligent and well-trained, predominantly professional and semi-professional people, farmers and farm managers, proprietors, clerical and sales workers, operatives, craftsmen, foremen, and managers [Govorchin 1961: 61].

There are two main reasons for the shift. First, the displaced persons and their families who came after the end of the war tended to come from the more educated and professional strata of Yugoslav society.

This was especially true in the case of the Serbian officers who decided to come to the United States instead of returning to a Communist

Yugoslavia. The second reason has to do with chemges in the Yugoslav educational system. Since Yugoslav independence, educational provisions have e;q>anded considerably and education through eight years has become commonplace throughout Yugoslavia. It could be argued that in the three decades since the last war, Yugoslavia has reformed its educational system to the extent that it is now an over-educated society, in terms of the limited ability of the econony to absorb a growing number of managers, technicians, professional and semi-professional men and women. 97

Thus, in the 1960*s and 1970's, the surplus has been diverted to other parts of the world, primarily to western Europe, where thousands go every year as contract workers, but also to the United States, Those

Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes now coming to the United States under the

1965 Immigration Act tend to be highly educated or trained. That does not mean that none enter blue collar work; in cities such as Detroit,

Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and New York they do so in great numbers, often as a temporary step toward other occupations. They are also inclined to settle in places where ethnic group colonies already exist, and few of them are drawn to non-urban regions.

Overall, the internal post-war flow of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes already living in the United States toward metropolitan areas, in combination with the influx of new immigrants headed for the cities, gives their entire present-day populations a strongly urban cast.

By 1960, first-generation Serbs and Croats outnumbered first- generation Slovenes in the United States; Serbs and Croats together constituted 73 per cent of the total reflecting the concentration of these ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. While first-generation Serbs remained third in numerical rank among the three groups until World War II, the influx of Serbs after the war placed them second after the Croats.

One reason given by Colakovic for this development was that relatively few Slovenes came as displaced persons and refugees because direct involvement in the political issues of the last war tended to be slighter among Slovenes than among Serbs and Croats. In 1960 the highest per­ centage of first-generation Serbo-Croatian mother tongue speakers lived in Pennsylvania (14 per cent), Ohio (13 per cent), Illinois (15 per cent),

California (12 per cent), and Michigan (7 per cent), while 30 per cent of 98 the first-generation Slovenian mother tongue speakers resided in Ohio,

11 per cent in Pennsylvania, 11 per cent in Illinois, 9 per cent in

California, and 7 per cent in Wisconsin (Colakovic 1973: 79-90).

The 1970 census provides both mother tongue and place of birth information that clarifies the question of how many "Yugoslavs" reside in the United States and their subdivision into generations. In citations from census data, the term "Yugoslavs" refers to those individuals reported by the census as having either a Yugoslav national origin or being Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian mother tongue speakers.

Self-ascription by nativity and/or mother tongue, in certain census data, is included for foreign born (first generation); foreign parentage or mixed parentage (second generation); and native of native parentage

(third and beyond generations). The 1970 Bureau of the Census Subject

Report: National Origin and Language provides three generations and beyond figures for the United States according to national origin and mother tongue characteristics. In this report, mother tongue is recorded not only for Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, but also for

"Dalmatian" which most likely corresponds to the dakavaki Croatian.

The 1970 figure for the total number of Yugoslavs in the United

States according to nativity and parentage is 790,153; according to mother tongue (including Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, and Dalmatian), that sum is 331,578 for three generations and beyond. The following is a listing of the generational subdivisions of Yugoslav bo m and nativity for the entire United States: 99

First generation 162,564 (20.6% of total) Second generation 294,214 (37.2% of total) Foreign parentage 208,121 (70.7% of second generation) Mixed parentage 86,013 (29.3% of second generation) Third and beyond generation 333,375 (42.2% of total) TOTAL 790,153 (100%)

While the largest percentage of the total Yugoslav born and parentage falls within the third generation (42.2%), the highest per­ centage of mother tongue speakers for Serbo-Croatiein, Slovenian, and

Dalmatian combined falls within the second generation (57.6%). Mother tongue speakers for the United States are divided according to language and generation in the following outline:

Serbo-Croatian: First generation 83,064 (34.8% of total) Second generation 132,296 (55.2% of total) Foreign parentage 109,262 (82.6% of second generation) Mixed parentage 23,034 (17.4% of second generation) Third and beyond generations 24,095 (10% of total) TOTAL 239,455 (72.2% of three languages)

Slovenian : First generation 19,178 (23,4% of total) Second generation 54,103 (65.7% of total) Foreign parentage 47,552 (87.9% of second generation) Mixed parentage 6,551 (12.1% of second generation) Third and beyond generations 9,040 (10.9% of total) TOTAL 82,321 (24.8% of three languages)

Dalmatian; First generation 2,016 (20.6% of total) Second generation 4,748 (48.4% of total) Foreign parentage 3,201 (67.4% of second generation) Mixed parentage 1,547 (32.6% of second generation) Third and beyond generations 3,038 (31.0% of total) TOTAL 9,802 (3% of three languages)

Within each generation, a decided drop in numbers occurs between nativity and mother tongue figures. The difference between nationality and mother tongue-based figures is indicated in the following breakdown: 100

Yugoslav Mother NativityTongue Difference Decline

First generation 162,564 104,258 58,306 35.9% Second generation 294,214 191,147 103,067 35.1% Third and beyond generations 333,375 36,173 297,202 89.1%

While the difference between nativity and mother tongue figures is discussed more fully later in the study, some explanation can be given now for the 35.9 per cent disparity between the first generation nativity and mother tongue calculations. The 35.9 per cent non-Serbo-Croatian, non-Slovenian, and non-Dalmaticin mother tongue speakers among Yugoslav- born persons may represent those individuals who grew up in families where minority languages— including German, Italian, Hungarian— and where

Macedonian were spoken. In the case of Washington, there is a 39 per cent difference between Yugoslav-bom figures and those for Serbo-

Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue speakers in the first generation.

Available census data identifies those other languages accounting for that disparity. German, Hungarian, and Russian are tdie main ones in the

Washington Yugoslav-born population.

While the drop in the second generation may be due, in part, tx> minority language speakers, as in the first, and in part, to mother tongue attritzLon, the very high decline in the third and beyond generations (89.1%) is primarily attributable to language loss in the

United States.

In sum, more than three-quarters of a million people in the United

States attribute part or all of their national origin to Yugoslavia and a third of a million grew up in homes where the primary language was either Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian. CHAPTER III

SERBS, CROATS, AND SLOVENES IN WASHINGTON, D. C.

History of Their Migration to Washington

Rightly or otherwise, residents of Washington in the 1970*s think of themselves as part of a teeming international population living in a city with a global outlook. The steadily deepening and irreversible involvement of the United States in world affairs during the three decades since the end of World War II has brought a degree of inter­ national cosmopolitanism to the city. That this is a relatively new phenomenon can be attested to not only by those with long memories but by census data as well. In the case of both Yugoslav immigrants and

American-born Serbs, Croats, amd Slovenes, interviewee accounts and census data corroborate the fact that settlement in Washington has primarily taken place since World War II. As late as 1940, the District of Columbia was home to only 40 first-generation Serbo-Croatian speakers, and the number of people speaking Slovenian was too small for the Census

Bureau to calculate.

For this study, information about ethnic group members living in

Washington during the pre-war period was collected primarily from four sources. Interviews were conducted with two individuals: Mrs. Aspazija

Adjemovitch, widow of Branko Adjemovitch, who served as secretary to Ante

Tresic-Pavicië, minister of the Legation of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington during the 1920*s, and‘ later as charge d'affaires for a short time in the absence of a minister; and Bo%idar Stoianovitch, also a

101 102

secretary to Tresic-PaviSic (in 1926) and later a charge d'affaires in the legation before leaving Washington in 1934 to serve as general consul for the Yugoslav consulate in New York.

Mission for Serbia: Letters from America and Canada 1916-1920 provided a third source for this period. In this book, belatedly published in 1970, Helen Losanitch Frothingham chronicled her experiences in North America as a delegate of the Serbian Red Cross raising funds and drumming up support for her country during World War I. In dozens of communities across the United States, she encountered enthusiastic

Serbs. They were notably sparse in Washington, however; her accounts of meetings with government officials and diplomats in Washington on several occasions suggest an almost total absence of other countrymen in both Washington and Baltimore.

After World War I— when the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes was established— a legation was opened at 1520 16th Street,

N.W., to serve the diplomatic needs of the new nation (according to

Mrs. Adjemovitch, embassy status was gremted in those days only to nations whose population numbered 20 million or more, a requirement which the new Kingdom did not meet). During that time, virtually all legations and embassies were located along 16th Street and New Hampshire

Avenue; their ministers, ambassadors, secretaries, and other staff members lived in homes nearby or in the Jefferson or the Roosevelt hotels where the elegance of those days has long since disappeared behind successive coats of fading paint. Many of the legations and embassies have been demolished to make way for bigger buildings, and Washington's sprawling slums have crowded in on the whole area.

Ante Tresic-Pavi^ic— the man whom Mrs. Adjemovitch's husband 103 served as secretary— came to Washington early in the 1920's to represent the Kingdom as minister. He had earlier served in Madrid. B o m in 1867 in Dalmatia, on the island of Hvar, Tresic-Pavicié was highly respected as a scholar, writer, and statesman by Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes alike. He remained in Washington until 1927, when he requested and was granted permission to return home. The office of minister was left vacant until the appointment of Konstsmtin Fotic. In the interim, several persons— including Branko Adjemovitch and, later, Bozidar

Stoianovitch— served as charge d'affaires.

Mrs. Adjemovitch and her husband arrived in Washington in 1925 and left in 1928 to return to Belgrade (they returned to Washington in the

1950's). Her copy of the 1928 Diplomatic List of the Department of

State refers to the following members of the Legation of the Serbs,

Croats, and Slovenes: Branko Adjemovitch, secretary of the Legation and charge d'affaires ad interim; Bo&idar Stoianovitch; Krunoslav Meneglello-

Dintchitch, secretary of the Legation, absent; and Voislav Antonievitch.

Meneglello-Dintchitch was a Dalmatian Croat (as his half-Italian name suggests); the others were Serbs.

Mrs. Adjemovitch and other interviewees recall that the Legation had an unsettled, perhaps even transitory, atmosphere— possibly traceable to the unsettled nature of the new Kingdom at home, and possi­ bly to the fact that Washington in those days was less inportant than other capitals closer to home (particularly London, Paris, and Berlin) and thus given less close attention from the standpoint of staffing.

In any event, the Kingdom and the new Yugoslavia which succeeded it saw fit to assign only two ministers— Tresic-Pavi^ic and Fotic— during the

26 years between 1918 and 1944, and the legation was without a formal 104

minister for years at a time.

By the time that Stoianovich became charge d'affaires in the late

1920*8, the legation staff had nevertheless increased both in size and

in diversity. He recalls two Montenegrins (Du^an Sekulic and Nikola

Pera^ic, both secretaries), a Croat from Zagreb (Ivan Frange^, a

counselor), and a Dalmatian from Split (a press secretary named Berislav

Andjelinovich). Stoianovich remembers very few Yugoslavs living in

Washington while he served at the legation; there were more in Balt­

imore, although they too were sparse by comparison with some of the

great manufacturing and mining areas further west in Pennsylvania

and elsewhere. (The port of Baltimore, like other ports on the East

Coast, served as a first stopping point for immigrants from southern

and eastern Europe, a function not shared by diplomatic Washington.)

Mladineo's survey of South Slavic settlements in the United

States, the fourth source for this section, was conducted early in the

1930's and published in 1937. He notes that the Royal Yugoslav

Legation was the principal Yugoslav institution in Washington at the

time. By then, Konstantin Fotic had been appointed minister. Sekulic

and Pera6ic served under him as secretaries, along with a Serb, Rastko

Petrovic. Other interviewees in this study noted that a Croat, Ante

Pavelic-Smith (vho added his wife's maiden surname to avoid confusion with Ante Pavelic, leader of the German-backed Independent State of

Croatia during World War II), also served as secretary, as did another

Croat, Ivan Franges, and Vladimir Ribralf, a Slovene.

Looking for businessmen, members of the clergy, and other

individuals of South Slavic ancestry working in Washington, Mladineo 105 found few. He found Ivan Mikalaski managing a bakery at the Benning

Hotel in Southeast Washington (see Map 5 for the geographical areas of

Washington). He found Joseph Berdans, who was operating a barber shop on

4th Street, S.E., but Mladineo neglected to identify Berdans' ancestry; the name appears to have been Anglicized or at least altered from the original, perhaps by an immigration officer exasperated with impossible

Slavic names. Mladineo found John's Yugoslav Cafe on Good Hope Hoad,

S.E., but recorded nothing cdxsut the identity of John or the nature of his cuisine. A Catholic father. Reverend Ralph Denk, and a friar.

Brother Stephan Stojakovic, were located at the Franciscan Monastery in Northwest .Washington; amd in the catalogue department of the Library of Congress Mladineo found Slavko Ceric. And that was all.

In 1942, the status of the Royal diplomatic delegation in Wash­ ington was upgraded from legation to embassy, with the minister,

Konstantin Fotic, becoming the first ambassador. This was wartime, and the upheaval within the Yugoslav political structure at home would be felt in Washington as well.

At the outset of the war, the Allies— England and the United States primary among them— continued to recognize the Royal Government of

Yugoslavia, headed by young King Peter, who had fled Yugoslavia in 1941 after the German invasion. A government-in-exile was established in

Cairo and London with King Peter as its head. In Yugoslavia, the

Serbian military commander. General Dra^a Mihailovié, vdio had been an officer in the Royal A m y before the invasion, was seen by the Allies as the principal source of resistance against the German and Italian invaders and was looked upon by the govemment-in-exile as its hope for retaining control of the country after the eventual defeat of the Axis. 106 107

Royalists staffed the embassies in London and Washington.

But the military situation within Yugoslavia changed as the war dragged on. The Communist Partisans, led by Marshal Tito (né Josip

Broz, born of a Croatian father and a Slovenian mother), increasingly gained power and influence and were increasingly seen first by British and later by American intelligence officers as more effective than

Mihailovic. Public opinion, influenced by well-reported instances of

Partisan combat daring, swung behind Tito; in diplomatic circles, the bargaining power of King Peter slowly evaporated.

In June 1944, Tito and Ivan Subaéic, prime minister of the

Royalist government-in-exile, signed an agreement recognizing the de facto rule of Tito's National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia

(KNOJ) within Yugoslavia. The agreement effectively eliminated the possibility of restoring a Royalist system to Yugoslavia in the post­ war years. After ^uba^ié was appointed the new Yugoslav prime minister according to the terms of the agreement, Fotic stepped down as ambassador to the United States, refusing to recognize the new Yugoslav government

"because it was not representative of the people and interests of

Yugoslavia" (Roberts 1973: 237). (Fotic remained in Washington as a private citizen until his death in 1959. A memorial service in his honor at the American University Chapel in 1960 provided the setting for the initial organizational plans for the first Serbian Orthodox Church in

Washington.)

Between 1944 and 1945, Ivan Frange)^, the charge d'affaires in

Washington, witnessed a major shift at the embassy as the government of

Yugoslavia changed hands. The agreement between Tito and ^uba^ic constituted the first official recognition of the strength of the 108

Partisans and provided Tito with the necessary leverage to consolidate control. The Royalists hoped for a coalition and "clearly interpreted the Tito-âuba^ic agreement as a pledge to share power. Tito, however, saw their meaning and their purpose as the incorporating of pre-war political forces into the work of executing the AVNOJ (Antifascist

Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia) program for the reorganization and reconstruction of the country (McClellan 1969: 124).

By October 1944, when Partisan and Russian forces liberated Bel­ grade from the Germans, Tito was effectively in command, receiving reinforcement both militarily and politically from the Soviet Union,

England, and the United States. In January 1945, King Peter rejected the Tito-Suba^ic agreement; in February, at Yalta, the Allies endorsed it; in March, with the Germans only a few weeks away from surrender and the Partisans in control of most of Yugoslavia, Tito formally established a new government with himself as Prime Minister. The Royal Yugoslav

Government fell, and the newly formed government— with 25 out of 28 of its ministers affiliated with the Partisans— took over. The State

Department was then formally notified of the formation of Tito's govern­ ment, and, as the diplomatic positions in Washington changed hands, prepared to open cui American embassy in Belgrade (Roberts 1973: 316-

317).

* * *

At the close of the war Washington became home to several Royal

Yugoslav Government politicians , including ex-ambassadors, counse­ lors, and secretaries, who came with their families hoping to find positions in the United States government. Some also arrived with the hope of fostering anti-Communist stands among American officials in 109 respect to policies toward Yugoslavia. Any such aspirations were greatly diminished in 1948 when Tito broke with Stalin and beccune independent of the Soviet bloc.

According to interviewees, the immediate post-war immigration to

Washington ccxisisted mêiinly of men who arrived alone and whose families came later. In the initial wave of immigration after the war between

1946 and the early 1950's, ex-prisoners of war, most Serbs, but not exclusively so, arrived from concentration camps in Italy and Germany.

Most of these persons had been interned in prisoner-of-war camps from

1941-1945, then to be freed by the Allies before entering refugee camps where arrangements were made for them either to return to Yugoslavia or to emigrate to other nations which were accepting refugees. Many of these persons spent more than five years in camps before again settling down with their families. In Washington, as well as throughout other metropolitan areas of the United States, ex-POWs and their families, who ordinarily arrived later from Yugoslavia or other European countries, formed a relatively sizeable group of the post-war Yugoslav immigrants.

A smaller second group was composed of diplomats frcxn the Royal Yugoslav

Government c U i d their families. King Peter and his family remained in

London. Croatian and Slovenian pre-war political leaders also settled in Washington, in relatively small nunibers. Refugees from all three ethnic groups immigrated mainly during the 1950's. Additionally, there was a handful of Yugoslav-bom Washingtonians who before the war had established a small nucleus of Serbian intellectuals.

While many of these individuals were absorbed into government jobs at various agencies and departments, another group of younger men who fought as 'éetniks with Mihailovic also came to the United States; 110

rather than going directly into government service, many entered Ameri­ can business schools and graduate programs in economics, later to become businessmen, bankers, and economists. Most of those individuals started out in New York City, and a few of them eventually ended up in

Washington.

More recently, Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes started coming to

Washington to attend colleges and universities, later to enter government or university positions. Some of the immigrants coming for economic reasons first found work in countries other than the United States until they were able to obtain immigrant visas, making the United States the second or third stop in their migrations. One interesting feature of the more recent economic immigration is the sizeable number of physicians, men and women representing all three ethnic groups, coming to Washington and to the United States at large. Yet, over the later years of the 1960's and the early 1970's, more non-professional workers came from Yugoslavia to Washington, whereas previously the post-war immigrants were typically lawyers, businessmen, doctors, teachers, curtists, ex-military officers, and researchers.

Because Washington is a government city providing m«my professional positions, it attracted certain types of immigrants from Yugoslavia.

The emphasis on government positions in Washington is indicated by class- of-worker census information. According to the 1970 census, 37 per cent of the males and 42.6 per cent of the females of the total Washington native-born population were employed by the government. Additionally,

25.4 per cent of the native-born* males and 20.6 per cent of the females

*Those persons b o m in the United States of parents who were also b o m here. Ill were professional workers, with another 46.6 of those women in clerical positions (Bureau of the Census 1970 Subject Report on National Origin and Language: Table 16).

One interviewee observed that Washington had provided high-status work opportunities for Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes unlike other major

American cities such as Chicago and Cleveland. Government work was attractive to them because of the greater prestige afforded by such positions, in comparison with working in industry and services. In contrast, out of the thousands of ex-POW's and refugees from Yugoslavia who settled in the United States, mcuny were forced to work in factories in Chicago and other industrial metropolitan areas. In Washington, a trend toward connecting links in a social chain of emigres was established once a small core of Serbian ex-military officers found government positions in Washington in the early 1950's. Because they had found suitable work, family, friends, and acquaintances followed later. While previously the immediate post-war emigres came on their own, one-by-one having no ties with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington, the social links between those already living there and incoming ethnic group members became a significant factor in decisions made to settle in

Washington from the 1950's onward.

It is easier to describe the post-World War II influx of Yugoslav- b o m and their families to Washington thcui it is to explain the decided increase in American-bom Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the area. As described by study group participants, the great e;q>anslon of federal government facilities drew many Americans to Washington. It was, in fact, not until after the last war that the federal government became

"big business," as we know it today. Military appointments were a second 112

reason for Axoericcin-bom ethnic group members to move to the area,

since there are several military bases in the vicinity.

The migration of American-bom Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was,

in certciin respects, similar to that of the Yugoslav-bom; they came

mainly one-by-one, family-by-family, did not settle in ethnic neighbor­

hoods, and came primarily to find occupational positions that only this

particular city provided. In time, members of these three ethnic groups

originating from all over the nation converged on Washington; second

and third generation interviewees grew up in cities such as Hew York,

Pittsburgh, Steubenville, Cleveland, Akron, Cincinnati, Gary, Chicago,

and Milwaukee, and the mining areas of Pennsylvania, West Virginia,

and Minnesota. None of the 56 interviewees in this study moved to Wash­

ington before World War II.

Most of the American-bom interviewees came to Washington without

knowing anyone else in the area. Upon settling in the city, the new­

comers seldom brought other family members to live with them since the

immediate family ordinarily had moved as a unit and the extended family

members continued to reside in other parts of the United States.

First generation interviewees and their families, however, followed

a somewhat different settlement pattern in terms of other family members

joining them. Four persons arrived in Washington alone, with other

immediate family members (spouse and children) coming later. Seven ■ .

others, although not arriving totally alone, had other immediate and

extended family members who later on settled either with them or nearby.

Of the total study group, 14 had extended family networks (relatives

other than parents, spouses, siblings, or children) throughout the

Washington area at the time of the interview, and most of those families 113 were made up of post-World War II emigres.

* * *

Various estimates were suggested by interviewees for the total number of individuals in their ethnic groups living in Washington, even

though most were wary of mctking any guesses. One Serb ventured that

there were about 1,000 Yugoslavs in the area, with Serbs constituting

the majority. A Croatian participant suggested that there might be about 50 Croats, but perhaps more since meuiy were not readily identi­ fiable to each other. Another Croat noted that if we were to include

the third generation Croats, most of whom are not known to those of the first generation, the numbers would be much more than 50. Further, an estimate of the number of Croats was complicated by their dispersal into the suburbs and the neglect of a Croatian social and cultural life, which detracted from any sense of a Croatian community, according to the same person. It was additionally suggested that only recently have the newer immigrants from Croatia begun to discover each other and that an embryonic Croatian community was taking form. Thus far, this movement among Croats consisted primarily of first generation individuals and their children, and what little Croatian social activity there was seldom included second or third generation persons.

While the Croats had no organizational base from which a membership tally could be taken, the Slovenes and the Serbs did, making it easier for the interviewees to estimate the numbers in their ethnic groups liv­ ing in the Washington area.

One Slovene suggested that there appeared to be around 100 Slovenian families who were active in Slovenian social and religious activities in the Washington-Baltimore area. Out of those ICO families, a much smaller 114 number carried the responsibility of organizing social affairs.

Monthly Masses at the Slovenian Chapel located at the Natd.onal Shrine regularly attracted 40 to 50 people, and social events would ordinarily bring out twice that many. Altdiough some Yugoslav-bom Slovenes claimed to know very few American-bom Slovenes in Washington, a strong contingent of American-bom were involved in the arrangements of

Slovenian activities. In 1971 tdie Washington chapter of the Slovenian

Women's Union listed 29 women as members, but by 1974 interviewees reported that those numbers were approximately 30 to 40. Its membership was about evenly divided between American and Slovenian-born. The

Bishop Baraga Society branch of the American Slovenian Catholic Union

(KSKJ) had approximately the same number of men as members. According to accounts from interviewees, a large part of the Slovenian people in

Washington was. in their late 30's or older; many of those persons had children, but there were relatively few individuals in their 20’s and early 30's.

OVo Serbian Orthodox churches existed in Washington at the time of the study. Both were named Saint Luke's; in this study, one is designated as the autonony parish and the other as the unity, represent­ ing two factions in a schism in the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church throughout the united States and Canada. Since 1963, vdien the split occurred, the unity Serbian Orthodox Church has maintained its ties with the mother church in Yugoslavia and the Patriarch in Belgrade. In contrast, the autonomy Serbian Orthodox Church has severed those ties and appointed its own diocese bishop, arguing that the Serbian Orthodox

Church in Yugoslavia is Communist-controlled. In i960, when plans for the first Saint Luke's parish originated at the memorial service for 115

Konstantin. Fotic, the schism had not yet erupted openly. By the time of this study, the autonomy church had approximately 120 families and single individuals as active (pledged) members and perhaps 100 others who attended services from time to time but who had not made pledges.

Of the 120 approximately half were families and half were single individuals; about half were b o m in the United States while the rest were immigrants.

The other Saint Luke's parish, which was first planned in 1967, reported a total of 63 families and single individuals as members.

Of the 63, seven lived in the District, 35 in Maryland, and 21 in

Virginia. Those located in the suburbs of Maryland and Virginia were dispersed widely throughout approximately 25 communities.

While conducting the study, I kept a running tally of all Serbian,

Croatian, and Slovenian persons in the Washington area who were mentioned by interviewees or referred to in ethnic publications. More than 250 Serbian families and individuals were noted, with 165 who had scxne affiliations with the autonomy Saint Luke's parish (affiliation determined by pledged membership or contributions to the building fund or memorials). Fifty-nine were affiliated with the unity Saint Luke's, and 29 with neither church. On the basis of observations'and interviewee descriptions it was determined that close to half of the pledged meinbers of the autonomy Saint Luke's were first generation post-World War II emigres while the unity Saint Luke's had approximately one-third who were Yugoslav-bom.

All told, the number of Croats met or heard about numbered 47 individuals and families. Of those, approximately 32 were in the first generation and 15 in the second and third. lie

In the same count, Slovenes numbered about the same as Croats:

46 families and individuals, but there was a greater concentration of second and third generation persons in that total than was the case with the Croats. Of the 46, about 14 were first generation and 32, second and third.

In addition, much smaller numbers of Moslems (of either Croatian or Serbian ethnicity), Russian-Yugoslavs *, and mixed Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian ethnic background persons resided in Washington.

Census Data on Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes

Availability of Data

Using 1970 census information, the researcher has at his disposal two means of estimating the number of South Slavic ethnic group members living in the Washington area: place of birth and mother tongue. A

20 per cent sample was taken by the Census Bureau for respondents' place of birth; 15 per cent for their parents' place of birth; and 15 per cent for mother tongue. The mother tongue question on the census form requested the "language spoken in the home as a child."

The census reports use certain terminology that may be unfamiliar to the reader. "Foreign stock" refers to both foreign-bom persons and native-born individuals who have at least one foreign-bom parent.

"Mixed-parentage" describes those cases in which there is one foreign- b o m parent and one native-born. In familiar terms, "foreign stock" includes first and second generation Americans, i.e., those vdio were b o m in a foreign country and imndgrated and the children of such individuals.

^Russian-Yugoslavs are those individuals who were b o m in Yugoslavia of Russian parents. Most of these persons come from families that left Russia during or after the Russian Revolution and settled primarily in Serbia. 117

In the 1970 census place of birth information was collected for first and second generation Americans whose ancestors originated somewhere within present day Yugoslavia. Those persons who were b o m before Yugoslavia was a political entity or during the World War II period when the politi­ cal status of Yugoslavia was interrupted by the Nazis, would still be noted in the census as being Yugoslav-bom as long as their place of birth was now located within contemporary Yugoslavia.

Mother tongue data, however, was collected not only for the first and second generations, but also for those native-born individuals whose parents were also native-born, making them third generation Ameri­ cans or beyond (theoretically infinite number of generations as long as the mother tongue was retained). Slovenieui and Serbo-Croatian mother tongue data was reported, with each language calculated separately.

Because the question about mother tongue did not specify Slovenian and

Serbo-Croatian as languages that could be selected, but instead left it open for respondents to fill in their own response, considerable lumping together of those languages given must have been done by the census bureau. According to interviewees in the study group, many would not have specified Serbo-Croatian as their mother tongue; instead, they would have replied that their language was either Serbian or Croatiem. Because the mother tongue information was collected for three generations and beyond, it provides an estimate of the number of Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in the Washington area.

In addition to sanpling error, the census data might have excluded some individuals who continue to maintain a Serbian, Croatian, or

Slovenian ethnic identity by other oversights. Since 1918, when the

Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes was formed, sizeable 118 minorities of these ethnic groups continued to live in areas of Italy*,

Austria, and Hungary. In such cases, place of birth data would not be itemized as Yugoslav. The limitations of the mother tongue calculations become very apparent beyond the second generation when there is no place of birth data to compare with mother tongue figures. In the third generation and beyond the chances are very slight that a child will grow up in a household in which the ethnic language is maintained as the primary one, even if it is spoken; thus, many individuals beyond the second generation would not be counted in the mother tongue category even if they should maintain their ethnic identity in other ways.

Despite the sampling and substantive problems just discussed, the totals reached by these tabulations and ny own canvas of Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in the Washington area are quite congruent with one another.

Beginning in 1950, the Census of Population reports cited data not only for cities such as Washington, but also for "Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas" (SMSA). SMSA calculations are especially valuable vAien studying cities such as Washington, where the population spills over into the surrounding suburbs and smaller cities and towns. The

District of Columbia contains only about 35 per cent of the Washington

SMSA population. The following jurisdictions are included: the

District of Columbia; Montgomery, Prince George's, and Charles Counties in Maryland; and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties in Virginia as well as the Virginia cities of Alexandria, Arlington,

*The reality of the minority group dilemma is evidenced in the recent settlement between Italy and Yugoslavia over the status of the city of Trieste and its surrounding countryside. Because both Italians cind South Slavs (mainly Slovenes) reside in those zones, the issue was an especially painful thorn in the sides of both governments and remained unresolved for 30 years after the war. 119

Falls Churdi, and Fairfax City (See Map 5).

Place of birth and mother tongue information was inconsistently reported from one decade to the next by the Census Bureau. Unfortunately very little language data was included in the 1950 census, taken at a key time for Yugoslav migration to the United States and to Washington.

The end of World War II brought many refugees from Yugoslavia who had been held in prisoner-of-war camps in western Europe, and the 1950 census would be the first time that their numbers would have been reflected in cities around the country. It was also in 1950 that the SMSA as a concept was introduced in the census reports ; yet, place of birth data was provided for only the District and not for the SMSA in that census, and no mother tongue data was collected.

Since estimates of the number of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes living in Washington can be obtained either from place of birth or mother tongue census data, the counts derived from these two sources will be discussed separately and then as a unit in order to arrive at an assess­ ment of the size of the populations. As would be eiq)ected, Serbo-

Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue data consistently provided considerably smaller figures than Yugoslav place of birth information.

The discrepancy between nativity and mother tongue totals can be accounted for primarily by language loss over generations in the United States and secondarily, by the fluidi^ of language and national boundaries within the Balkans. The latter factor is evidenced by the number of ethnic Germans, Hungarians, Russians, Italians, etc., who were b o m in

Yugoslavia but whose mother tongue was other than Slovenian and Serbo-

Croatian.

Mother tongue questions were included in 1910 and 1920 for foreign 120 white stock (first and second generations). In 1930 they were asked of only foreign-bom individuals (first generation). For the first time, in 1940, all generations were queried eibout their mother tongue.

As mentioned above, in 1950 no mother tongue questions were posed.

Then in 1960 the Bureau of the Census returned to its 1930 procedure of polling only foreign-bom. Finally, in 1970 the 1940 questions were reinstated, and first, second, and third and beyond generations were requested to give mother tongue details.

Similarly, place of birth questions have varied in their format from decade to decade. In 1920 and 1930 only foreign-bom nativity figures were cited, then only for the District. Beginning in 1940 and continuing through 1970, both first and second generation persons were polled for place of birth.

The 1970 Census of Population Subject Report on National Origin cuid Language is a valuable source of data on Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in the Washington area. Among other things, the Subject Report gives sex and age, years of schooling completed, occupation, class of worker, income in 1969, residence in 1965, and mother tongue information that is cross-tabulated by generation.

For purposes of comparing data from the ethnic identity inter­ view- with census information, the 56 interviewees have been subdivided according to 12 types of information, outlined in Appendix C: SooiaL and

Demographio Charaoteria-biesa of Interviewees.

Place of Birth and Mother Tongue Information

Referring to the three sectors of the Washington SMSA— the

District, Maryland, and Virginia— Table 6 gives figures for the total 121

TABLE 6

POPULATIW CHARACTERISTICS OF WASHINGTON, D.C METROPOLITAN AREA,* 1970

Total Native First Second Third Population born Generation** Generation** Generation**

DC Sector 756,492 722,930 33,562 39,340 683,590

Maryland Sector 1,183,373 1,122,930 60,553 132,179 990,641

Virginia Sector 921,273 883,364 35,873 82,417 802,947

DC SMSA 2,861,012 2,731,114 129,988 253,936 2,477,178

First Second First R Second Percent Percent Generation Generation Generation First Second Yugoslavs Yugoslavs Yugoslavs Generation Generation

DC Sector 177 297 474 37.3 62.7

Maryland Sector 382 1,147 1,529 25.0 75.0

Virginia Sector 200 872 1,072 18.7 81.3

DC SMSA 759 2,316 3,075 24.7 75.3

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of the Population, Social and Economic Characteristics, Table 81.

*Metropolitan Area = Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as defined by Ijhe U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.'s SMSA includes the District of Columbia; Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudomn, and Prince Williams Counties in Virginia; and Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland

**In the tables first generation refers to those persons designated "foreign born" by the Bureau of the Census. Second generation refers to "foreign or mixed parentage" persons. And third generation and beyond refers to "natives of native parentage." 122

population, all native-born persons, the first generation, the second

generation, and the third generation. Secondly, it provides numbers

for first generation Yugoslav-bom, second generation, first and second

generation combined, the per cent of the first generation from the total

Yugoslav foreign stock, and the per cent within the second generation.

From these various figures, we cem see that only 0.1 per cent of the

SMSA population is made up of first and second generation Yugoslav-bom

persons.

For the Washington SMSA the first generation Yugoslav-bom con­

stitute 24.7 per cent of the total Yugoslav foreign stock, and the

second generation, 75.3 per cent. Within the District only,the first

generation constitutes 37.3 per cent; in Maryland it is less, at 25

per cent; and within Virginia, it sinks further to 18.7 per cent. For

Yugoslav foreign stock, Maryland ranks first in the concentration of

combined first and second generation persons with 49.7 per cent of the

SMSA total; Virginia is second with 34.9 per cent; and the District is

third with 15.4 per cent.

Various figures are provided in Table 7 for the number of first

and second generation Yugoslavs living within the District, the metropolitan area, and the suburbs from 1920-1970. Those figures

support the contention of interviewees that very few members of their

ethnic groups lived in Washington before World War IX: 45 first

generation persons lived in the District in 1920. The year 1940 was

the first that second generation individuals were canvassed for this

data, when they were included as part of the foreign stock figures.

In the 1940 census the second generation outnumbered the first 140 to

91. Major increases in Yugoslav-bom persons were noted in the 1950 123

IM Si - O •ri I 01 rtî rt! 't rt! 01 m < < < < ID 10 • • iH • o ui • • • • 00 H • s 1° a z H sa 't Z Z Z Z M m H N in II Q

g u 0) w o

< o rf! < (*i ri! vo n < < < < lO 01 «H • » (N • 00 00 • • • • Ul r-l 01 1o z Z Z H in Z Z Z Z 01 SNO 00 I

u 010) in in H 0 1 ro f' rtî rtS o o o t- ^ m c» 01 cN r» • « ^ 00 m oi o a H M tH Z Z H m m N 01

O O O O O O 0 o o o o o a N m 1* 01 KO M CM n ^ in 10 f* Ot Ol Ol 01 01 01 01 01 Ol 01 01 01 I r4 rH iH H iH iH T-l i H rH i H r H r-l

uoTq.Baaua9 UOT3BJaU90 :^sa-ça p u o o a s tn 124 and 1960 censuses for the District and in the 1960 and 1970 censuses for the entire SMSA. Additionally, a substantial rise in total numbers of second generation persons living in the District was reflected in the 1950 and 1960 censuses, with a slight decline by 1970 even though the first and second generation figures increased substantially throughout the SMSA.

Within the District, the ratio of second generation persons over first was 1.5 to 1 in 1940; in 1950, it increased to 1.9 to 1; by 1960 it had declined to 1.4 to 1; and in 1970, the ratio was up slightly to

1.6 to 1 second over first generation.

The expansion of the first and second generations in the District since 1940 can be seen in the following tabulation:

First Generation Second Generation Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total

1940 91 39.4 140 60.6 1950 199 34.4 380 65.6 1960 223 40.3 330 59.7 1970 177 37.3 297 62.7

These figures call attention not only to the fact that many Yugoslav- b o m came to Washington after the last war in sizeable numbers, but also that American-bom Yugoslavs migrated to Washington from other parts of the United States at a similar rate. The percentages of the first and second generations remained relatively stable over the decades, with the first generation reaching its peak in the District in 1960 and the second generation in 1950.

While in 1940 neither the first nor the second generation was very numerous in Washington, by 1950 the first generation had more than doubled and the second had almost tripled over that one decade. This increase would appear to reflect the migration of American-bom 125

Yugoslavs during the war years for war-time work in the military and the government during the post-war years when opportunities for work acceler­ ated in federal agencies. Although Yugoslav-bom figures also rose over

that decade, they reflect only the very early prisoner-of-war and refugee immigration; those numbers rose again slightly between 1950 and 1960.

With that decade, the second generation declined slightly in the District and dropped further between 1960 and 1970, at which time the first generation figures also fell. Although the first and second generation numbers for the District declined after 1960, they both increased substantially throughout the SMSA; from 1960 on many more American and

Yugoslav-bom settled in the suburbs than in the District itself.

According to Table 7, there was an increase of 270 first generation

Yugoslavs in the Washington SMSA between 1960 and 1970 with the District losing 45 and the SMSA area outside the District gaining 316. Similarly, the second generation increased by 1030 throughout the entire area, decreasing by 33 in the District, and gaining 1063 outside the District.

In sum, there was a gain of 1300 in the first and second generation figures within the whole SMSA; a loss of 79 in the District; and an addition of 1379 in the SMSA outside the District. This means that in one decade the first generation increased by more than one-half and the second generation almost doubled throughout the SMSA.

The population figures and interview data suggest that the increase in ethnic group members living in the suburbs is explained, in part, by a combination of initial settlement of first generation Yugoslavs in the suburbs and by intra-area movement of Yugoslavs already living in the

District to the suburbs. According to field notes, a frequent practice among both the first and second generation persons coming to Washington 126

had been to move first to an apartment in the District that is con­

venient to work and later to a h«ne in the suburbs once money has been

saved to buy a house and a car for transportation to work. Out of the

56 interviewees, including spouses, 22 resided in the District, 18 in

Maryland, and 16 in Virginia. Among those living in the suburbs, 15

had previously resided in the District (see Map 5).

* * *

The inclusion of mother tongue data in the 1970 census permits us

to examine several additional characteristics of Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in Washington. First, we can cross-check the place of birth

figures with mother tongue data to determine total numbers of ethnic group members. Second, we can break down the Yugoslav nativity figures

into language groupings which, in turn, allow us to attribute a certain percentage of the Yugoslav totals to specific ethnic categories. Third, because some Census Bureau tables with mother tongue data include the third generation and beyond, we have a measure of language retention into the third generation and further. The major drawback to making any conclusions about language maintenance within this generational category is that we cannot compare that information with nativity data since the latter is unavailable beyond the second generation. Fourth, we have two indices of ethnic ascription in the first two generations— nativity and mother tongue— with mother tongue characteristics providing one axis of ethnic identity. These two indices can be examined over generations for differences or similarities in concentration of Yugoslav populations in the District, the Washington SMSA, and the United States in general. 127

Tables 8 and 9 present Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue

information for first generation persons living in the District and the

SMSA from 1910-1970. Although not included in those tables, 1970 census

data also subdivided mother tongue information according to generation;

this breakdown is found in Appendix E. In comparing the figures in Tables

8 and 9, we note that first generation Serbo-Croatian mother tongue speakers

in the District initially increased from 40 to 205 between 1940 and 1960

(1950 data not available). In the same period, the first generation

Slovenian mother tongue speeikers had virtually no increase (12 to 16) .

According to Appendix E, by 1970, second generation Slovenian mother tongue speakers for bbth the District and the SMSA constituted the

largest percentages of the Slovenian mother tongue totals for the first

through third and beyond generations (70 per cent in the District and 68 per cent in the SMSA). Second generation Serbo-Croatian speakers accounted

for somewhat smaller percentages of total Serbo-Croatian mother tongue

speakers: 41 per cent in the District and 56 per cent in the SMSA.

By examining nativity and mother tongue information together over

time, we see that as far as first generation Yugoslavs are concerned,

their numbers first substantially expanded in 1950 for the District and in 1960 for the SMSA. Serbo-Croatian speakers in the first generation numbered only 40 in 1940 and increased fivefold by 1960 when they rose

to 205 in the District and to 395 in the SMSA. Over the succeeding decade, while that figure dropped to 130 in the District, it continued

to rise in the SMSA, where it went up to 495.

The number of first generation Slovenian speakers changed little between 1910 and 1970 in the District, reaching only 29 in 1970. In contrast, throughout the SMSA the numbers rose from 28 to 74 between 1960 128

t a b l e 8

FIRST GENERATION PERSONS DESIGNATING SERBO-CROATIAN AS THE MOTHER TONGUE, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, 1910-1970

1910 1920 1930 1940 1960 1970

D. C., Sector 10 35 32 40 205 130

SMSA N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 395 495

TABLE 9

FIRST GENERATION PERSONS DESIGNATING SLOVENIAN AS THE MOTHER TONGUE, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, 1910-1970

1910 1920 1930 1940 1960 1970

D. C., Sector 4 23 12 N.A. 16 29

SMSA N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 28 74

Sources: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1960 Characteristics of the Population, Tables 41 and 80; 1970 General Social and Economic Characteristics, Table 142; and 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Table 15. 129 we and 1970. This could mean that while Serbo-Croatian mother tongue speakers accounted for most of the immediate post-war first generation

Yugoslav influx to Washington (1950-1960), first generation Slovenes who settled between 1940 and 1960 went mainly to the suburbs. Their greatest population increase occurred between 1960 and 1970, making

Yugoslav-bom Slovenes a somewhat later immigrant group to Washington.

(Allowance must be made for the fact that some post-war Slovenian emigres— as well as Serbian cuid Croatian— settled in other cities of the United States before moving to Washington. This was the case with six of the seven first generation Slovenes interviewed; two of them came after 1960. Half of those Slovenes interviewed were living within the District, and half were outside.)

Only one participant in the study group was b o m within the SMSA, and this person has always lived in the area. Thirty-nine out of the remaining 55 interviewees lived in other parts of the United States before moving to Washington. Washington was the first American home to the other 17, While all of the 17 continued to reside in Washington after their arrival, two also lived for periods of time in other cities while attending colleges and universities.

Among study group participants, an initial rise in the number of those Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes settling in the Washington area occurred in the 1950's, which would be reflected in the 1960 census.

The peak in numbers of interviewees who moved to Washington was reached in the 1960's, with a steady but slightly diminished continuation of movement to the area into the 1970's. In general, the migration trends within the study group correspond to patterns forthcoming from census data. 130

Table 9 and interview data indicate a gradual immigration of

Slovenes to Washington, with Table 9 also showing the first notable jump

in numbers of Slovenes occurring in 1970 throughout the SMSA and with a

concentration in the second generation. Hypothetically that gradual

increase could be attributed to the fact that less Slovenes came to the

United States immediately after the war than Serbs, in particular, and

that those vdio came to Washington came primarily for occupational pur­

poses and less so for political reasons. According to mother tongue

data and interviews, Slovenes in Washington are represented primarily by

second generation individuals who settled there in the 1950's and 1960's

for work-related reasons.

While Serbo-Croatian mother tongue information cannot be subdivided

by Serbian and Croatian speakers, that information can be juxtaposed

with interview material that gives a general idea of the proportion of

Serbs to Croats in Washington. According to the ethnic identity inter­

views, Croats, as a group, are relatively recent newcomers to Washington.

The bulk of the Croatian interviewees came to Washington in the 1960's

and 1970's (ten of 14), and seven came for a combination of economic-

educational-political purposes emanating out of conditions in Yugoslavia

at the time that they left. Unlike Serbs, and Slovenes, the second and

third generation Croats were not very visible to other Croats nor. to my­

self. No organizations strongly bind them with the more noticeable first generation persons and their children. Therefore, much less is known

about how many there are and their reasons for settling in Washington.

It is quite likely that those Croats included by the Census Bureau as

Serbo-Croatian language speakers fall primarily within the first genera­

tion because of language loss in the second and third generations. 131

In constrast, there is much more known about Serbs living in

Washington. According to church rolls, Serbs active in the two Serbian parishes are approximately half American-bom cind half Yugoslav-bom.

Immigration to Washington of all generations occurred primarily after the last war except for the very few individuals working in the Royal

Yugoslav Legation who remained in Washington and those employed by the federal government during the war. In the study group, settlement of

Serbs in Washington commenced in the 1940's, increased in the 1950's, rose again in the 1960's, and maintained the 1960's level into the

1970's.

According to census information, a notable shift in residential patterns of the first generation Serbo-Croatian mother tongue speakers occurred between 1960 and 1970. In 1960, 51.8 per cent of all Serbo-

Croatian speakers lived in the District while in 1970 the percentage dropped to 14.4 per cent. The same phenomenon also happened with

Slovenian speakers; in 1960, 57.1 per cent lived in the District, and in 1970, 25.5 per cent.

A related point is that while the greatest percentage of 1970

Serbo-Croatian mother tongue speakers in the District were within the first generation (52 per cent) and in the SMSA within the second generation (56 per cent), the greatest percentage of Slovenian speakers in both the District and the SMSA was within the second generation (70 per cent and 68 per cent respectively).

When the first generation Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue figures were first compared with place-of-birth information numbers, it was puzzling that the mother tongue speakers of the first 132 generation numbered less than the Yugoslav-bom, Tables 10 and 11 clarify that point. As outlined in Table 10, an array of non-Serbo-

Croatian and Slovenian languages were spoken as mother tongues in first generation homes within Yugoslavia— including small numbers of English,

Danish, Yiddish, Greek, and Italian speakers amd relatively large numbers of German, Hungarian, and Russian speakers. The "all other" residual category would probably include some Macedonian, Bulgarian,

Romanian, and Albanian speakers who were b o m within Yugoslavia, but whose languages were not itemized in the census data. All told,

295 Yugoslav-bom living in Washington in 1970 had mother tongues other than Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian.

Likewise, Table 11 elucidates the relationship between place-of- birth information and Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue speakers. Of the first generation Serbo-Croatian speakers, 21 were b o m in Germany, 15 in Austria, 13 in Italy, 13 in Canada, 13 in Cuba, and eight in other Central and South American countries. In addition to those b o m in Yugoslavia, first generation Slovenian speakers were b o m in Austria (10) and Hungary (3). In the second generation, place of parents* birth of Serbo-Croatian and mother tongue speakers included:

Austria (75), Poland (13)'., Czechoslovakia (8), Sweden (7), USSR (7),

Canada (7), and Germany (4). Second generation Slovenian speakers also came from Czechoslovakia (11), Austria (8), Germany (7), Poland (6), and

Central and South American countries (6). These various figures total

74 first generation and 223 second generation Serbo-Croatian and Slo­ venian speakers whose nativity was not Yugoslav.

The figures of Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue speakers in the first generation for Germany, Austria, Italy, and Hungary are not 133

TABLE 10

LANGUAGES DESIGNATED AS THE MOTHER TCWGUE BY FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION YUGOSLAV-AMERICANS IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, 1970

Mother Tongue First Generation Second Generation

English 8 568 Danish 5 0 French 0 19 German 84 169 Polish 0 15 Czech 0 42 Slovak 14 110 Hungarian 23 28 Serbo-Croatian 414 841 Slovenian 50 249 Russian 49 9 Yiddish 8 38 Ukranian 0 15 Greek 12 5 Italian 14 34 Spanish 0 10 All other 48 132 Unreported 30 32

TOTAL 759 2316

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Table 15. 134

t a b l e 11

PLACE OP BIRTH DESIGNATED BY PERSONS SPEAKING SERBO-CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN AS THE MOTHER TONGUE, WASHINGTCM METROPOLITAN AREA, 1970

Serbo-Croatian Slovenian

First Second First Second Place of birth Generation Generation Generation Generation

Yugoslavia 414 841 50 249 Germany 21 4 0 7 Austria 15 75 10 78 Hungary 0 0 3 0 Italy 13 0 0 0 Poland 0 13 0 6 Czechoslovakia 0 8 0 11 USSR 0 7 0 0 Canada 0 7 0 0 Cuba 13 0 0 0 Sweden 0 0 0 7 Other Central and and Sourth America 8 6 0 0

TOTAL 484 961 63 358

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Table 15. 135

difficult to explain; pockets of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes living in

adjacent states and the birth of children of Yugoslavs living in refugee

canps in western Europe in the aftermath of World War II can account for many of those numbers. The Cuban and Central and South American-born persons are interesting to speculate about. From interviewees, it was

learned that those particular countries, especially Brazil, served as

stopping-off places, perhaps for several years, for Serbian, Croatian,

and Slovenian immigrants who eventually went to Cemada and the United

States.

Estimating Total Numbers of Ethnic Group Members in Washington

That there would be sufficiently large numbers of Serbs, Croats,

and Slovenes living in Washington to conduct a study of ethnic identity maintenance came as a surprise to many members of the ethnic groups and other people discussing the research. Just how many are there? was a question repeatedly asked. Some solace for those who insist on population

figures as a gauge for validity in research is found in the census data on Washington. Both nativity and mother tongue figures can be combined

in several ways to derive estimates of the size of ethnic populations in

Washington.

Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide most of the raw figures from which calcu­

lations for total numbers of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the Washington

SMSA were made. On the basis of nativity figures from Table 9, the number of first and second generation Yugoslav-Americans is 3075. Since this does not include emy third generation persons and beyond, by adding

the Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue speakers in that gener­ ational category (373), we reach cui estimate of 3448. 136

Four different listings in the 1970 census— from General Social and Economic Characteristics Tables 81 and 142 and National Origin and

Language Report Table 15— provide different data bases upon which total population estimates can be reached. Yet, the totals arrived at on the basis of those diverse figures closely approximate each other with similar, but not exactly the same, totals for Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington.

In brief, place-of-birth criteria for the first and second generations gives us a total of around 3,000-3,100. By adding the third generation and beyond Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue speakers, it reaches 3,300-3,500, depending upon the particular census listing adopted. Linguistic data, taken alone, accounts for 2,200-

2,500 persons over three generations and beyond; this is the most conservative census estimate. A more precise measurement of these totals can be arrived at by combining nativity and language criteria; to accomplish this, first, we deduct non-Serbo-Croatiaui emd Slovenian mother tongue speakers from the Yugoslav-bom figure; second, we add non-Yugoslav-nativity mother tongue speakers in the first and second generation; third, we add second generation Yugoslav parentage persons; and fourth, we add third generation and beyond Serbo-Croatian and

Slovenian mother tongue speakers, arriving at a figure of 3,465 over three generations and beyond. This latter calculation has the advantage of tciking into account minority group persons who were b o m in Yugoslavia and Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian minority group members b o m outside

Yugoslavia and the United States. The following is a step-by-step outline of that calculation: 137

759 Yugoslav-bom (Table 7) -295 Non-Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian mother tongue speaker in 464 in the first generation (Table 10). + 70 Non-Yugoslav-bom Serbo-Croatian speakers (Table 10) +120 Non-Yugoslav-bom parentage Serbo-Croatian speakers (Table 11) + 13 Non-Yugos lav-bom Slovenian speakers (Table 11) +109 Non-Yugos lav-bom parentage Slovenian speakers (Table 11) 776 +2316 Yugoslav-parentage (Table 7) 3092 +273 Third generation and beyond Serbo-Croatian speakers (Appendix E) +100 Third generation and beyond Slovenian speakers (Appendix E) 3465

According to an informal canvass of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes

living in the Washington area, i estimated the number within those ethnic

groups to be about 1,300, including family menbers; this figure is

approximately half of any derived from census data. Considering the

improbability of ever leaming the names of each person that the

Census Bureau would locate and accounting for the divergence between

those individuals readily identified by other ethnic group members and

those that the census would be able to identify, the difference between my estimate based upon personal knowlege and the estimate from census material does not appear out of the ordinary.

So that we might compare the number of Serbo-Croatian and

Slovenian mother tongue specdcers in Washington with those in other

American cities, Appendix E lists the numbers of mother tongue speakers

for all 22 metropolitan areas that the Bureau of the Census has included

in its Subject Report on National Origin and Language. For each of the

22 SMSA's the number of mother tongue speakers is noted, according to

generation and language. Additionally, the percentage of total speakers within each generation has been calculated.

Using the total mother tongue speakers listed in Appendix E for 138 each city, Table 12 ranks Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian speakers sepa­ rately according to total number of speakers. Out of the 22 metropolitan areas, Washington ranks tenth in numbers of Slovenian speakers and fifteenth in Serbo-Croatian speakers. In terms of rank order, Washington is most similar to Seattle in comparison with the other cities cited.

In addition, the percentage breakdown according to generation is also similar for both cities, especially for Serbo-Croatian speakers. The primary difference is found in the greater relative concentration of first generation Slovenian speakers in Seattle than in Washington.

The following matrix demonstrates the similarities :

Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Washington Seattle Washington Seattle

First generation 495 28% 447 24% 74 14% 136 30% Second generation 980 56% 1228 65% 364 68% 276 62% Third + generation 273 16% 200 11% 100 18% 33 8% 1748 100% 1875 100% 538 100% 478 100%

Overall, the highest relative concentrations of first generation

Serbo-Croatian speakers are in Jersey City (75 per cent), New York City

(67 per cent), and Patterson-Clifton-Passaic (62 per cent) out of the total mother tongue speakers in those cities. Among the Slovenes, in all 22 cities, except Buffalo and New York City, the first generation constitutes lower percentages than the second generation mother tongue speakers. The highest percentages within the first generation are those found in Buffalo (53 per cent), which has a small Slovenian population, and in New York City (49 per cent). Except for New York City, though, none of those particular SMSA's are major Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian locales. Pittsburgh, Chicago, émd Los Angeles continue to be the most populous first, second, and third generation and beyond Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian areas of settlement. Washington, compared with Cleveland, 139

TABLE 12

PERSONS DESIOîATING SERBO-CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN AS THE MOTHER TONGUE — RANKING BY CITY, 1970

Serbo-Croatian* Slovenian*

1. Chicago 28,807 1. Cleveland 22,384 2. Pittsburgh 25,845 2. Chicago 7,030 3. New York City 15,562 3. Pittsburgh 5,979 4. Los Angeles 14,335 4. Milwaukee 3,584 5. Cleveland 13,696 5. New York City 1,991 6. Detroit 12,127 6. Los Angeles 1,934 7. Milwaukee 6,669 7. Detroit 1,600 8. San Francisco 4,983 8. San Frcuicisco 1,382 9. San Jose 2,755 9. Minneapolis 718 10. Buffalo 2,452 10. Washington 538 11. Philadelphia 2,385 11. Seattle 478 12. Patterson 2,005 12. San Jose 339 13. Jersey C i ^ 1,909 13. Philadelphia 345 14. Seattle 1,875 14. San Diego 287 15. Washington 1,748 15. Miami 230 16. Anaheim 1,460 16. Newark 226 17. San Diego 1,349 17. Anaheim 222 18. Minneapolis 1,328 18. Patterson 193 19. Newark 1,015 19. Buffalo 190 20. Miami 648 20. Jersey City 77 21. Boston 414 21. Boston 74 22. Providence 96 22. Providence 39

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Sub­ ject Report, Table 15.

*These figures include first, second, and third generation and beyond mother tongue speakers. 140 which has the greatest numbers of Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian speakers

combined, accounts for only 2,286 mother tongue speakers to Cleveland’s

36,080.

Social and Economic Characteristics

Sex, Age, and 1965 Residence

Participants in this study were quick to point out many socio­

cultural differences between their ethnic group members in Washington and those in other American cities. Although some noted the lack of members within particular age groups, no one seemed to fully realize how very distinctive in age distribution their ethnic groups were,

compared with national patterns. Table 13 underscores those differences,

using census data on nativity. The number of first and second generation

Yugoslav-Americans are listed separately for Washington and the United

States as a whole, according to sex and age; no sex category is included

for the United States since that information was not available in the

Subject Report. Additionally, percentages of total numbers within each generational and sex division are calculated for each subdivision by age group.

In Washington, the second generation persons Eire evenly matched male to female (1,134 males and 1,182 females), whereas females constitute

56 per cent of the first generation (334 males and 425 females). Because the United States total figures are listed only according to age, no comparison can be made.

Washington's first generation consists of a very small percentage of persons under the age of 18 (8.7 per cent and 3.5 per cent); furthermore, no one is included in the 18-24 age group. Likewise, the 141

TABLE 13

SEX AND AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION YUGOSLAV-AMERICANS, 1970

(A) Washington, D.C. SMSA

First Generation Second Generation

Males Females Males Females Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Under 18 29 8.7 15 3.5 218 19.2 217 18.4

18-24 0 0.0 0 0.0 28 2.4 93 7.8

25-44 140 41.9 194 45.7 524 46.2 449 37.9

45-64 118 35.3 157 36.9 346 30.6 407 34.5

65+ 47 14.1 59 13.9 18 1.6 16 1.4

TOTAL 334 100.0 425 100.0 1134 100.0 1182 100.0

(B) United States

First Generation Second Generation (male and female combined) (male and female combined)

Age Number Percent Number Percent

Under 20 9,636 6.3 53,007 18.3

20-24 4,552 3.0 8,099 2,7

25-44 43,028 28.0 81,052 27.5

45-64 45,887 29.8 142,290 48.5

65+ 50,642 32.9 9,078 3.0

TOTAL 153,745 100.0 293,526 100.0

Source: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Tables' 10 and 15. 142 second generation also has very few persons in the 18-24 category, but it does consist of a substantial group of "under 18 year olds": 19.2 per cent males and 18.4 per cent females. Both generations have their greatest concentration in the 25-44 and 45-64 age groups (70 to 80 per cent for each generation). Finally, while the first generation evidences a relatively large "65 years and older" population (14.1 per cent males and 13.9 per cent females), this constitutes the smallest age category in the second generation (1,6 per cent males and 1.4 per cent females).

This data indicates that the second generation consists mainly of individuals and families in their child rearing and pre-retirement periods. On the other hand, the first generation, in general, is older.

Only 44 persons are noted as being younger than 25, while 106 are over

65. Again, this generation clusters in the 25-64 age groups, those stages of life when people are occupationally employed and raising their families. It may be that many of the individuals in the 25-64 age groups are the parents of second generation persons in the "under 18" and 18-24 year old categories, which would provide a possible e:q>lanation for the relatively high percentage of "under 18" year olds of that generation.

Only when we compare these figures with those of the first and second generation Yugoslav-Americans across the United States do we see just how distinctive the Washington population is in terms of age configuration. The "under 20" United States emd "under 18" Washington groups and the 18-24 and 20-24 categories evidence similar percentages within each generation. Neither of these age groups is highly represented in the first generation, but the "under 18 or 20" group 143 ranges around 18-19 per cent in the second generation both in Washington and nationally. Neither the Washington nor the United States 18-24 year old group is sizeable in either generation.

The main differences between Washington and the United States figures occur in the three highest age categories, and those differences are more apparent in the first generation than in the second. Throughout the United States the largest age category in the first generation is

"65 years and older" {32.9 per cent), which is over twice the percentage in Washington's generation (14.1 per cent males and 13.9 per cent females). In Washington the largest first generation age group is

25-44 years (41.9 per cent males emd 45.7 per cent females) whereas in the United States as a whole the percentage is only 28 per cent. The

United States percentages also fall Iselow those of Washington for the

45-64 age group.

Three historical factors may be responsible for the decided differences between the first generations in Washington and those in other parts of the United States. First, the national figure includes immigrants who came before World War I and between World War I and II to communities where there are large numbers of Serbs, Croats, or

Slovenes; Washington is not such a community. Second, even though

Washington is home to a notable number of ex-prisoners-of-war who came after World War II, many of whom would now be in the over 65 age group, a small fraction of the thousands who came in that period settled in Washington. And third, because Washington attracts people primarily for occupational reasons and not because it has ethnic communi­ ties and because most ethnic group members have come to Washington since the 1950's, most of the first generation persons are still in their 144

occupational prime and have not yet reached retirement. Generally, a

young adult and middle age group of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes resides

in Washington.

The second generation Yugoslav-Americans in Washington correspond

very closely in age to their counterparts across the nation with one

outstanding exception: it is a younger population. For the country

as a whole, the 45-64 age group is the largest (48.5 per cent) whereas

for Washington the 25-44 group is the most sizeable (42.6 per cent males

and 37.9 per cent females). Again, this reflects the recent immigration

of second generation persons to Washington for employment.

In J^pendix C the 56 ethnic identity interviewees have been

tabulated according to sex and age. Although no concerted attempt

was made to select the interviewee population in line with Washington

census statistics, some similarity does exist in age proportions between

the two sets of figures. No one was interviewed under the age of 18.

Even though the 18-24 age group is not highly represented in the census

data, six interviewees (10.7 per cent) were between 18 and 25; five out

of six of them were in the second generation. Exactly 50 per cent of the

men and women, taken together, fell into the 25-45 age range, a slightly

higher percentage than in Washington as a whole. Another 28.5 per cent was encompassed by the 46-60 year group, and 10.7 per cent by the "over

sixty" category. Overall, the study group consisted mainly of adult pre-retirement age persons, with three who were over 65 cuid already

retired. In respect to age configuration, the study group is more

characteristic of Washington's first and second generation Yugoslav-

Americans than those of the entire United States.

The Census Bureau also provides information on change of residence 145

between 1965 and 1970 (see Table 14). The population five years and older in the first and second generations is subdivided on the basis of whether or not a change in residence occurred in that five year period, and if so, the distance of that move. In the first generation the largest percentages are recorded for "no change of residence"

(36.6 per cent) and "moved from different state" (21.5 per cent).

Interestingly, 17.8 per cent moved from abroad. An assumption that could be made is that the 17.8 per cent represents primarily incoming immigrants, considering that the 1960-1970 increase in Yugoslav-bom in Washington accounts for 35.6 per cent of the number of Yugoslav-bom within the SMSA for 1970.

In comparison to the first generation, the second generation was a somewhat more geographically stable population over the 1965-1970 period; 47.9 per cent remained in the same home. A much smaller percentage came from abroad (2.6 per cent) them in the first generation.

Even that figure is strilcingly high for the second generation, perhaps indicating the type of occupations Washingtonians engage in, i.e., military, foreign service, and other work that requires families to live abroad. In general, both the first and second generations evidence a considerable degree of geographical mobility during the five year period.

This conclusion is supported by a comparison with residence among

Yugoslav-Americans nationally. Throughout the country 55.7 per cent first generation Yugoslav-Americans resided in the same house in 1970 as in

1965, compared with 36 per cent in Washington. In the first generation,

13.2 per cent of Yugoslav-Americans came from eibroad; in Washington,

17.7 per cent immigrated. Greater relative mobility in the Washington 146

I (Tt M 'ey 00 VO o r - CM vO 04 to o CM o * w I O 8 to § ID r« O en O' o Tf VO ir ^ in m O' M iH tn Ov s I

g to

S to 0 > VO tn CO vo VO r - m f-t M o I I en 04 1—4 Q

m r * o 04 tJV m pi m C4 VO m I CN ?

•8 5 to I f I s 8 8 I ■Sï t ) 1 « a g 40 •H • o 1 o to 0) i ^ u 0) •rl 1 1 4 4 8 Î 1 I g t o +1 ! 1 s VO a *• (S 0) O) § ; o e v <0 0> H n M t j H a 1 4 4 •rt S'g J C VO t ) r a 4J IiH la * 0 u m O 0) O I §! > > a iS I 1 s s ë t 147 group is also evidenced in the second generation in that 68 per cent of those across the nation and 47.8 per cent in Washington retained the same residence. Finally, 2.6 per cent of Washington's second generation lived abroad in 1965, which is five times the percentage for the country (.5 per cent) (Bureau of the Census: 1970 Population Reports,

Tadïles 11 and IS).

Moving from the District to the suburbs or vice versa would be recorded by the census as a change in residence from one state to another. Since Washington's SMSA includes parts of two states, in addition to the District, intra-area movement may very well provide an image of the population as being more mobile— in terms of distances— than it actually is.

Education, Occupation, and Income

The educational and occupational character of the three ethnic groups in Washington is notably distinct from those groups in other

American cities. Depicted in Table 15, the number of school years completed among first and second generation Yugoslav-Americans was tabulated by the Census Bureau by generation and sex. Persons over the age of 25 Eire itemized according to the number of years spent in elementEury, secondary, smd college education. The highest number of years designated in the census reports is 16+, which indicates a completion of more than four years of college. Also included within

Tcd>le 15 is the medisui number of school years completed among males and females in the first and second generations.

So that a comparison might be made between the educational background of Yugoslav-Americans in Washington and in other American cities, an outline of the medicui number of school years completed by 148

TABLE 15

NUMBER OF SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED BY FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION YUGOSLAV-AMERICANS, WASHINGTON D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA, 1970

First Generation Second Generation

Males Females Males Females

Elementary less than 5 years: 16 37 0 0 5-7 years: 14 43 0 14 8 years: 26 29 23 15

High School 1-3 years: 6 22 97 93 4 years: 22 119 198 457

College 1-3 years: 39 90 164 163 4 years and over: 182 70 406 130

Total Number* 305 410 888 872

Median school years completed 16+ 12.6 15.3 12.7

Source: U.S. Depaurtment: of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Table 15. *Persons over the age of 25. 149

first and second generations persons in 22 American cities has been incorporated as Appendix F.

The first striking conclusion from information in Table 15 and

Appendix F is that both the first and second generation Yugoslav-

Americans living in Washington are highly-educated groups; in the first generation, the median number of school years completed is 12.6 for females and 16+ for males. Within the second generation, the medians are similarly high at 15.3 for men and 12.7 for women. Among all

Washingtonians, the median figure is 12.4 (The Washington Center for

Metropolitan Studies 1975: Table 14).

Of the 22 cities included by the Census Bureau in its Subject

Report, Boston's first and second generation Yugoslav-Americans are the only such populations that come close to matching the educational completion medians of those in Washington. In Boston, the median for males is 15.1 and for females, 13.2 in the first generation; 12.9 among men and an incalculably small nunher of women in the second generation.

This information indicates that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington, as a group, are clearly the most educated of any of their ethnic groups in those 22 cities.

Another interesting characteristic about the ethnic groups in

Washington is that it is the only city of the 22 where the first generation has a higher median school years completed than the second.

Ordinarily, the first generation medians are below the second, the reverse of the situation in Washington. Yet, even with the higher

first generation medians than the second generation, Washington's second generation Yugoslav-Americans are also well-educated, with the highest median school years completed among all other second generation 150

Yugoslav-Amerlccins in the 22 metropolitan areas.

In Washington, first generation females cluster at high school

graduation, with substantial numbers also falling within the college

group; males cluster at 16+, indicating a strong tendency toward post­

graduate work. In contrast, the national median of school years completed

for first generation males is 8.4, and for females, 8.0.

Some interesting comparisons of education and age configurations

can be made between Boston and Washington. In Boston's first generation

Yugoslav-American population, only 5,6 per cent of the males and 14.2

per cent of the females are over 65 years of age. Also like Washington,

both sexes cluster at the 25-44 age group. As mentioned above, the

school completion medians in both cities are very similar. By combining

this information with comments made by interviewees about Serbs, Croats,

or Slovenes in Boston, the conclusion can be reached that Boston, like

Washington, was not a major area of early twentieth century settlement

for these ethnic groups, and that it was only after World War II that

several hundred first and second generation persons located there.

Additionally, it was a highly-educated group, working mainly in profes­

sional and technical positions (in a city which, like Washington, has

an abundance of employment opportunities in these areas).

In Washington, the median number of school years completed among

Yugoslav - Americans is in line with the educational background of the

56 Ethnic Identity Interview participants. As outlined in Appendix C

(XII), the number of school years completed clusters at the bachelor's

(15), and master's (11) degrees. As closely as can be determined, the median number of school years completed for all 56 is 16.3, slightly higher than the Census Bureau's figures. Emphasis on continuing 151 education is evidenced by the fact that three of the 56 were completing undergraduate programs; one, a master's degree; and four, doctoral programs. Of those first generation persons who came to the United

States as adults, 14 took graduate degrees in American universities; two had arrived with high school dimplomas and 12, with undergraduate degrees.

All three generations in the study group had a tradition of higher education; two of the three third generation persons were college- educated, and the third had college credits. Within the second generation,

14 of the 18 had either finished or were enrolled in college; two others had earned nursing school diplomas. Since the Yugoslav educational system is structured quite differently from the Americein, it is difficult to equate years of school completed in Yugoslavia with the schooling offered in the United States. In Yugoslavia, specialized schooling in : separate institutions begins after the eighth year of school; at that point students may enter a gymnasium for the college-bound that is geared toward either the humanities and social sciences or science and mathematics. As an alternative to the gymnasium, they may enter tech­ nical or apprenticeship programs, such as nursing, architecture, clerical, tourism, and maritime trades— fields that do not require academically- oriented college education. Of the 35 first generation interviewees, one had graduated with training in nursing, one in secretarial work, one in architecture, and two in the maritime trades, after eight years of elementary education. Everyone else in the first generation, with one exception, was a college graduate.

In view of the educational background of Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in Washington, their occupational patterns are not unexpected. 152

Census data on Yugoslav-Americans and information from the study group point to an ençthasis on professional, managerial, administrative, and

clerical occupations; considerable government employment; and higher

income medians by $3,000 to $4,000, compared with first and second

generation Yugoslav-Americans nationally.

Table 16 depicts three economic characteristics of the first and

second generation Yugoslav-Americans in Washington as reported by the

census in 1970: occupational categories; class of worker; and income

level in 1969. In respect to the study group. Appendix C (IX) sum­ marizes the occupation of the interviewee family in Yugoslavia in the

generation before emigration; (X), the occupation of the first family member to immigrate; and (XI), the primary occupation of the interviewee

in Washington.

According to census data, first generation men fall primarily within the professional and technical occupational categories; 42 per

cent are so employed. In comparison, women in the first generation are more widely scattered throughout mainly three categories : professional

and technical (27.5 per cent), clerical (25.1 per cent), and service workers (25.1 per cent). Within the second generation a still larger percentage of both men and women are encompassed by the professional

and technical group (50.2 per cent males and 28.2 per cent females);

the largest group of women, though, are employed in clerical work

(45.8 per cent).

Those occupational characteristics contrast sharply with Yugoslav-

Americans nationwide. First generation men throughout the United States

cluster in the craftsmen category (29.4 per cent), operatives (22 per

cent), and service workers (13 per cent); of employed women, 34.4 per 153

rnr^cOrHOcûr^ooo r*< so m GO I H TT O O O O O sO r4 M TT CD m iH m M ^ r-t CO M1

^soi-isooor*oooocNin es ^ ^ G

I ou^cOffimp^CDOOor^o r~ r4 m m V M so es S 2 h a g

0 'd 1

I '3 I no Q) « I 0| I m " § & 1 «I 9) I V3 Pé i 154

ooiof^vootniooro in P4 m ^ r> m Ç) H m o|fo l£> M

O oo^om«~4i£>^rj M in ^ "f ml N a 10 O|i0 M m F-*| in in m in (N fh M 00

m N m V in m oi0inminiomo

mOrsiHm^inoiÏN m fs o ^ m

01 Cl01 ffl 01 O O 01 01 01 0> 01 % » •Sfi 01ta 0%* 01k 01« 01ta H V CM V H «-I m in r> 01 1 i èèèè II CM V 10 CO M M CM W V> V> O V> 155 cent work as operatives, 22.6 per cent in services, aind 16.5 per cent as clerical workers. In the second generation, a somewhat smaller percentage of males work as craftsmen (26.9 per cent) and operatives

(15.6 per cent), with only 14.4 per cent in professional or technical work and 11.3 in managerial and administrative employment. More women have clerical jobs (38.5 per cent] than any other single occupational category; additionally, 14.9 per cent are operatives and.15.8 per cent are in services.

As these percentages indicate, a slightly greater emphasis on professional and technical employment exists among second generation men than among the first generation men in Washington. In general, males of both generations lean toward professional and technical occupations and females toward clerical more than professional and tech­ nical employment. Yet throughout the United States, the craftsmen, operatives, and service categories are the most highly represented among both men and women of both generations.

A further comparison can be made with the occupational structure of the total population within the Washington SMSA. Again, the profes­ sional and managerial categories constitute the largest group (35.1 per cent taken together); clerical is the second largest (26.2 per cent) as of 1970 (The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies 1975: Table 16).

As listed in %)pendix C, the occupational categories of the 56 interviewees are different from those adopted by the Census Bureau in that they include housewives and students as categories and that they are more descriptive in terms of the types of employment. Yet, there is apparent overlap between occupational distribution as outlined by the Bureau of the Census cUid as listed in Appendix C (XI). 156

Professional vocations are clearly the most highly represented occupations among the 56 interviewees; specifically, teaching, law, medicine, engineering, translating and interpreting, research, journalism, priesthood, architecture, library work, and foreign affairs are included.

Of the 56 interviewees, 32 fell within the professional category. Of those, 17 were employed by the federal government in a variety of agencies and departments. Three others were employed by universities.

One physician and one attorney had their own practices, and two other medical doctors were affiliated with hospitals, but did not have their own practices. The remaining eight were hired by a variety of private employers: school, church, labor union, industry and business.

In addition to the 32 professionals, seven were full-time students; four were housewives; three owned their own restaurants; five worked in service positions either as a nurse, a seamstress, or a waitress; three worked in clerical positions; one was in the military; and one worked in construction and painting.

Out of the 49 employed interviewees (excluding full-time students and housewives), 18, or 36.7 per cent, were employed by the federal government; this percentage corresponds closely to the Census Bureau's government wage and salary class of worker on Table 16 (B). According to those census tcibulations, 43.5 per cent first generation men and

32.4 per cent women and 56.1 per cent second generation males and 44.2 per cent females were employed by the government for an overall percentage of 48.2 per cent. Of the rest, most worked for private employers (47.8 per cent), with the remaining 3.4 per cent self-employed.

While 36.7 per cent (18) of the employed interviewees were govern­ ment workers, 57.1 per cent (28) were in private employment; the other 157

6.1 per cent (3) were self-employed. Other than the greater percentage

of self-employed in the study group, the ratio between government emd

private employment among interviewees was very similar to the information

collated by the Census Bureau.

As might be expected, there was congruence between class of worker

percentages for Washington's overall population; Washington's first and

second generation Yugoslav-Americans; and the study group. Among all

Washingtonians, government employed comprises 36.9 per cent men and

42.6 per cent women in the third generation and beyond population, but

44.5 per cent men and 23.3 per cent women within the first euid second

generations. Both the all-Washington figures and the first and second

generation Yugoslav-American figures indicate a greater percentage of

second generation individuals who are enployed by the government than

the first generation; but first generation Yugoslavs evidence a higher percentage of government employees (43.5 per cent males and 32.4 per cent

females) than total foreign-bom in Washington (27.4 per cent males and

23.3 per cent females), which is perhaps a reflection of the relatively

higher median number of school years completed and an inclination toward professional work among the Yugoslav-bom in Washington.

Some variation on the occupational distribution described above for

the study group occurs when we consider the occupation of the first

family member to immigrate to the United States; for second and third

generation participants, either the father or the first grandfather to

arrive in the United States is cited in Appendix C (X), except in those

instances where parentage was mixed and when the mother or grandmother was the particular person who came from Yugoslavia. Because this

listing includes many persons who had never lived in Washington, the 158 professional category is less represented among them, and blue collar work is more frequently cited than in the case of the interviewees themselves. In addition to nine blue collar workers, there were two commercial farmers, which is a category not represented among Washing­ ton's Yugoslav-Americans, according to the census data. Included were also a nurse, a seamstress, and a secretary. Of those persons with their own businesses, there were three restaurateurs and one grocery store owner. Even with the slightly greater representation of blue collar workers, the emphasis remains primarily on professional occupa­ tions which is due, in part, to the inclusion of first generation individuals in the study group, and in part, to the self-selection process hy which people came to Washington as opposed to other locales.

One particular detail of the occupational and educational back­ ground of certain post-World War II emigres that played a major role in the choice of occupations in the United States is worth noting. In Yugo­ slavia before World War II the fields of law and political science were almost compulsory for those desiring government-related work. It so happens that large numbers of lawyers, primarily among Serbs and to a lesser extent among Croats and Slovenes, were part of the exodus of

Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian ex-prisoners-of-war and refugees after the war. Unlike medicine, law is a field that does not lend itself to easy transferral as an occupation across nations; this is especially true when a lawyer moves from a European country to the United States because of the different legal systems. Without entering law school in the

United States and acquiring brand-new credentials, none of those persons arriving with European law degrees could practice law in the United States or enter government work requiring a law degree. Pour participants in 159 the study group graduated from a faculty of law and government in

Yugoslavia between the wars; upon arrival in the United States one of the four completed law school and became a practicing attorney. The other three entered government work in capacities where their European law background was adaptable and useful. Because of the obstacles facing emigres with European law degrees, there were very few practicing attorneys cimong those first generation Yugoslavs both in Washington cind nationally. In fact, Washington was probably the sole city where several possible alternatives to legal work could be found for such individuals— another reason for the attraction Washington held for ex-prisoners-of-war and refugees.

Medicine, on the other hand, is a field whose subject matter and skills have greater cross-cultural applicability and acceptance.

Americctn immigration policy, particularly throughout the 1960*s, encouraged foreign-bom physicians to immigrate to the United States and to practice medicine here. Usually after serving residencies in

American hospitals and developing new specializations, emigre physicians were able to practice medicine. Four of the interviewees came to the

United States as already practicing physicians, c U i d all continued to work in medicine. Among the occupations frequently mentioned by participemts as those most often engaged in by members of their ethnic groups, medicine was noted second only to government service. An interesting observation made by several persons: of all occupatioanl groups, physicians maintained the most congenial social contact between

Serbs and Croats in Washington.

In view of the professional bent of the Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in Washington, it seemed only fitting to ask also about the 160 occupations of the interviewee's family before endgration. Appendix C

(IX) notes what the family's livelihood was in the generation before emigration. Agriculture (15 peasant farmers and four commercial farmers, determined on the basis of the extent of land holdings and farm profit) accounted for a third of those families. Three others had been in the maritime trades of fishing, shipping, and sailing. Blue collar work employed four, and one persons was a tailor. Among the remaining 29 families of origin, there were six merchants, ten military and government personnel, and nine professionals. This amounts to somewhat more than 50 per cent in professional or managerial positions and slightly under 50 per cent in agriculture, maritime trades, and blue collar work combined. If a comparison were to be made between the families of origin of Yugoslav-Americans living in Washington and nationwide for occupational background, it is very likely that the

Washington group would be distinctive in its moderate emphasis on peasant agriculture and its unusually heavy emphasis on professional employment.

While no income information was requested of the study group, it is still useful to consider census figures on income level in 1969

(see Table 16 (C)) as part of the overall educational-occupational configuration of these ethnic groups. Within the first generation of Yugos 1 av-Americans in Washington, only 1.1 per cent of the families and no unrelated individuals fall below the poverty level; in the second generation 5.9 per cent of the families and 2.6 per cent of the individ­ uals were within that range.

Median income for first generation families was $12,620 in 1969; although the sample was too small to calculate a median for unrelated individuals, it appears that their median is in the $8,000 to $9,999 161

range. For the second generation, the median family income was higher

at $16,599 and at $8,914 for unrelated individuals. The cost of living

of course varies considerably from city to city, and Washington is

among those urban areas with one of the highest costs of living; even

so, we can still conç>are its median income levels with the entire first

and second generation Yugoslav-American populations nationally. Among

all first generation families, $9,759 was the median income level, which is about $3,000 under the median of Washington's first generation

families. Peak in income in both the first and second generations

throughout the United States occurred within the 45-64 year range

(which is as expected), and we should take into account the fact that

Washington's first and second generation populations are younger than

the national Yugoslav-Americans and that a larger percentage of

Washington's population is in its occupational prime; therefore, it is only reasonable to expect their median income level to be higher.

In Washington overall, the 1970 census figure for median income

for all families is $13,883, which is slightly higher than that of the

first generation Yugoslav-Americans, but close to $4,000 lower than that of the second generation families. In short, while the first generation

Yugoslav-American families have a median income of approximately the

same as for all families throughout the Washington area, the second generation group's is considerably higher. This conclusion would seem to be related to the occupational structure and age distribution of Serbs,

Croats, and Slovenes in Washington.

Among those occupations cited by interviewees as employing Wash­

ington's Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were the following: medicine,

architecture, engineering, surveying, teaching, law, nursing, language 162 training, veterinary medicine, journalism, research of many sorts, accounting, bartending, taxi cab driving, waitressing, business, restaurants, and trades and services. Although several interviewees qualified their descriptions of the type of work that ethnic group members do in Washington with phrases such as "they are all different" and "there is no set pattern," repeatedly participants observed that white collcu: work, mostly professional and intellectual, and non-laborer occupations predominated. T^e federal government was also seen as the primary employer.

Slovenian interviewees pointed out that while not many Slovenes were in business, law, medicine, or the military, they were inclined toward academia, or work involving the mind. "Learning, teaching, and working with people" were occupational qualities attributed to Slovenes.

Medicine appeared to be the largest single professional group among

Croats. Lesser numbers of Croats than Slovenes were described as being government employees. Serbs of both the first and second gener­ ations included large numbers of civil servants, with others of the first generation enployed within medicine and business, according to interviewees. Within the second generation there were more blue collar workers, people in services, and military personnel especially among

Serbs and to a lesser extent among Croats and Slovenes.

Summary of Census Data and Social and Demographic Characteristics of the Ethnic Groups

In brief, the approximately 3,400 Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the Washington area can be characterized as follows: close to one fourth of those 3,400 are Slovenes; Croats probably constitute another fourth; and Serbs make up the remaining half. On the basis of nativity over two 163 generations, we can say that 25 per cent belong within the first gener­ ation, emd 75 per cent belong within the second. Primarily a suburban residential population, 85 per cent live outside the District, Both the first and second generations are unusually mobile, with only 36 per cent of the first generation and 47.8 per cent of the second living in the same house in 1970 as in 1965. Washington's Serbo-Croatian mother tongue speakers rank fifteenth in the nation and Slovenian speakers rank tenth among twenty-two metropolitan areas in terms of total numbers of speakers.

Like the Washington population in general, there are slightly more females than males in both generations of Yugoslav-Americans. The

25-44 and 45-64 age groups are the most numerous, with the "under 18 years" category also sizeable in the second generation. In comparison with Yugoslav-Americans across the United States, both generations in

Washington are younger populations.

Highly educated coitpared to the median school years completed for the overall population in Washington and compared with Yugoslav-Americsms nationally, the first and second generations have entered primarily professional, technical, and clerical occupations; about half are govern­ ment employees. Median income levels for families and individuals are higher than the national Yugoslav-American medians. CHAPTER IV

SOCIO-CULTÜRAL SPHERES OP ETHNIC IDENTITY

Slovenes came to Washington, D. C. as individuals and as families and did not come to form ethnic enclaves. In Cleveland it was a question of survival, and now they still form small ethnic enclaves in the suburbs. They came to Washington because they had certain occupations, and they didn't depend on their ethnic group to get started. As far as my job is concerned, it is irrelevant that I am a Slovene. I came to Washington totally as an American with a strong ethnic background. I have never been part of an ethnic enclave in the United States, and I haven't needed other Slovenes for personal survival. Instead, when I got to Washington, I found that being with Slovenes provided a positive and enjoyable influence on ny life. It's been a matter of choice. We get things done only through voluntary cooperation, which takes more effort and commitment on the part of a relatively small number of people. But I feel most comfortable with that sort of arrangement. — First generation Slovene

Names

Names— surnames and given names— are the most immediate symbol of ethnic identity. Through them persons can be identified to a considerable degree of certainty without any personal contact. It is the name in

American society— generally not physical appearance— that leads to people asking Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes about their ethnicity.

"I think the only way people can tell that I am Slovenian is from my last name. It is usually the way of bringing up my ethnicity," reported a second generation Slovenian woman.

As an identity marker, a clearly ethnic name serves as a continual reminder of one's ethnic background in the United States. Such a name

164 165 may pose social adjustment problems with peers during childhood and adolescence— marking one's name as an embarrassment— or it may be seen as an interesting dimension to one's personality; in either case it plays a major role in developing attitudes about what to name children.

In point of fact, interviewees with clearly non-English surnames or given names vSio grew up in this country usually had both positive and negative experiences caused by their names, and it appears to be that the predominant experience during adolescence and early college years carried the most weight in the formation of attitudes about naming children. A point of view was frequently expressed among interviewees that it is much easier now to grow up with unusual names without being taunted or given a hard time than it was even ten years ago. Not surprisingly, this enhances the likelihood that parents with ethnic given names will give ethnic names to their children.

Because of the denotative power of names, several questions from the Ethnic Identity Interview were asked of interviewees about changes that had been made in their surnames and given names, naming patterns in their families, and current trends in naming children.

In contrast to Govorchin's comments on name changes among South

Slavs throughout America (1966: 195), complete change of surnames was very rare among ethnic group members in Washington. The attitude commonly expressed was that such changes were unnecessary in today's society and that it was unfortunate that economic circumstances were ever such that people were pressured to change their names.

In fact, they appeared to disapprove of changes that had been made recently. While there were several minor alterations in spelling and pronunciation of names in the study group, only one interviewee, a 166

Serbian man, had changed his name outright. (At the time of his arrival in the United States, he assumed that his difficult-to-pronounce-and- spell name would only cause problems in communication, an assumption he later concluded was probably naive.) Interestingly, other Serbs, when referring to him, frequently added a Serbian suffix to his very English surname. Only one other outright change of surname was reported, this being among the Croats. (Legal changes in one's name can be made without fee at the time of naturalization. At other times a fee of about $100 is involved.)

Interviewees further suggested that changing names has occurred less often among the three ethnic groups than is sometimes described in the literature on their immigration history. Yet they also noted that before World War I considerable pressure to change names had been applied to incoming Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes by either immigration officials or employers. By the end of World War II this was much less common. Immigration officers, whenever faced with a name they could neither pronounce nor spell, were likely to change it on the spot. Some­ times they tried to substitute a name with some similarity to the origi­ nal; sometimes, on the other hand, an immigrant with a five-syllable name suddenly was transformed into a Smith or Jones. During the earlier decades of this century, moreover, a name cheinge sometimes helped an immigrant to find employment.

By the end of World War II, Americans in general were more inclined to pronounce names in languages different from their own.

Perhaps those people living in Washington, a city where foreign affairs is an integral part of every-day life, were especially open to grasping a variety of names. Whatever the reasons, Serbs, Croats, and 367

Slovenes moving to Washington after the War found little stigma attached to having an ethnic name. This does not, of course, mean that Washing­ tonians always recognized what it meant to say, "My name is Slovenian,

Croatian, or Serbian."

Many surnames were slightly altered in spelling and pronunci­ ation. Croatian and Serbian— and less often Slovenian— surnames most typically end in -c, which is a "ch" sound in English. While about half of the first generation families retained the -c intact, usually leaving off the diacritical mark, the remaining families of the first generation and almost all of the second generation persons changed it to -ch. Occasionally, the -c became -tch. In two cases in the study group the -c had been retained, but the pronunciation had shifted to a "k" sound at the end of the word. In this particular example a change in spelling can help to preserve the original pronunciation.

Other small changes in spelling appear to be relatively common.

For instance, a shift from % to sh, d to g, ë”to d, j to y, h to either k or ch, and % to zh, etc., facilitates proper pronunciation. Although some sounds in Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian are almost impossible to approximate in English spelling, it appears that in most interviewee families. great care had been taken to change the spelling only enough to retain the closest possible approximation of the original pronunci­ ation.

Another way to alter a surname without changing it outright is to shorten it, e.g., Saviifevié to Savich or Toma^evifc to Tomich. While this sort of change most often occurred among second generation families, according to interviewees, in fact, only one person had a shortened surname, allowing for easier pronunciation. 168

Other variations on surnames occasionally occurred. One man adopted a slightly altered form of his surname for his artistic work.

Those women in the study group who were married to non-Serbian,

-Croatian, or -Slovenian men all used their husbands' names.

* * *

First names or given names— an even more important symbol of ethnic identity in social communication between close friends and acquaintances— were said to be altered somewhat more frequently than surnames. They also can be changed in a variety of ways. Examples might be the change from

Lgnbioa toLjubai from Marisa to Maria; from Nikoïa to Nick; from Katarina to Kathy or Kate; from TomCaZao to Tom; and from Litjana to Lillian.

Often such a shift results in American nicknames while the original name or an ethnic variation of it is maintained among Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian acquaintances.

Another way that given names can be changed is to adopt the English equivalent of the ethnic name. Among the interviewees this happened only once, and in that instance the ethnic name was still used almost all of the time. This practice occurred more often when,parents were deciding upon names for their American-bom children. Frequently, however, there are no exact equivalents in English, and, according to several inter­ viewees, American-bom ethnic group members are sometimes erroneous in their belief that a given name is synonomous with a particular South

Slavic name. In fact, the folklore of the synonymity of Christian names is quite confusing since there are so many conflicting reports about which names can serve as illustrations of the better known equivalents:

Pavte and Paul, ^ime and Simon, Jovan and John, Dsttrdgs and George,

Joeip or Josef and Joseph, Lidika and Lydia, JeZena and Helen, Ante 169

and Anthony, Ana and Anna or Anne, Mihailo and Michael, and P&tar and

Peter. Frequently more important than the spelling of such equivalents

is the change in pronunciation that accompanies the shift because of

differences in vowel length and quality and differences in. the stress on

syllables.

According to interviewees, traditional patterns for naming children

in Yugoslavia vary from ethnic group to ethnic group, from region to

region, and from city to village.

Serbian interviewees cited three practices which were most

commonly followed in the naming of children.

Most firmly rooted in tradition— especially among Serbs living in

cities and coming from notable families— is the practice of ncuning the

first son after the paternal grandfather; the second son after the

maternal grandfather; the first daughter after the paternal grandmother;

and the second daughter after the maternal grandmother. Either the

exact name or a similar form might be chosen. At least six of the 25

Serbian interviewees were named on this basis.

A variation of this pattern occurs when a child is named for a

great uncle, great aunt, uncle, or aunt— generally and preferably

"someone who has meant something" or perhaps someone who was lost in war or died in youth. Among Serbs, the father's or mother's name is rarely

given to the child; more commonly a generation is skipped. Only one

Serbian interviewee, in fact, had been ncuned for a parent.

If the most traditional practice is not followed— and it generally

is, for the first-bom child especially— then the child's godfather is

given responsibility for selecting a name. When this practice is fol­

lowed, the name does not have to come from within the family. At least 170

six of the Serbian interviewees had been given non-family names by their godfathers.

The third traditional practice among Serbs is that of naming the child after a saint— either for the saint whose day falls closest to the birth date of the child, or for the family's patron saint (elava).

Three Serbian men in the interviewee group were so named.

As far as the interviewee group was concerned, at least, the rules by which children are named appeared to be more flexible among Croats and Slovenes than among the more traditional Serbs (one interviewee maintained that family traditions in the naming of children were most closely followed by Serbs and Dalmatians, but the sample was too limited to establish any supporting documentation for the claim).

One Croat said that the traditional pattern among Croats is to confer the names of Roman Catholic saints, especially if the child is b o m close to a saint's day. This was the case with three of the

Croats interviewed.

There are also names such as TomislaV and BranimCr— revered

Croatian kings— which have a strong South Slavic or specifically

Croatian meaning and which are, in effect, "national" names. One inter­ viewee had been given his name according to this practice. Six others had been given South Slavic names which their parents liked, although the naunes were not traditionally "national."

Three of the four Croat interviewees from Dalmatia had been named for family members— either in the grandparents' or parents' generation.

Other Croats had also been named for close relatives; one had been named for his father, another for an uncle killed in World War II.

Only two Croats were not given South Slavic names. (Since some individ- 171 uals were named according to more than one rationale such as after a

Saint's Day and for a family name, more than 14 reasons are accounted for. )

One Slovene recalled that when he was growing up there was a tendency in Slovenian cities for parents to give their children old

Slavonic names. Otherwise, it was the custom to give children the names of saints, although not necessarily on the basis of the saint's day falling closest to the date of birth. He also pointed out that many names have both a male and female form (examples are Moa*igan and

Marisa, Frariko and Fvanaiska, Joeip axiû Joeipa, Ante and Antoniga,

Petar and Petra, Zovan and Zorana or Zara, Stefan and Stefioa,

Ivan and Ivanka, Lgtibomir and Lgiibioa). Almost any name, as he pointed out, can be converted, and often both the male and female forms of the same name have a variety of configurations (Stefan, Stigepan, Stevan) depending on regional and ethnic practices.

Centuries ago, as he noted, various non-Slavic names were given

Slavic forms in Slovenian as well as in other South Slavic languages.

Christian saints particularly had names that required adaptation. Some adapted relatively directly: Saint John became Sveti Jovan, Saint

Stephen became Sveti Stefan, and Saint Cyril became Sveti CirCt or / Cirito. other names did not adapt readily and in Slavic form bear no visible resemblance to their non-Slavic counterparts: Frederick became

Miroslav, Geoffrey became Bogontir.

The practices followed by the families of the Slovenicui interviewees suggest a greater tendency for them to be named after parents than was true for the Croats euid particularly the Serbs. Although only three of the 12 Slovenes had been named for their parents, two others noted that 172 other members of their families had been so named. Seven had not been named for anyone in the immediate family, although one of the seven had been named for an uncle. Unlike the Serbs, neither the Croats nor

the Slovenes appeared to have adopted the practice of letting the godparent name the child.

Among the three groups there appeared to be marked differences in

the conferring of middle names. Only two of the Serb interviewees— both second generation individuals— had been given middle names; one other Serb had added a middle name at naturalization, and a fourth had been given his father's first name initial for his middle initial. In contrast, at least eight of the 14 Croat interviewees had been given middle names, and six of those were persons b o m in Yugoslavia.

According to the interviewees, Slovenes are almost always given middle names, although they are seldom used and are not considered especially important. Ten of the 12 Slovene interviewees had been given middle names; one had acquired a middle name upon becoming an American citizen; only one had never had a middle name.

To the extent that any conclusions can be drawn about middle names

from the interviewee group, the statistics appear to dovetail with the differing recommendations of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches with respect to the naming of children.

Second generation interviewees— either b o m in the United States or coming here as children or adolescents— expressed various feelings about their given names. For some, the normal agonies of adolescence or early adulthood had been exacerbated by their "strange" and "foreign" names, which had made it just that much harder for them to conform to peer group pressure to be like everybody else. One interviewee who had 173 been given a national name implored her parents to give American or

English names to her younger siblings; she was continually distressed by the fact that nobody in her school could or would pronounce her name correctly. Paradoxically, however, her name turned out to be an advan­ tage in college; it gave her a more exotic quality in the eyes of her peers. Other interviewees reported a similar kind of late-blooming pride in a name that had seemed so awkward during childhood and adolescence.

Getting Americans to pronounce unfamiliar names correctly can be frustrating and sometimes impossible, as many interviewees learned. This becomes a matter of considerable concern when it is time for the inter­ viewees to name their own children. In general, the interviewees have opted for names which, if ethnic, can be pronounced and spelled by

Americans without great difficulty. Uikjoita (or Nikolas) can be handled by most Americans, as can Olga, Maria, Helena, Mark (or Marko), and

Victor. Daniaa, Milica, and Tomislao were also cited as serviceable examples, although Americans are capable of pronouncing them as "Danicka,"

"Milicka," and "Thomas-lav." Mariga seems simple enough, but can be mangled by people whose own language pronounces "j" as in Jack.

A few Serbs have given children Serbian names for the baptism ceremony and Anglicized names, for legal purposes, on the birth certifi­ cate. In such instances, nicknames derived from the Serbian name are likely to be used at home.

Looking at the interviewee group as a whole, these patterns emerge: of the 56 interviewees, 40 were given South Slavic names and have continued to use those name intact or almost intact in Washington; ten either were given Americanized versions of ethnic names or altered 174 their names, and use such adapted names now; and the remaining six were given and continue to use names with no ethnic roots.

Of the 21 interviewee families who have home children in the

United States, ten have given ethnic names to all of their children.

Three have adopted ethnic names for some children and Anglicized names for others. One feuaily gave ethnic names at baptism and American equivalents on birth certificates. Of the remaining seven families where non-ethnic names have been exclusively conferred, five have held to a degree of tradition by giving the Anglicized names of other family members. Among the interviewees who have not yet had any children but expect to do so, the general preference was for names with ethnic meaning as long as they could be pronounced. Expression of continuing ethnic identity through the medium of a child's name seemed less critical, on balance, thcin attempting to protect the child against difficulty among his or her peers.

Kinship

Many kinship-related topics were discussed with the interviewees; only some of those items have been included in this section. The rationale for choosing certain topics over others is based on those that appear to best provide a general ethnographic perspective and a view of ethnic identity over generations of the family.

Translation of the Term "Family"

All interviewees were asked for the word that came closest to the

American concept of "family" in either Slovenian, Croatian, or Serbian.

Unexpectedly, this question elicited an array of responses and explan­ ations, and only two interviewees could not suggest any comparable term. 175

One conclusion forthcoming from the responses is that "family" has a broad meaning among the study group in that more than the nuclear family would ordinarily be considered to be part of the family. A less clear division exists in respect to who is in the family and who is not, and the general tendency appears to be more inclusive than exclusive, in contrast to many non-South Slavic Americans. Because the family remains the primary social grouping in which ethnic activities are engaged in— even when the children reach adulthood— the breadth of the family sphere allows for increased social interaction with other ethnic group members.

Morton Benson's Serbo-Croatian-English Dictionary (1971) was the source for definitions of those words suggested by Serbs and Croats for "family." Additionally, Professor Milovan Gavazzi, Professor

Emeritus of Ethnology, University of Zagreb, provided through personal correspondence some details on the roots and usage of various terms denoting "family" as used by Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs.

The Slovenes interviewed were the most consistent in their answers as to which terms encompass which members of the family. Drzina was almost * uniformly designated as including members of the nuclear or immediate family, meaning mother, father, and children. Some Slovenes extended ârEina to include other close family members such as grand­ parents as long as they lived in the same household as the nuclear family. IVo Slovenian interviewees suggested terms other than dr^inCL»

One designated obitetg, a Croatian word, as comprising everyone in the household. In this instance, the interviewee was b o m in a Slovenian city, and while growing up, had considerable contact with South Slavic people other than Slovenes. Another person suggested famitiga for the 176

immediate family, which is a term that both Serbs and Croats use.

Professor Gavazzi noted that drSina is that word used by both

Slovenian peasants and urbanites to refer to the nuclear family. For

"relatives" or "kindred" the Slovenes use the word srodatvo. Although most Slovenians interviewed specified only drSina, two also mentioned srodetvo in reference to blood relatives in the extended family, but usually not members acquired through marriage. Professor Gavazzi also pointed out that' sroda-bvo corresponds in meaning to rodbina in Croatian, which is the term suggested for the extended family by the Slovene who designated obit&Zg for the nuclear family.

Both Serbs and Croats offered much more varied responses to this question than the Slovenes. Obitelg, denoting the nuclear family, was given often by Croats but never by Serbs. Porodiaa, sometimes meaning nuclear family and sometimes extended family, was given only by Serbs, with the single exception of . a Croat. A third term— fanritiga— either in reference to the nuclear or to the extended family, was cited by both

Serbs and Croats.

Benson defines obitetg as "family" and designates it as a Western

(Croatian) form. His dictionary does not limit either famùtiga or povodiaa to only the Eastern or Western variants of Serbo-Croatian. While famitiga connotes the immediate family, porodCca encompasses extended relatives. Likewise, Professor Gavazzi wrote that the Serbs never use obitetg, but do use porodiaa and famitiga. According to him, obitetg is an old inherited colloquial term that was introduced into the Croatian literary lemguage in the nineteenth century.

Most Croatian interviewees referred either to obitetg solely as being synonymous with "family," or else referred to obitètg and famitiga 177

as being interchangeable terms for the same concept. The responses of most Croats indicated that both terms encompass the members of the

immediate family, but some explained further that if close relatives—

such as grandparents— live in the same household, they too would be

included within the bounds of obitetg and famitiga. One second generation

Croat suggested only famitiga and offered that determining who is to be

included famitiga is a very individualistic matter. This particu­

lar Croat perceived famitiga as connoting a sense of sharing and concern among family members, and in this case, would include the immediate

family plus a grandmother living in the same household. Among second generation Croats both obitetg and famitiga continue to be used to mean

"family."

Professor Gavazzi observed that famitiga is adopted by peasants

and urban Serbs and Croats alike and while it often includes only members of the nuclear family, sometimes it also refers to other close kindred— out to third cousins. Social anthropologist Eugene Hammel

in his study of godparenthood in the Balkans, explains that the word porodiaa comes from the root rod, meaning "kinship," "birth," "gender," and "lineage." He found the terms famitiga and porodioa to be reversed in Montenegro and Serbia in respect to the members of the family that each concept encompasses.

In Serbia, the nuclear and/or extended family was usually called porodioa and the lineage famitiga or vamitiga. The nuclear family was also called uaka (narrow) porodioa; in Montenegro the order is reversed, so that porodioa designates groups of wider and famitiga those of narrower range [1968: 24].

In examining the answers of Serbs to this question, it appeared that famitiga and porodioa were interchangeable concepts since approxi- 178 mately half of the respondents gave one term and the other half gave the other. In addition, five Serbs mentioned both terms as possibilities, but they were inconsistent among themselves as to which is closest to meaning nuclear family and which to meaning the extended family. Of the five persons distinguishing fcaniliga from porodioa, four were first generation individuals; all of them specified porodioa as the "nuclear" or "closer relatives," or "the whole tribe." One of these four Serbs substituted rodbina formeaning "relatives."

while first generation Serbs were divided as to vdiich term— famitiga or porodioa— they gave as most synonymous with the English concept "family," Serbs who grew up in the United States provided famitiga as that term. The single American-bom Serb who pointed out the possibility of both words said that famitiga, indicating immediate family, is used most often among Serbs in western Pennsylvania and is reinforced in the United States its similarity witli the English word

"family." That reason was offered for why it is used most often cunong

American-bom Serbs. In those instances where porodioa is used at all, it refers to relatives beyond the immediate family, according to this interviewee. Two other American-bom Serbs suggested that famitiga is probably either an Americanized word or a word that was picked up in the United States. Another second generation Serb described porodioa as being a broader concept in Serbian than "family" is in English since porodioa includes cousins and might even extend to godparents. In fact, according to this person, members of a Serbian Orthodox parish are occasionally referred to collectively as the church porodioa.

On the basis of answers to this question, a general shift is detected among Serbs from the usage of the term porodioa eumong the first 179

generation to famitiga among second and third generation, signifying

immediate family members living with the same household. Those people

b o m in Yugoslavia who-pointed out the difference between the two terms

uniformly designated porodioa as close family and famitiga as extended

family. Perhaps the similarity of the English term to those Serbs

growing up in the United States is a factor in their designation of

"family" as famitiga to the exclusion of porodioa. The fact that the majority of Serbs immigrating to the United States before World War II

Ccune from territories outside of Serbia, including Montenegro, also may have played a role in second and third generation Serbs* selection

of famitiga over porodioa. This possible explanation follows in line with Hammel*s distinction between their usage in Serbia emd Montenegro.

In general, these various words— drzina, srodstvo, rodbina, obitetg, famitiga, and porodioa— are described by interviewees as having broader and more flexible connotations than the American concept of

"family." This point of view was expressed by the second and third

generation persons as well as the first generation. Perhaps the disparities among Serbs and Croats as to which term encompasses which

family members also reflects the flexibility observed within Serbian

and Croatian families in the United States as to who is and who is not

considered "family." Hammel also describes considerable variation in kinship terms in the Balkans brought about by regional diversity,

rural/urban differences, experience in the United States, generational

factors, and exposure to nontraditional ways (1968: 28). 180

Household Makeup

The elasticity of certain kinship terras among Serbs, Croats,

and Slovenes b o m in Yugoslavia and the United States is partly related

to who typically lives in the household. While in Yugoslavia, more often them not, the household includes extended fcunily members at least

for some period when children are growing up, in the United States,

this is a much less frequent practice. Instead, the nuclear family household is the rule of thumb, even when extended family members live

in the same community. In Washington, this pattern was commonly fol­

lowed.

Until the nineteenth century the classical Dinaric social structure existed throughout most of present-day Yugoslavia, with the exception of

Slovenia. A review of changes in that social structure may help explain some of the ambiguity over the usage of the terms fcanitija versus porodioa among contemporary Serbs and famitiga versus obitetg among Croats.

According to Andrei Simic, those terms are related to the traditional makeup and function of the household unit.

Dinaric society was strongly male-oriented and reckoned descent patrilineally. The smallest economically and politically significant unit was the household (kuda) , which comprised a minimal lineage known as the famitiga or vamitiga (these terms roughly translated as "the family" or "the extended family"). The kuda generally consisted of a man and his wife; their unmarried sons and daughters; married sons with their wives and children; and sometimes married grandsons, or other close patrilineal male kin. Separate nuclear families retained their own hearths within a common residence, and thus remained independent units of consumption [1973; 46-47].

Joel Halpem, in his monograph on Orasac, a village in Serbia, points out that porodioa, meaning "nuclear family, " includes a husband and wife and their children. Famitiga, on the other hand, refers to 181 the lineage or clan. "Each is composed of groups of households which trace their origin from the same ancestor, share a common name, and have the same patron saint. The common ancestor is usually a male and descent is always traced in the male line" (1967: 134, 150).

The zadruga is a much-discussed kinship term in the literature on the South Slavs (see Mosley 1940, Ehrlich 1966, and Hammel 1968). In the Dinaric social structure

The basic property-owning group was the patrilocally extended family, the zadruga. it might consist of a father, his sons and their wives and children— or it could be a fraternal joint-family of several brothers with their wives and children. Each zadruga had its roots in a nuclear family, and expanded by a simple extension of personnel and property until it became unwieldy. The size of the joint- family might grow to as many as 100 or so members, though this was unusual [Simic 1973: 49].

According to Vera St. Ehrlich, the zadruga was a specifically South

Slavic social organization that was found within all regions where they settled, except Slovenia. At the time she collected data for her study on change in the family (1930's), Ehrlich found that the zadruga was still intact in some regions of Yugoslavia, but was in the process of disintegration in others (1966: 32).

From the middle of the nineteenth century, disintegration proceeded slowly when zadrugae began to divide along elementary or nuclear family lines and property and economic activity began to be separated among sections of the family. By 1961 the average size of households in Yugo­ slavia was 3.98 persons (Baric 1967). In compcurison, the household size of the zadrugaa ordinarily ranged from ten to twenty persons (Mosley

1940).

Each interviewee was asked about the composition of his household while growing up. The predominant pattern among Slovenes— both in 182

Slovenia and in the United States— was to have grown up in a household with only the nuclear family; only two had other relatives living with them part of the time. Five b o m in Slovenia had a live-in maid in addition to the immediate family. It was only among the four second generation persons that additional family members (grandparents), sponsored families, or friends lived in the saune house.

Well over half of the Croats came from homes where only the immediate faunily resided, and that is the pattern they described as being ideal for Croats in thé United States. Three persons described growing up in extended family households that included both paternal grandpaurents emd the father's brothers' faunilies (patrilocal residence).

Significantly, all three of these families were Dalmatiem. In one case, the interviewee specified that tradition dictated that the paternal grandfather remain head of the whole faunily until he died and that his sons bring their wives home and raise their families in the paternal grandfather's household. In the other two cases, which are somewhat more recent, one Croat exqilained that the paternal grand­ parents, their two sons, and their sons' families continued to live together until the grandfather died, whereupon the house was then divided between the two sons; the other Dalmatian described a similar pattern, but one where many offspring had to divide the property. In this family the tradition was for the eldest son to maintain responsi­ bility for the parents as long as they were alive even though other sons and their families continued to live in the family household. It could also happen that a married sister and her family would live with her parents' rather than with the husband's. Housing shortages accounted for some of the deviation from the traditional patrilocal household 183 structure. In this particular family fifteen members over three generations remained in the household.

Two other Croats had grandparents living with them in Croatia where they grew up; in both instances, it was paternal grandparents.

Among those Croats who grew up in the United States, only one had extended family consistently living in the household throughout

childhood. This household was composed of the immediate family plus

the maternal grandmother and a live-in maid.

Most of the Serbs (19 out of 25) also grew up in nuclear family households, with six households in Serbia also including a live-in maid or governess. Times of economic hardship and of war appeared

to have been the reason for certain Serbian families to include extended relatives or friends in need of a place to live, and the effects of the depression and World War II were the two major precip­

itating factors causing families to move in together.

At the time of the interviews, only four of the 56 interviewees

lived with their extended families in Washington (i.e., paternal grand­ mothers, aunt ctnd uncle, and a brother). These cases are clearly exceptions to the rule of children leaving their natal household upon marriage, if not earlier, to form a new household that does not include extended family members.

Marrying-in and Marrying-out

Members of the study group expressed varying attitudes about their expectations for the future of ethnic identity in their children's families. Their exqiectations were closely linked to the anticipated marital patterns of the children. Virtually everyone realized that 184 there was little likelihood that their adolescent or young adult children would marry within their own ethnic group. The question was posed to them: "How convenient or inconvenient is it for Serbs, Croats, or

Slovenes who live in Washington to find others to marry within their own ethnic group, if that is their wish?" The response from members of each group was that it was "very inconvenient," "very difficult,"

"almost impossible," "one chance in a thousand," "zero chance," etc.

According to the interviewees, meeting others within the same ethnic and age group, let alone marrying, was a rarity. The anticipation of extensive cross-cultural marriages was a central consideration in the continuation of ethnic identity in the minds of those interviewed.

Appendix C (VI) delineates the marital patterns among the Eli interviewees. In this context, "American" refers to a person b o m in the United States of neither Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian parentage.

"Other foreign-born" designates persons b o m outside of the United states who were not Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes. And "ethnically mixed

South Slavic marriage" encompasses those persons who were married to someone who, like themselves, come from one of the South Slavic ethnic groups, but one that is different from their own, i.e., Slovene married to a Croat.

This profile of interviewee marital patterns shows the extent of intermarriage that has already occurred. Out of the 56 interviewees, only 18 had married within their own ethnic group; of these, 14 were first generation. Furthermore, none of the IB had met and married in

Washington. In fact, only three members of the study group had met their spouses-to-be in Washington.

Those 11 persons married to Americans were a more even mixture of 185

first, second, and third generation individuals with slightly more than

half within the second and third generations. Conversely, the four

ethnically mixed South Slavic marriages all involved persons from the

first generation. Additionally, there were four Serbs married to other

foreign-bom persons.

A rather remarkable characteristic of the study group— at first

glance— is the number of unmarried persons: 19 out of 56 interviewees

had never married, were divorced, or had been widowed. At 34 per cent,

this would appear to reflect an unusual pattern; Census Bureau figures

for the Washington metropolitan area, however, show 40 per cent of the

total population over 14 years of age as unmarried (never married,

separated, widowed, or divorced) (Washington Center for Metropolitan

Studies 1975: Table 6).

Six interviewees were less than 26 years old; of these five

remained single. Although I did not ask any direct questions of unmar­

ried interviewees about their reasons for waiting to marry, several

considerations appeared to play a central role in marital trends among

them. First, there was a general tendency to marry later because of higher education, careers, and responsibility for their families of

origin. Secondly, the sparseness of available marriage partners from

the same ethnic group appears to have delayed marriage for at least a

few of those interviewed.

Difficulty in finding potential spouses for those persons who pre­

fer to marry within their ethnic group is underscored by the fact that none of the interviewees could recall any Washington marriages between persons in their ethnic group. Slovenes commented on the greater possibility of intragroup marriage in cities such as Cleveland and New 186

York, but pointed out that contact between Slovenes in Washington and

other cities was very limited. Therefore, there was little chance of

an increase in the numbers of Slovenes marrying Slovenes, at least in

the near future. Of the two unmarried Slovenes in their twenties,

one knew no one in the immediate age range and the other knew only

one such person. Neither was consciously looking for someone to marry

among the Slovenes; one thought it very unlikely that such a thing would

ever happen.

The situation among the Croats was very similar. In the past few

years several unmarried Croats in their twenties had come to Washington

as well as some young married couples, but almost all of the single

individuals were men. Reportedly, they usually dated non-Croatian

American women. Interviewees acknowledged that contact between Croats

in Washington and other cities such as New York might increase the

chance of marriage within their ethnic group. Thus far, however, such

contact remained limited. Of the two unmarried Croats between 16 and

25 years of age, neither was very optimistic about meeting other Croats

of their same age and general educational background.

Although the Serbs interviewed saw little likelihood of Serbs marrying Serbs in Washington in the immediate future, some discussed

their anticipation of the situation changing over the next ten to

fifteen years. The membership of both Serbian Orthodox parishes con­

sists in great part of families with mainly pre-teenage children. Should most of these same families remain in the Washington area, the numbers

of Serbs of marriageable age in approximately a decade will be sub­

stantially greater than it is now. As it stands, if Serbs do not come

to Washington already married to Serbs, they are most likely to marry a 187 non-Serbian American, a foreigner, or to remain single. Several mentioned that the only way they knew of for unmarried Serbs to meet other unmarried Serbs in Washington was through the church, since that was where the largest numbers gather.

For some individuals who would prefer to marry within the ethnic group, there is the possibility of going to Yugoslavia in order to meet someone. One interviewee noted one such case in Washington, and another's marriage resulted from such a union.

The incidence of ethnically mixed South Slavic marriages is reportedly low for Washington and low within ny study group. Only four such persons were interviewed. According to one of these inter­ viewees, intermarriage between Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes is uncommon in the United States as well as in Yugoslavia; this is not surprising in view of differences in culture, especially religion, and attitudes toward each other. Parents in Yugoslavia even warn their children against it. Out of the whole study group only one person fully antici­ pated marrying someone either of the same ethnic group or of some other

South Slavic group; in this case the precondition was that the religious affiliation be consistent with the interviewee, either through background or through conversion.

If this is the reality of the marital situation in the study group, what kind of values do people exqiress regarding intragroup marriage in their own lives or their children's? More comment was offered by parents about their hopes for their children's marriages than by unmarried inter­ viewees about their own plans. Most of those unmarried in their twenties said they would probably marry someone of similar educational background regardless of ethnic affiliation. Those persons were all of the second 188

generation. The reasons given were not only practical, i.e., not enough

ethnic group members in Washington, but also attitudinal. Four women

pointed out that there are often major differences between men and

women among their own ethnic group in their attitudes toward the role

of women in the home and in the society. According to them, the men

tend to be more traditional in this respect than the women, especially

in the first generation, making it all the more difficult for women

with professional careers who would perhaps like to marry within their

own ethnic group.

Only two marriages within the group wefe across-generations (i.e.,

first and second generations). In both cases each spouse was very

involved in ethnic group activities. In Washington, however, this

pattern appears to be relatively uncommon. Unmarried interviewees who

were b o m in Yugoslavia and who were interested in marrying someone

from their ethnic group said they were more inclined to marry another

Yugoslav-born than an American-bom. Generational differences, they

noted, often go hand in hand with varying literary and linguistic,

artistic, religious, and political orientations.

Parents had diverse prospects for the marital futures of their

children. One said that this is a "most difficult question." Another

remarked that they "wouldn't push our kids, but we would love it" if

their children would marry within the group. A third commented that "it would be nice, but..." And another already had some young children in

mind as marital possibilities for their children, but felt that "above

all, they should marry those whom they love. " Others had no particular

feelings on the matter, many saying that they would certainly not

actively encourage intra-group marriage; one argued that "parents should 189

not intrude on their children's marriage plans because that is an individual decision."

When I posed a question about the impact of cross-cultural mar­ riages upon the maintenance of ethnic identity in their children's families, values were strongly expressed regarding: 1) the overall benefits of marrying within the ethnic group; 2) different roles of spouses in raising children in an ethnic tradition; and 3) the future of ethnic identity in America.

Several parents stressed that their primary concern for their children's marriages within the ethnic group was not to maintain ethnic identity, but to ensure marital happiness and stability. Similar ethnic backgrounds, they asserted, can lessen clashes within the new family as well as between the couple and the families of origin. As one Serbian woman expressed it: "Rather than saying that it is important for ethnic identity, I would say that it is important for maintaining family stability and happiness." This statement sums up the appraisal of at least several persons. A Slovene remarked that it is important "not just for the Slovenian cause, or to raise the child in some tradition, but also for personal enjoyment" to marry someone from the same ethnic group.

Another Serb said, "I don't look for maintenance of ethnic identity as the advantage of Serbs marrying Serbs, but for happiness and less marital strife. I think perhaps there is less stress if parents are of the same ethnic background."

Almost everyone in the study group acknowledged that intermarriage had a decided impact on the maintenemce of ethnic identity in the next generation, but several also pointed to instances of mixed marriages where the marrying-in spouse became ém integral part of the ethnic group. 190

This phenomenon was reported by both Slovenes and Serbs. As one Slovene expressed it, "In Washington there are many non-Slovenian spouses, but it takes a while to find out that they're not Slovenes. An adoption process makes that possible." Another cited some "instances of non-

Slovenes who are more Slovenian than the Slovenes." In a similar vein, a Serbian woman observed, "Judging from mixed marriages I know of, if the non-Serbian spouse gets into it, he or she can become more Serbian than the Serbs. I know at least half a dozen such cases here in Washington."

Interviewees were asked further if, in instances of intermarriage, it made any difference in the maintenance of ethnic identity among the children whether the spouse marrying in was the wife or the husband.

Several Slovenes and Serbs pointed out specific instances of both types where ethnic identity remained strong in the family. One added, "if the wife is a non-Slovene ethnic, the chances are that she will defer to her husband. If she is American, she can either become an ethnic advocate or else she can be totally uninterested. I have seen them all." Two

Croats, a man and a woman, suggested that it is the woman who makes the greatest difference in ethnic maintencuice since she is "the dominant influence in the home." 'Ethnic maintencince" they said, "depends very much on the wife, since she is the one who spends the most time with the children. Therefore, it is more important that the mother take an interest." Among the Serbs, examples were given where it had worked both ways; the husband Serbian, the wife not, and vice versa, and where in both cases ethnic identity had remained a viable tradition in the family. Still, those persons commenting further on this point stressed that it is usually more important that the woman be Serbian than the man if ethnic identity is to be maintained. "More often non- 191

Serbian men become interested in their wives' Serbian traditions than the other way around. " "Almost always it is the woman who does the pulling and influencing." "The future of Serbian ethnicity in the family would stem from the woman since she -is more likely to be con­ cerned with perpetuating traditions. Men have concern, but women are the ones to handle it." These observations and opinions were based on examples familiar to interviewees as well as upon their assumption of what might happen under such circumstances.

However, most interviewees concluded that mixed marriages usually led to a decrease in ethnic identity in the children's generation. One disagreed: "Intermarriage has been a fact of life for Slovenes; it has been going on since 700 A.D. I don't think it, in and of itself, brings about a decrease in ethnic identity."

An intermediate position was taken by another Slovene. "Marriage within the same ethnic group is important to the extent that if both parents are of the same ethnic background, children more readily feel

Slovenian." Another suggested that in order to maintain ethnic identity

"marriage within the ethnic group is essential. Only then do they talk the language. If a Slovene is married to a Slovene, the customs remain. If not, they disappear." And another Slovene pointed out that

"\dien mixed marriages occur, there has to be a loss of ethnic identity in the family since compromises have to be made. The cultures are just too different."

Among Croats, language appeared to be a major concern when they discussed the impact of mixed marriages on ethnic identity. "In mixed marriages, children don' t learn the language" was the summation of one.

"Probably children lose their Croatian cultural identity in mixed 192 marriage families. There is no longer a genuine base." And another comment was: "If they don't marry Croats, they don't maintain much."

On the other hand, two Croats noted that there is change in ethnic identity maintenance over generations no matter what marriage patterns are followed. "It is inevitable that ethnic identity will be diluted in each generation," one commented. "All ethnic groups are subject to gradual and persistent disappearance regardless of circum­ stances," the other said.

Serbs also spoke of the lessened chances of ethnic identity maintenance when one parent is not Serbian. They commented: "If parents want to teach the customs, it is much easier if both are of the same background." And: "Many traditions in mixed marriages can be carried on to the next generation, but it is less likely that the children will then pass them on." And: "It is absolutely important; otherwise, ethnicity is diluted and lost."

While almost everyone agreed that mixed maurriages are bound to have an impact on ethnic identity maintenance, not everyone was equally committed to the idea that maintenance was something they especially wanted to foster with their children, particularly in respect to whom they should marry. A certain ambivalence appeared within all gener­ ations: "If the goal is to maintain ethnic identity, it would be furthered if both parents were frcm the same background." And: "If that is one's value, it's very important." And: "The advantage of non-mixed marriages is that the ethnic group remains stronger, but intermarriage also contributes to the melting pot in America."

Although not so directly stated by other interviewees, a prevailing point-of-view among most parents of children who have already married or 193

who are presently of marriageable age appeared to be a recognition that

it was unlikely that their children would marry within their ethnic

group; that the focus of ethnic identity in their children's families

would be different from the families they grew up in; and that there

were many considerations in their children's well-being other than ethnic

identity. Along with such an appraisal of the situation, there was

anticipation that the children would maintain ethnic identity only in

ways that they would feel comfortable within the context of their own

lifestyles and that parents were limited in the ways that they could or

should influence their children in their plans for marriage.

Distinguishing Characteristics of Families

What qualities, if any, do Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes believe

differentiate their families from other American families? With the

exception of five persons, members of the study group stressed that

there were many differences, even in second and third generation homes.

Considerable overlap of interviewee comments on those differences occurred between the three ethnic groups.

A real family closeness, including the extended family members, exists. This closeness can be seen in the auto­ matic acceptance of me and my immediate family by our relatives, no matter how infrequently we see each other. Such family closeness is rare and outstanding in this day and age. — Third generation Slovene

Closeness as a dominant theme in the family was the most fre­

quently expressed attribute for Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian

families: 28 persons specifically mentioned closeness as an outstanding

family trait. Other commonly mentioned traits included an emphasis on

the parents' responsibility for their children's socialization and the ' 194 reciprocal responsibility of children for their parents especially as they grow older.

There is definitely a difference. The whole way of life has been different in ray family. My parents* attitudes toward our upbringing have been more strict and they have been more involved with us than other parents I know. But as a result we have been much closer. Our meals are dif­ ferent. Our language is different. We're always around Croats, and our home is very culturally oriented. It's a very different family life style than that of my friends' families. — Second generation Croat

Ihere is a very great difference. Serbian-Amefican families are more emphatic about having a tightly knit togetherness and are more disciplinarian. There is an emphasis on respect for older people and taking care of elderly parents. — Second generation Serb

The Croatian family supports the child, and, in turn, the children support the parents later.

— First generation Croat

The Serbian-American family has stronger ties to tradition. Everything revolves around the church and its affairs. It also retains more of a family identity. It is closer. There is more kissing. Parents are more strict in bringing up their children and give more love and affection. We are more demanding with our children.

— Second generation Serb

Frequently mentioned by members of each ethnic group were familial differences that occurred because of the greater number of activities families had continued to participate in together. Regularly eating meals together remained important in the lives of family members. The

Serbs observe their family alaoa (patron saint's day), and Serbian

Orthodox Christmas and Easter fall at different times and are celebrated in different ways from Croatian and Slovenian Roman Catholic Christmas and Easter. Parties with singing, dancing, food, and wine were also often mentioned as family affairs among the Serbs. Slovenes and Croats 195

also reported holding parties in their homes: some featured lively music and dancing; others included formal musical presentations on the part of the children; food and wine were important to all.

Slovenian interviewees also commented on thriftiness, efficiency, neatness, hard work, and study as characteristics of Slovenian homes.

One also pointed out a tendency for Slovenian households to be more patriarchal than other American families.

A Croatian man asserted that once "a Croatian woman becomes

Americanized and accepts the liberalization policy of American women, the family is American and permissiveness with the children develops."

On the other side, a second generation Croatian woman described her family as having greater personal contact and interchange, with parents and children in the home being more direct with each other so that there is no communication gap between the two generations. She also suggested that perhaps one reason for the closeness between parents and children was that the children resisted peer group pressure to be like all the others in their age group.

Frugality, hard work, a desire to establish themselves through owning property, cuid hospitality are qualities Serbs described as being characteristic of their families. A difference between Serbian and non-Serbian families that was mentioned was the role of men and women in the home. One first generation Serbian man suggested that most

Serbian families are still quite patriarchal, in that the wife takes care of the children and the home and is not so inclined to be a professional like her husband. Another first generation Serbian man stated that in the American family the woman is in command, while in

Serbian families it is still half and half. Yet a second generation 196

Serbian roan submitted that his parents had kept the best of the Old

Country while adding the best of American ways in raising their children.

Nearly everyone interviewed felt that the family they had grown up in and their present families had certain positive qualities that set them apart from other American families. A strong sense was also expressed by those with families in the United States that the family had been or still was the primary center, sometimes in conjunction with the church, of the learning of ethnic identity.

Family Rituals: Christmas, Easter, and Krana Slava

Supplementary data was collected on the major family holidays through life-history interviews, written and recorded descriptions, and participant-observation. The researcher also attended three krsne slave

(plural of slava, meaning "patron saint's day") in churches and in two peoples' homes.

Orthodox Serbs in Yugoslavia and the United States continue to follow the Julian Calendar (sometimes called the Old Calendar) for their religious rituals, while Slovenes and Croats, in adherence to Roman

Catholic tradition, have adopted the Gregorian Calendar (New) for their sacred observances. Ihere is a difference of 13 days between the two calendars; for example. New Year's Day falls on the first of January for

Croats and Slovenes and on January 14 for Serbs. And while Croats and

Slovenes celebrate Christmas on December 25, Serbs observe it on

January 7. Christmas Eve services are held in both Serbian Orthodox

Churches in Washington on January 6, and that is the time, rather than on Christmas Day, that most Serbs attend religious services. As examples of holiday rituals obseirved in families' homes, Christmas, Saint Nicholas 197

Day (December 6), and Easter were discussed with Slovenes and Croats and the kvsna slava was described by Serbs.

A second generation Slovenian woman who grew up in another part of the United States synopsized Christmas, Easter, and Saint Nicholas

Day in her home.

Christmas and Easter were those holidays which had special significance in our home. We also celebrated Thanksgiving, a holiday my family adopted.

When I think of Christmas, I think of my mother bringing home incense from the church and going around the house with it burning while sprinkling everything with holy water. The whole family would go together to "dress" the house, to keep it safe from the elements.

The presents under the Christmas tree were brought by the Christ child, not Santa Claus. We had a Christmas tree and wreaths, émd my mother made a certain type of ever-green bouquet that they used to make in Europe. There they made a giant version that they used to hang oranges and apples from, but my mother just made one small symbolic one. The nativity scene was also important. My parents would get us children involved in making it. We used to get quite elaborate with the rocky land, stables, caves, and tiny villages. That was something that was definitely carried from my parents' child­ hood. I think that's the reason they emphasized it when we were young.

Only our family was together for Christmas. Specially prepcired foods were one of the most important parts of the holiday. Ftiaa, vAiich is nut and raison bread, butter cookies, sausage and onion bread, and breaded chicken were big at Christmas time.

Saint Nicholas Day was celebrated earlier in December, cUid that was the time of the bearing of gifts from Saint Nicholas. Only the family was there for that day too, and it was almost as big a holiday as Christmas. But it was mostly for the children.

Easter time was really important. Certain kinds of foods and goods were baked and cooked, and they are symbolic of various parts of the religious meaning of Easter. Hie bless­ ing of the food in the church. And the Easter eggs. My mother had this custom of going around the house and sprinkling cracked Easter egg shells all around. She said that this was to keep the serpents away. At the time we thought that she meant to keep snakes away, but what she meant was evil spirits. 198

Coloring Easter eggs was also very important. You've got to have a colored Easter egg. At least a dozen of them. Or it's not Easter.

My father used to make certain kinds of salami and sausage. That was blessed with the other food at the church, and for Easter brunch everyone would have a certain portion of the food from the Easter basket.

Fasting has always been a very important part of my parents’ celebration over the period of Lent. Those weeks were meatless, but then on Easter day the food was really good. It was ham, a ham that was baked in a crusty dough that made the ham moist. It's really good. We would have this at brunch after morning Mass. And then we would have salami and sausage. That would be prepared months ahead of time. That's always been so standard that I can't remember a Christmas or an Easter without it.

Although Christmas and Easter, as described by this interviewee, were based on religious tradition, the customs of the family gave a distinctive essence to the holidays. Of those people asked about holi­ days in their home, most not only emphasized the commonality of the rituals with other families within the same ethnic group, but also the distinctiveness of their family's traditions. This observation, in turn, was connected to the feeling that their family had a character of its own. Descriptions of holiday celebrations were full and vivid, and interviewees appeared to enjoy discussing them.

Croats, like Slovenes, are Roman Catholics and therefore, follow the same religious calendar. Yet many of their customs at Christmas and Easter are quite different. A second generation Croatian woman who grew up in Washington gave the following overview of the celebration of these holidays in her fcunily.

Since most Croatians are Roman Catholics, the religious aspects of Christmas and Easter are generally the same.

Christmas is the time of the year with strong religious connotations, but a period when friends and relatives espe­ cially like to get together. Croats find particular happiness 199

in celebrating any holiday by being together, singing carols, and eating. And that is the type of thing I would like to carry on. Traditionally, the real celebration starts Christmas Eve; we never eat meat on this day, and, instead, always prepare a fish meal of hàkatcæ {cod fish), which usu­ ally sezrved at an evening meal with family and friends.

Later that evening it is traditional that we make frituZe (fritters). We then go to midnight Mass, and open presents in the morning.

Christmas Day is usually celebrated with an afternoon meal of saxma (cabbage and sauerkraut), turkey, and ovehnjaSa (a type of rolled cake with a nut filling). As you can see, food plays a big role; my mother and grandmother excel in making a few kinds of absolutely delicious cookies. For New Years Day we try to get a suckling pig to prepare for dinner.

Easter (and Lent) is a very holy time of the year also. All religious obligations must be fulfilled (Mass, fasts, etc.) and activity is usually somewhat subdued especially during Holy Week. Easter Day is again celebrated with a big meal, usually a lamb, with family and friends. Each year we also have an Easter bread (pogaSa ) made in a loaf or in braided form decorated with painted eggs. We also paint eggs, which seems to be a Slavic tradition.

I think the only difference in the way Croats celebrate these holidays is in respect to the food we prepare. Living in America we naturally follow traditions such as singing carols, having a Christmas tree, and sending cards.

The preparation cmd serving of special dishes at holiday time has been presented by both of these interviewees as a major difference be­ tween the holidays in their homes and in non-Slovenian and non-Croaticm families. In fact, in the second resume, food stands out as being an ethnic specialty that this woman would especially like to continue in her own family. Both of these persons continue to spend holidays with their parents and siblings. In the following account detail is also given to the kinds of food served in the home, but other unique family traditions are also brought out. In this particular case, the inter­ viewee was a second generation Croatian man who grew up in an American 200 city other than Washington.

Christinas was a very big feast day, and it involved a lot of cooking and an inordinate amount of eating. There was much anticipation of the holiday. As children, we had a special ceremony we would go through. We always got out gifts on Christmas Eve. Christmas Day was a time of cele­ bration, but Christmas Eve was when all the excitement happened. That was partly because the big meal was on Christmas Eve.

This was the way it went. We would usually decorate the tree on Christmas Eve after iseveral days were spent getting the tree and with my mother constantly in the kitchen preparing food. The tree would be decorated in the evening before the meal. Supper was always by candle­ light. It was always meatless, usually bakaZar, a special dish of salt cod, prepared in a special way with potatoes and anchovy paste and butter. It was just delicious.

Then after supper we kids would get impatient, but before the gifts it was obligatory that we children go outside to look for the baby Jesus. Generally we would spend about half an hour with friends of my parents who had come over, out walking around looking for the baby Jesus. We would get really excited about seeing him and hoped to get back to the house before he came. When we got back, we had invariably just missed him. Luckily, though, he had left something for us.

One thing that was always part of Christmas was singing carols. They were only Croatian carols and they still are. We got to know about ten or fifteen— more than that. We would generally sing them before we went out to look for the baby Jesus, and as we got older, we would stand in the living room and sing for the family and their friends. Later the ritual evolved into the sort of thing that after the supper, which was by candlelight and was a very hushed kind of thing, we would sit around for about two hours singing, talking, before we opened the presents. And as we got even older, we would go to midnight Mass after that.

Over the past ten or fifteen years the sequence has evolved so that we generally have a few people visiting on Christmas Eve. It is very customary in Croatia for friends and family to visit from one house to another. The same thing has evolved in our family. From about 10:30 to midnight we will get about four or five different visitors vdio will come, stay for awhile, and maybe have some coffee, wine, and cookies. And then we would go to midnight Mass. After the Mass it was the one day of the year when I can remember my parents consistently stay­ ing up until 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning. That was something that was amazing to me as a kid, and it was a very exciting time. 201

The other thing about it was food; food was a big aspect of Christinas. Besides the elaborate Christinas Eve dinner, Christmas Day was à huge meal. Generally there was a ham, turkey, or lainb, at least two of those. The ham was usually a huge ham, and the equivalent of a regular meal; that was just the appetizer, and then the main dish would come on \diich would be a turkey or lamb or goose or duck, something we hardly ever had and that was very special. In addition to that, ny mother had been cooking about a week and a half ahead of time, and what she was making was cookies. She would make a series of cookies. There were always Viennese cookies {VcoviVle kipfet) which are just fantastic. There are always few rum cookies, always a few walnut cookies, and there is usually a gugethupf a cake made in the bundt pan that's a Viennese delicacy.

You couldn't have any of these cookies before Christmas Eve, which was torture. They were served after the evening meal for the first time, and they were served vrtienever com­ pany came over. They were served during the caroling, before and after midnight Mass, and then all day Christmas Day. Lots and lots of cookies.

There are two things about those cookies. They have never been absent on Christmas Day, and they have never appeared when it isn't Christmas.

Religion enters very much into the significance of Christmas. It wasn't just the gift-giving, a family feast. It was also very much a religious feast. For example, there was none of the commercialism; we didn't go shopping for Christmas. Even when we got older, shopping was a secret. You didn't make a big deal out of it. Presents were kind of a surprise vdien they came out of nowhere. And they weren't what made Christmas special for our family.

Thus far, the accounts have been of interviewees who grew up in the

United States. In the following report a first generation Croatian woman described Christmas customs of the family when she was a child in Croatia

and then the ways her present family observes the holiday.

I was b o m on a farm and we didn't have all those things they used to have in the city. We used to buy a special kind of cookie that was shaped in little balls, horses, emd other shapes. We then colored the front side, and those are what we used to hang on the Christmas tree. A special man would make those cookies; he specialized in that and would make them for the several villages around our house. 202

We would also take walnuts from our tree and cover them with foil we would save from chocolate candies over the year. Then we would hang them from the tree with string, and because the foil would be of different colors, they would make the tree very sparkly.

Sometimes my father would find a real tree small enough to cut it whole,.but if he couldn't find a small one, he would simply cut a branch and put it in one corner of the room. We would then decorate that before the Christmas Eve meal. I remember that Christmas Eve was the most in^ortant part of Christmas. Decorating the tree and having Christmas supper. Not everyone did the same as us. My father would first go to the back window of our house and would shoot his gun three times into the air; everyone around would then know that it was Christmas. It was his special way of telling people that Christmas had begun, and we kids found it very exciting.

Then he would go outside. He had already made a big pile of straw in a big blanket that was waiting outside, which he would carry on his back in one hand. With the other hand he would carry a lighted candle. My mother and we children re­ mained inside with all the lights off. My father would come to the door and say that Christmas was coming; he would then come in with the candle and put the pile of straw in the blanket on the floor in the middle of the room. Everyone would get down on their knees and we would pray. That was special; I have never heard nor seen it done in this country. After we prayed, we would take the pile of straw and make the shape of the cross with it on the table. In the middle of the cross there was some money for luck. Then we covered the straw with a table cloth emd on the middle of the table Mother would put a round yeast cake, which would stay there until after the holidays. In the middle of the cake there was a candle. Under the cake we put all sorts of grain which was to symbolize luck throughout the whole year. We had also planted wheat three weeks before Christmas in bowls decorated in red, white, amd blue, our national colors. We scattered those bowls of wheat throughout the house and put one of them in the middle of the table.

Christmas Eve dinner was something special. No meat was eaten. What we did eat was fish, all kinds of onions— including green ones, garlic, round onions, and leeks, every kind there is. Then there was bean salad, and crushed walnuts mixed with honey. The fish could be made several ways. My mother used to fry it. After we ate those dishes for dinner, we would wait until after midnight when we could eat anything. My father would be roasting a suckling pig on a spit. Although he had started it early that morning, we couldn't eat any of it until after midnight. It was so good too. Sometimes it 203 wasn't such a small one either, maybe 50 pounds. At Christmas Eve supper we never had anyone but the family, no friends or relatives. But on Christmas Day we would get our friends and family together, and we would then cut the suckling pig and eat it together.

I don't remember getting c u i y special presents for Christmas, but perhaps some candies and apples. We still liked it very much. But we got our presents on Saint Nicholas Day, on the sixth of December, father used to dress as Saint Nicholas, and another man dressed as the devil, and they would go out together that evening. The devil had a chain and made all sorts of bad noises. We kids were scared to death. We wanted to see Saint Nicholas, but not the devil. They would ask us if we were going to be good and if we knew how to pray. Then they would ask if we were going to listen to our mother and father, and when we answered the questions correctly, the devil would disappear. It was rather symbolic because if we were not good, we were told, the devil was going to take us away. So everybody was good that day. It seemed like it was usually raining and dark that evening, and there we were, scared.

Now I am trying to do the same way in my family as much as possible as we used to when I was growing up. But of course the children get presents on Christmas. What we do is to first decorate a natural tree. We go out and buy it. We also have decorations which we didn't used to have. My husband has to have a huge tree, which is what his family always had too. We put that in the family room, where I also put the table since we eat there for three days. It has a fireplace, and during Christmas we never let the fire go out. tty husband decorates the tree in red, white, and blue decorations, the colors of our flag.

Then we have dinner, which is very special. We don't have a pile of straw on the table, but we do have a candle which we pray around. After we pray we eat the special dinner of fish, onions, and bean salad. I try to bring all kinds of onions home, c u i d I always fry fish. I make homemade bread that day. And we also have the crushed walnuts and honey. And my husband makes medioa, a mixture of honey and plum brandy. The kids love it.

After we eat we turn the lights off, cuid take the children upstairs and tell them that tnaVi Jesus is coming and doesn't like anyone to see him. Everyone has to be quiet and wait. We wait upstairs several minutes and the children go down and see all the presents that little Jesus brought if they have been good enough. Everyone is so excited. 204

We go to midnight Mass, but the kids stay home cind go to sleep since it is so late. Then the next day we have a big dinner. I have duck always. And usually we have some fried pork chops, a symbol of the pig. And I make every kind of cookie. Christmas is just for the family, but friends come the next day and I serve some cookies then. On Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, we avoid getting together with friends, and make it a time for just our family.

The krsna alava (patron saint's day) is a distinctly Serbian custom. Although there are differences between aZccoe as they are cele­ brated in villages and cities of Serbia today as well as differences between families in the United States, the stava remains a symbol of

Serbian ethnicity.

To the individual household the most inqportant holiday is the slava, in honor of its clan's patron saint. It is thought by scrnie observers that all clans who "slava" {slaviti) on the same saint's day were originally from a common ancestry, and until the last century it was considered improper for people vdio shared a slava to intermarry even though they were not otherwise related [Halpern 1967; 238],

Even among the Orthodox peoples, only the Serbs observe the slava*

Various explanations were given by interviewees for how the Serbs ob­ tained their particular patron saint. But many questions about the origin of the slaVa remain unsettled and open to debate. One first generation Serbian woman provided the following account of the origin of the slava as she had learned of it in Serbia.

It's a very old custom. Before the Serbs even picked up the Orthodox religion. All of the Slavs were situated in the north, and they had lots of gods. One was the god of thunder and lightning. And to protect themselves they put flowers round the house so that he wouldn't stop there. They called those flowers peVKnike (Iris) after that god Perun. So they celebrated him and many other gods, like the Greeks and Romans.

When they moved from the north to the south in the Balkans, they brought their heathen religions with them. Then they met the Greeks, who were already Orthodox, which was a very strong 205

religion. And the Serbs began to pick up Orthodoity from the Greeks. There were two great men, Greeks, Ciril and Metodius, who came as special missionaries. It was the biggest religion in that area. So the Serbs started to pick it up. Later the German missionaries converted the people in the West as Catholics. But in Serbia Orthodoxy was very strong, as well as in Bulgaria emd Macedonia. They picked up the religion of one god and forgot about all the other gods. And it started to become a national religion.

But they still couldn't forget the old gods, and each house continued to celebrate one god. They still liked them and remembered them. I don't know how it came about, but they all had one god for one house, and that feeling was very strong. The Orthodox priests saw that the Serbian people were very stubborn about remembering those gods, and they said, okay, if you want to celebrate them, just change the name. So instead of so many pagan gods, the Serbs agreed to give them new names, like Saint Petar, Saint Djurdje, Nikola, Jovan, etc. So they changed the names, but the habit was still there.

It's a Serbian national custom since the Russians don't have a slava, nor do the Bulgarians, Greeks, or Macedonians. The big tribes (Serbian and Montenegrin) were stubborn and stayed tied to this tradition.

To have a sZava means to celebrate one special patron for the house. In fact, the first boy in the family is supposed to have the name of the etava, and when a grandfather cele­ brates his, all his sons also celebrate the same one.

In the eleventh or twelfth century people were living together in sadx*ugas emd almost all of the villagers were relatives. So they picked up one patron saint for all those houses. They now say whoever celebrates Saint Such-and-Such is ny cousin. Nobody knows even now how certain patron saints were selected for different households. I don't know if the priest suggested who should be chosen. Perhaps the older men decided \dio would be their patron saint. They just don't know that.

Just how sZaVas were chosen or assigned to families remains unan­ swered. Historically every sadruga had its own aZava, which was inherited patrilineally. It is still passed on patrilineally, with the wife celebrating the aZava of her husband's family. Additionally, the woman may also return to her own family's home to celebrate her father's aZava

(Hammel 1968: 22). Two theories about how a particular patron saint was 206 designated for a specific household were suggested in the interviews.

One propounds that whole villages or even regions of Serbs embraced the primary saint of the season in which they were converted to Christianity.

Thus, if Serbs in a certain area were converted in December, their aXaoa might have been Saint Nicholas. The other speculation is that each family chose a patron who appealed to them to be the elava of their household.

However particular sZaVe came to be associated with particular families, certain patron saints became more popular than others. Sveti

Nikola (Saint Nicholas) and Sveti Djurdje (Saint George) were suggested as being especially widespread. Among those Serbs interviewed, the following aZccOe were mentioned in the following order of frequency, (of the 25 Serbs interviewed, 22 different fcunilies were represented.)

Sveti Jovan (January 20)— Saint John the Baptist— 8 families

Sveti Nikola (December 19)— Saint Nicholas— 5 families

Sveti Djurdje (May 6)— Saint George— 3 families

Sveti Stevan (January 22)— Saint Stephen— 2 families

Sveti Djurdje (November 16)— Saint George— 1 family

Sveti Petar i Pavle (July 12— Saint Peter and Paul— 1 family

Sveti Jeremija (May 14)— Saint Jerome— 1 family

Sveti Luka (October 31)— Saint Luke— 1 family

In addition to each family having its own aZava, every Serbian

Orthodox parish also chooses one. In Washington both Serbian Churches selected Saint Luke (Sveti Luka) as the patron saint of their parishes.

This means that the first weekend after October 31, both churches cele­ brate Saint Luke's Day. In 1974 one parish observed it on that Saturday, and the other, on that Sunday. 207

Fcunlly ataoe among Serbs in Washington can range from small gatherings of only family members to large affairs with over 100 people invited. Over half of the Serbs interviewed continued to celebrate their ataoe, and all but three or four also attended other staoe in

Washington. Three interviewees invited a large number of friends—

Serbian and non-Serbian, but primarily Serbian— to attend. One, in fact, invited people over a two day period. (Traditionally in Serbia aZave lasted three days.) In families where both parents are Serbian there is a very good chance that the family will continue the aZaVe into their new family, according to interviewees. Some Serbian women who are married to non-Serbian men continue to observe the aZaVe of their father's family. If the parental family in such instances still lives in Washington, the daughter's family may return to her home for the aZccOa', but if the parents are deceased or do not live in the United

States, the daughter may very well continue to celebrate the aZava with her own family or friends.

A notable function of the aZava is that it is the primary event of the year that brings Serbian friends together into each other's homes. Some interviewees reported that they attended as many as ten to twelve aZccoe every year, with most falling during the winter months.

Because they are family celebrations, aZaoe provide an excellent opportunity for children to participate in preparations to observe the rituals, and to meet socially with their family's closest friends.

Since non-Serbian friends might be invited, the rituals and symbols of the aZava may often be e;g>lained in the presence of the children.

The Serbian woman whose recounting of the origin of the aZava was previously quoted described, with comments from her husband, their aZaVa 208 celebrated in Washington. Because both of them were b o m in Serbia, they were well aware of the differences between ataoe as observed in the United States and as observed in their home country. One area of differentiation had developed around the issue of who is invited and how invitations are communicated.

Now we tiry to do the same as we did in the village and in the town, by mixing it up a little. For one thing, we can't call people from too far away around here since people live at such distances anyway. You couldn't only call then for a lunch like they used to do in the city because they do have to travel so far. Instead, we call them for supper. I in­ vite whomever I want to have come; although we also put it into the church bulletin, I call everyone I want to invite. In Serbia, people would never go to someone's aVxoa if they saw an announcement in a bulletin. So I called everyone separately last year; and that's the way it's supposed to be, and we try to keep that. In fact, we try to keep everything as much as we can, in our way. He call just special people, only those whom we know well, about 20 people. Those who are good people, family people.

We usually celebrate our atava on the closest Sunday because of people working. But you're not supposed to do that; it's supposed to be on the exact day. I don't call non- Serbian Americans, the people who don't know what the alaoa means. After church on that Sunday people come for supper, and we eat almost all afternoon. In the old country they do it in the same way: they put meat emd other food on the table and serve it all day long.

IWo things have to be taken to the church ahead of time to be blessed: the kotaS (bread) cUid Eito (wheat), but the priest comes to our ataoa and blesses them here.: I make the kolaS like other bread except that it has more sugar and I put eggs inside to give it color. The decorations also have to be done in a special way. There's a special kind of seal that I don't have that you can use to decorate it. It's supposed to be put on four sides of the top of the kotaë. Everything is supposed to have meaming, but I'm not sure what the seal means. Before I put the kolaS in the oven I put decorations I have made out of bread dough without any yeast so that they are very hard and dense and fall into the bread a little in the oven. I also mix the white of an egg and spread it over the top so that it gets brown.

When the priest comes and blesses the koZajS we turn it, ray husband and I, but in the old country I never saw the women do it. In the church the people sing while the hoZaS turns. 209

Then the priest cuts it into four pieces with a knife, and we separate it. We have to kiss every piece. The priest puts a cross over the kolaS with wine. We break it into several pieces and give some to everybody there.

The first thing people do when they come for aZava is to take wheat (zito). It has either been blessed in the church or else the priest is here and blesses it then. I make Sito the very easy way, the way I saw my mother do it. First you have to clean the wheat; then you cook it very slowly so that it doesn't stick, adding very little water at a time. It cooks about five hours. Then I put it through a grinding machine. After that I add sugar and vanilla from a package for taste; you can either use powdered sugcur or regular sugar. And a little nutmeg. Then ground walnuts, a lot of them. If I have three pounds of wheat, I put one pound of walnuts. It's rolled into a ball and placed on a platter and put in the refrigerator. It is also decorated with walnuts or maybe candy or sprinkled with sugar. There is a special dish I use for spoons. It has two sides, one for clean spoons and the other side for used ones. When people come in they take a clean spoon and take one or two bites and put the dirty spoon on the other side. You have to cross yourself then. We also eat wheat when somebody dies; they call it panaga, and it's made exactly the same way.

Before we start eating the oldest man in the house takes incense all over the house and waves it all over everybody there. Everyone says a prayer. We usually say "Oci nas," but you can say more if you want to. We also have a lot of candles out on that day. On the table and other places around the house.

We have the priest out for our aZaVa, but in the old country there are so many people with the samoaZaVahe couldn't possibly get to all of them. It is really an honor to have him come to your house. Our priest comes since we don't have that many people with the same aZctVa. Then other people might ccane all day long.

I always cook aarma for our aZava since it is in the winter. I use ground meat, rice, cabbage, sauerkraut, then mix in either smoked bacon or ham. It has to be smoked for the special flavor. In the old country it used to be smoked pork chops. When people come they get a hot bowl of soup since it is cold outside, then the meat from the soup is served. Then we serve aarma. While people are eating the husband serves rakiga, ^Zivovio. Then gibaniaa and cookies are served; that is the point that no more rakiga is drunk and wine is served instead since it goes well with sifeet things like cookies. I make all kinds of cookies that are arranged on a platter. Then Turkish coffee is served. 210

SZava is great, a big reunion with friends you like. Those people you can believe and trust. That is the day that you have to give your very best.

Adoptive Ties : Godparenthood

The canon laws that established the requirements for sponsorship at baptism {kumstvo is the Serbo-Croatian word for godparenthood) are not the same for both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In neither church do those laws specify exactly who the godparents kwnovi (pi. ), .Toot :(masculinei)t, (feminine), must be; nor what kinship relationship should or should not exist already between godparent and godchild; nor the precise social function of kumstVo. Consequently, major differences have evolved not only between the Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, but also within each ethnic group over the centuries. In both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox areas of Yugoslavia, "...local practice and customary law have vastly elaborated the skeletal pro­ visions of canonical regulation" (Hammel 1968: 8). Urban versus rural eiqieriences have also encouraged changes in the selection of godparents and the relationship between godchild and godparent. In the United

States the variety of forms and functions of kumstvo have increased still more.

The responses of interviewees to questions about godparenthood in their families supported the argument that considerable differences regarding who was selected, the responsibility of godparent to god­ child, and the character of the contact between both families would prevail within each ethnic group. In fact, the seriousness with which godparenthood was taken varied considerably depending on such factors as religious affiliation, urban versus rural background, regional 211

customs, marriage patterns of the parents, generation in America,

occupation, mobility, and conditions of war or peace at the time of

birth.

Two ideal functions are ascribed to godparents by both the Roman

Catholic and the Orthodox faiths. First, kumovi are responsible for

the spiritual development of the child. Second, they are to take the godchildren into their homes and raise them, should the parents die.

Interviewees who discussed these ideal responsibilities also noted that

the latter is rarely acted upon and that the former depends, for all practical purposes, on the continued proximity of the godparent to the

godchild.

One outstanding difference between the Roman Catholic and Serbian

Orthodox interviewees was that while the Slovenes and Croats may have had godparents from within their kinship group, the Serbs did not.

"Although canon law presents no barriers (except that parents cannot act as baptismal sponsors), a baptismal or marriage kvm is seldom

selected from any family to which ties of blood can be traced, however distant among Serbs " (Hammel 1968; 85). In line with this custom, none of the Serbs interviewed had godparents who were kinsmen or kins­ women.

Traditionally Serbs have selected godparents as sponsors for

their children at the baptism; the male children selected their own kum

for their wedding ceremony. In contrast Slovenes and Croats have

chosen kumovi for their children's Christening and possibly for their

confirmation into the church, when usually someone of the same sex is selected. In either case, the baptismal godparent might not serve at the first communion or at the marriage of the child; often the child 212 selects his own kum or kuma for those later ceremonies. Among Serbs b o m in Serbia a common pattern is for the children's godfather to be the same man who had served as kum at the parents' wedding.

Another difference between the Slovenes and Croats, on one hand, and the Serbs, on the other, is that while more than one godparent may have been selected for the baptismal ceremony among Slovenes and Croats, strictly speaking only one is permitted by Orthodox canon law among the

Serbs (Hammel 1968: 7). In the study group Slovenes and Croats frequently reported having two godparents— a godmother and godfather, who were not husband and wife. Some Serbs were b o m in the United States and some­ times of mixed parentage. According to interviewees the custom of referring to the wife of a kum as kuma among Serbs in the United States and in Serbia often eventually led to regarding both of them as god­ parents, even when the godfather was technically the selected godparent.

Both Croats emd Slovenes in the study group often selected close relatives as baptismal sponsors for their children; occasionally they asked a friend and a relative or two close friends instead. Infrequently it was a designated couple. While a male and a female godparent were often selected for Slovenian and Croatian children, usually the closest relationship developed between the godchild and godparent of the same sex. In those instances where godparents were family members, Slovenes and Croats reported that they always thought of those persons as "aunt, "

"uncle," "grandfather," etc. before ever thinking of them as a godparent.

If the godparents were not family members and if frequent and close contact had not occurred between godchild and godparent, a godparent might very well have been considered part of the extended family by parents and children. Overall, though, most Roman Catholics interviewed 213 seemed to look upon godparenthood as a formal arrangement at the baptism that occurred mainly because church law required it. One person also pointed out that in Zagreb godparenthood was less inqportant than in the

Croatian villages. Another explained that while it was imperative to have a godparent at the christening, the godparents did not necessarily play a major role in the child's life. In fact, unless the godparent was a family member, it was the exception rather than the rule that he would take much responsibility for the child. The development of a close relationship between godchildren and godparents depended on whether the parents had a close friend, a more distant friend, or an acquaintance vdio was highly respected in the community to be kum or kuma. In addition to these possibilities, an individual might serve as godparent to only one child in the family or to all of the children.

One Croat from Dalmatia explained that all his brothers and sisters had the same godfather, who was a neighbor and good friend of his father's; his father, in turn, was godparent to all the children of his friend.

Through the godparental relationship, their friendship was strengthened and the bonds between the families were taken very seriously.

Among Slovenian and Croatian interviewees, godparents of their children were more often from the same ethnic group when both parents had the same ethnic background. The selection of ethnic versus non­ ethnic godparents appeared to be also a function of whether most rela­ tives euid close friends were Slovenian or Croatian. When the parents had only recently come to the United States, there seemed to be a greater tendency to look for godparents for their children born in this country from their own ethnic group. Because godparenthood was per­ ceived mainly as part of their religion, they did not appear to consider 214 godparents as a primary influence in the socialization of their children.

In most cases, contact with godparents was infrequent and, although perhaps meaningful to the children, little ethnic identity was inculcated by the godparents tx> the godchildren in the Washington setting in part because godparents tended to live elsewhere. Only two Slovenes and one

Croat had children whose godparents lived in the Washington area and maintained frequent contact with their godchildren.

Kionovi among Serbs were frequently described as "part of the family without actually being in it." At least ten Serbian interviewees felt that either their godparents or the godparents of their children could easily be considered as family members. "Second-best to feunily,"

"definitely part of the family," "absolutely an extension of the family" were some phrases used to describe the closeness of godparents to the family.

According to Serbian interviewees, a kum or kuma should embody certain characteristics. One American-bom Serb characterized his own father in these words:

father has the qualities of a good kum, and he is to many godchildren. He is trustworthy; could be a member of the family, like a brother. This entails a tremendous friend­ ship, and then, overtime, it becomes a family-like relation­ ship. Once you are a kum for a child, you are like a second father.

% godfather was kum at my father's wedding. Oliey were very good friends, godfather's wife is my godmother. Usually when a h m stands for a child at baptism, he does also for the following children in the family. This is what ry father has done. But the kum for a wedding is often not the same as the kum for the children's baptisms. In fact, most of the time there are no kumovi at weddings. I've seen it both ways.

Kumovi can follow in family lines. For instance, my great uncle came over with the family. That one family has stood for my family for twenty to thirty years in the 215

United States, ty family is treated so much like members of the family that I was pretty old before I realized that we weren't actually related.

Two Serbian interviev;ees reported that in some families godparents

were chosen because they were respected people in the community, although

no one gave that as their parents' rationale in the selection of their

godparents. More often, the godparents were the closest friends of the

parents; 16 had kumovi who fit this category. Traditionally, the kum

and kuma were not man and wife, but the wife of the kion was automatically

called kuxm. Four Serbian interviewees had two godparents, a man and a

woman, but none of the four were husband and wife; four others had a

husband and wife as godparents. Other than these eight individuals,

everyone spoke of having one godparent-a godfather. There was one

other instance besides the one quoted earlier in which kimstvo followed

in the family line. Unlike the former case, this individual grew up in

rural Serbia, and kumatvo had been inherited patrilineally over many

generations; that pattern was still followed by the family remaining

there.

The migration of Serbs in Yugoslavia from villages to cities and

to the United States has been responsible for many structural changes in

godparenthood. In Eugene Hammel's study of kianstvo in Eastern Yugo­

slavia, he comments upon the effect that geographical mobility had upon kumatvoI

Kumatvo patterns in major cities in Jugoslavia are very different from-those in the countryside, and even from those in the towns, where, among members of the old artisan and petty bourgeois classes, there is more similarity to urban than to rural patterns. In nonrural context, kumatvo occurs in its classic Mediterranean form, with emphasis on individual con­ tract, with more importance attached to the relationship be­ tween sponsor and father than to that between their respective groups, and with little evidence of inheritance. Multiple 216

rather than single kionstvo is the rule, with the father finding new baptismal sponsors for most of his children, and sons seeking marriage sponsors other than their baptismal godfathers, usually on the basis of personal friendship or in the hope of making an important connection [1968; 70],

As Serbs migrated from Yugoslavia to the United States, similar changes in kianatvo patterns accelerated. Only three interviewees mentioned that their godparent was the kum at their parents' wedding

(two of these persons were born in Yugoslavia and one in the United

States). During the disruptive years of World War II and its aftermath, many Serbs lost touch with their godparents; this happened with at least seven of those Serbs interviewed. Croats and Slovenes, as well, reported that the war and post-war period seriously affected godparent-godchild relationships.

Sixteen Serbs had godparents who were close or very close friends of one or both parents. Most, in turn, selected godparents for their own children from among their most trusted friends. Overall, it remained a relationship that was taken very seriously by the parents, godparents, and godchildren alike, both in Yugoslavia and in the United States.

Even when the family and godparents saw each other only infrequently, regular contact was highly valued. While Yugoslav-bom Serbs usually had godparents in Yugoslavia, the godparents of children now growing up in the Washington area were from the same area, facilitating closer and more regular contact. Even in families where intermarriage had occurred, the children of interviewees frequently had at least one godparent who was Serbian, usually selected on the basis of a close friendship with one or both parents. Friendship patterns of the parents appeared to be a deciding factor in whom was asked to be the child's godparent. When the couple had predominantly Serbian friends or at least some very close 217

Serbian friends, the chances were much greater that the hum or kuma would be Serbian.

In short, the frequency in choosing godparents from the same ethnic group among Serbs interviewed was most dependent upon the ethnic back­ ground of the closest friends of the couple as well as the congruence of ethnic background of the parents. In those cases where both parents were Serbian and their close friends included other Serbs, the chances were greatest that the kumovi of their children would also be Serbs.

Slovenes and Croats, because of their frequent selection of other family members as baptismal sponsors, as opposed to only nonkinsmen, tended to choose kumovi of the same ethnic background on the basis of three factors; ethnic congruence of the parents; the degree of non-ethnic intermarriage into the family; and the friendship patterns of the couple.

The greatest possibility of selecting kumatvo within the ethnic group occurred when the parents were from the same ethnic group; when minimal intermarriage with non-ethnic group members into previous generations of the family had occurred; and when the couple maintained close friendships with ethnic group members.

Ethnic Bonds Beyond the Family

Friendship

Because friendship patterns influence, among other things, the choice of marriage partners, the selection of godparents, and the nature of social events held in the home, which, in turn, directly affect the child's ethnic environment, members of the study group were asked,

"Whom do you consider to be your best friends in Washington— Serbs,

Croats, or Slovenes; non-Serbs, -Croats, or -Slovenes; or a mixture from 218 both groups?"

Basically three options (ethnic, non-ethnic, or both types of friends) were available to interviewees in answering this question, emd the responses within each group encongpassed each of those possibilities.

Yet, the friendship preferences clustered in the "both" or "mixture" category among Slovenes and Croats. Almost half of the Slovenes said that they had good friends among the Slovenian group in Washington as well as among other Americans. One added, "If I am in real need, I would still go to the Slovenes first even though I have good friends among non-Slovenes. It's an emotional thing." Only two Slovenes reported having their closest friends among only the Slovenian group; one was first generation and the other, second generation. Three others submitted that their best friends were non-Slovenian-Americans; first through third generations were represented by this response.

Two interviewees departed slightly from the options suggested by the questions. One said that foreigners other than Slovenes were his closest friends. And the other concluded that "the Yugoslav group is for my leisure-time" even though much of the interviewee's time was spent with other Americans. (In fact, this particular person's closest friends among the South Slavs were not other Slovenes.)

Again, almost half of the Croats stated that their friends came from both groups. Four had other Croats as best friends; by way of explanation, a second generation individual said that "more could be shared with Croatian friends" and a first generation person submitted that it was "hard to get close to Americans." Of four others who attributed their closest friendship to non-Croats, one noted that her only real Croatian friend was her sister. The greater numbers of first 219 generation Croats in Washington over American-bom is perhaps reflected in the fact that all but one of the second generation interviewees reported that their best friends were among non-Croatian-Americans. In their opinion, the lack of many Croats within their age group made it difficult, if not impossible, to have close friends among the Croats.

Serbs deviated slightly from the friendship patterns described above for Slovenes and Croats. Rather than clustering in the "both" category, they clustered first, in the "Serb only" and second, in the

"non-Serbian-American" groupings. Almost half claimed other Serbs as their best friends, and almost half of this group were second and third generation persons. As one respondent put it, "I am more relaxed with ny Serbian friends, especially those I know from way back." Another said, "Serbs are my people, and I enjoy social times with them much more.

There is nothing to prove or explain. We automatically know each other."

On the other hand, one of the eight Serbs citing non-Serbs as the closest friends noted, "I'd have to say that Americans are my best friends. I find that when I get together with other Serbs, it's always nostalgic, but we don't have too much in common now. Instead, we tend to revive the past. " Another person, a first generation Serb, described a situation in which the family spent considerable time with other Serbs, yet the interviewee felt most at ease with Americans since they expanded his experiences in ways he especially appreciated.

Four general types of interviewees included more than one South

Slavic ethnic group within their circle of close friends: those whose parents were from more than one ethnic group; those who had married someone from another South Slavic ethnic group; physicians; and some 220 who worked in the inter-war government in Yugoslavia, These people were much more inclined to refer to "Yugoslavs” as a social category rather than as Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, etc. Host of the doctors were

Serbs and Croats, and according to interviewees, physicians socialized with each other relatively frequently because of conmon professional interests as well as their background in Yugoslavia. (These particular physicians were first generation.) One interviewee who was born of mixed South Slavic parentage summarized his feelings about his friend­ ships. "I have friends in both groups. But I feel that I can depend on Yugoslavs more theui Americans since I know they will understand cund

I can be more sure of their help,"

Informal Social Groupings and Formal Organizations

Three features of the Serbian group in Washington appeared to be responsible for the higher frequency of close friendships among Serbs, as compared to Croats and Slovenes. First was the relatively greater number of Serbs, across more than three generations, among whom friends could be found. Second was the presence of the two Serbian Orthodox parishes, providing centralized locations at which people could gather.

And third was the close friendships or acquaintances of some of the first generation individuals which went back to the time when they were growing up in Yugoslavia plus the common e:q>erience of living through the war, either in Yugoslavia or in the prisoner-of-war Ccuraps in Western Europe. Even some American-bom Serbs now living in Wash­ ington were involved in either the war effort in Yugoslavia on the part of the Allies (one individual had been cited for parachute missions into occupied Yugoslavia to make contact with resistance leaders) or in 221

the post-war refugee relief program during vdiich time they aided some of the Serbs who are now living in Washington.

The Croats in Washington, on the other hand, are a much smaller group, and most close friendships among them were within the first generation. The Chapel of Our Lady of Bistrica at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception provides the most central gathering place for Croats, but since Masses were, at most, held monthly, contact through the services remained relatively infrequent. Yet there were two distinct post-World War émigré groups of Croats vdio because of similar eiiperiences in Europe had some sense of commonality. First were those who came as refugees soon after the Second World War; and . their war-time e:periences often served as a bond between them. The second group, which is becoming increasingly larger, consisted of young men and some young women now in their twenties and thirties who were b o m during or after the war and grew up under the Yugoslav Communist system. Disil­ lusionment-economic or political— led them to leave Yugoslavia and come to the United States for better economic opportunities; many of the younger, more recent immigrants had participated in student riots in

Zagreb in the 1960's and 1970's, and most held the position that Croatia should be an independent nation state. Even among the politically active young men there was diversity in their thinking on how Croatian inde­ pendence should be achieved; in many ways the spread of opinions is reminiscent of the diversity among radical students in the United

States regarding how to "change the system." Their differences of poli­ tical opinion were shared to some extent with the Croats who came to the United States after the last war; but the fact that these young men and women grew up together in post-war Yugoslavia emd experienced a 222 similar disillusionment with the system drew them closer together here. Their friendship tended to be focused on various political par­ ties.

Even though the group was not large, the diversity of political beliefs expressed among the Croats regairding the position of Croatia in Yugoslavia was broad. Essentially, the question for them was whether

Croatia should remain a part of the Yugoslav federation or should seek independence. Those who held the latter view took varying positions on whether this could be achieved— and if so, how and with what ramifi­ cations. There was also a pervasive concern e:q}ressed cunong many post­ war émigrés about the political implications of different organizations and any large group gatherings. Among the younger men, especially, there appeared to be an on-going sizing-up of each other's political positions, as well as those of Croats who came after the war and in the

1950's. Inevitably, this intense concern with political issues made it difficult for Croats to develop a cohesive ethnic group organization in Washington. It would be very difficult to organize large-groùp events without confronting serious resistance— a fact that takes its toll in group-wide social activities that might eventually pull in more second and third generation Croats living in the Washington area.

Slovenes appeared to work very hard at excluding political issues as much as possible from Slovenian events. This does not mean that

Slovenes were not interested in those issues, but political discussions were reportedly reserved mainly for small group get-togethers of friends who were already familiar with each other's political opinions. Even though their numbers are also small and though they have no central meeting place except for the Slovenian Chapel of Our Lady of Brezja at 223

the National Shrine, the Slovenes had a structured schedule of annual

events that they could attend. Those events tend to have a broad

cultural orientation designed, in part, to expose children to their

Slovenian heritage. It appeared that because those activities had

such an emphasis, second, third, and beyond generations of Slovenes were interested in participating. Even Croats interviewed commended

the Slovenes for their ability to organize their activities. One

second generation Slovene who was very active in their organizations

reported that one of the ways that the Slovenes were making contact

with others in the Washington area was by surveying the telephone books for likely sounding names and then sending out notices to those

people about upcoming events. This person also said that there were

still apparently many Slovenes in the Washington area who were unaware

of Slovenian activities.

Three chapters of nation-wide Slovenian fraternal orgamizations*

and one local organization provided the non-religious structure to

Sloveniem events held in Washington. One nationally affiliated group—

Stovenska Navodna Potpoma Jeànote (snpj, Slovenian National Benefit

Society, founded in 1904 and centered in Chicago)— has a branch in

Arlington, Virginia. One interviewee said that she belonged to it, but

that it sponsored no activities and served mainly as an insurance

company.

One the other hand, the Bishop Baraga Chapter (#257) of the

*Host of the fraternal organizations among white ethnic groups in the United States were founded early in the twentieth century by either clergy or civic leaders. Most originated in industrial and mining communities for the purpose of aiding ethnic group members by way of health and life insurance programs. 224

KroQBko-Sîovenaha KaboVÙSka Jeànote v ZdntSenik Drêavah AmeriSkik

(KSKJ, Grand Carolinian Slovenian Catholic Union of the United States,

founded in 1894 and centered in Joliet, Illinois), was very active in

organizing social activities in Washington. A fraternal lodge open

to men, KSKJ included among its members all but one of the men inter­

viewed. KSKJ also publishes a weekly newspaper, half in English and

half in Slovenian, titled Amerikwtsk'i Stoveneo-Gtoailo KSKJeàonote.

The third local chapter of a national organization is Branch 103

of the Slovenska 2enaka Zvesa V Ameriki (Slovenian Women's Union of

America, founded in 1926 and centered in Sheboygan, Wisconsin). Its publication Zavja (The Dawn) is written in English. Two of the five

women interviewed belonged to it and were very active in it.

The fourth Slovenian organization is a local one— The Slovenian

Heritage Committee of Washington. Representatives from the other

groups plus a leader are formally on the committee, but many other

Slovenes attend meetings and are involved in its plans. Two inter­

viewees were on the committee.

The following is a listing of the annual Slovenian events and their

sponsors:

February or March (before Lent): Mardi Gras. Sponsor: KSKJ (only attended by male members)

April: Slovenian Heritage Day. Sponsor: The Slovenian Heritage Committee of Washington Program: An adult presentation to children and other adults of certain aspects of Slovenian cultural life through lectures, music, readings, slides, films, etc.

May: Mother's Day. Sponsor; Slovenian Women's Union Program: Children's presentation of cultural entertainment for the mothers through a procession, literary readings, singing, and instrumental music, etc. The Slovenian Mother of the Year Award. Food and bingo. 225

November: Saint Martin's Day Dinner Dance. Sponsor: Slovenian Women's Union Program: Dinner emd dance to music provided by a Slovenian group from outside of Washington. Other forms of entertain­ ment also provided.

December: Saint Nicholas Day. Sponsor: KSKJ Program: Activities mainly for the children. Gift-giving, singing, and the appearance of angels and devils, representing good and evil.

Special events, in addition to the aforementioned, were occasionally held. For example, in August 1974, there was a presentation of the Jakob

Petelin-Gallus Mixed Chorus from the province of Carinthia in Austria which sang in several cities across America on tour. A well-attended

(150-200 people) performance by Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, and others, this

event was sponsored by the Slovenian Heritage Conmittee of Washington.

The symbolic importance of this group's singing Slovenian music to Slovenes

in the United States was underscored by the appearance that evening of

two individuals. Ex-Senator Frank Lausche, an American-bom Slovene from

Ohio, spoke in Slovenian to the group, discussing the historical struggle

for ethnic autonomy among Slovenes living as a minority group in Austricui

Carinthia. The Austrian charge d'affaires in Washington also delivered a

speech, partly in English and partly in German; he called for a recogni­

tion of ethnic multiplicity throughout the world and concluded that it was a good thing that such cultural exchanges as this one were being held since they benefited American-Austrian relations and solidified

ties between Slovenes in the United States cUid Austria. Generally, people were very pleased with the choral program and felt that it had been an honor for the Washington Slovenian group to have them perform

there. Only one strong reaction on the part of Slovenes in Washington was directly expressed to the researcher about the content of the 226 speeches, and that was that it had been unfortunate that "politics'* had been interjected into the cultural program.

While many Slovenes might very well attend the four or five yearly events open to the group, fewer numbers were actively involved in their preparation. It was during the preparations that most social contacts between the Slovenes seemed to occur. Two major events over the past ten years were primarily responsible for an increase in organizational activities among the Slovenes. First was the 1965 formation of the local branch of the Slovenian Women's Union. At that time there were only eight members; by 1970 the numbers had climbed to 36 adults and 14 juniors (all women), which was the approximate membership in 1974. This organization has been very active in planning the annual events and in fund raising through sponsoring picnics, bake sales, etc. At their national convention in Washington in 1965 "...the Slovenian Women's

Union adopted a resolution pledging moral support to the idea of the

Slovenian Chapel and participation in a nation-wide campaign to collect the necessary funds" (The Slovenian Chapel Dedication Committee 1971:

63-64). This decision followed on the heels of the work of one Slo­ venian man in Washington to obtain the support of Slovenian fraternal and religious organizations in the United States for building a Slovenian

Chapel at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.

For the next four years Slovenes in Washington spearheaded the liaison between the various organizations, clergy, architects, and administrators at the Shrine that culminated in the dedication of the Chapel of Our

Lady of Brezja in August 1971. The planning of the Chapel brought together many Slovenes in Washington for the first time and served as a base from vbich to organize other events. 227

Although the various events described above provide a structure within which Slovenes can regularly gather together, those interviewees who were in frequent contact with other Slovenes additionally met in smaller groups. Some met for the purpose of planning upcoming events.

Throughout the year the "singing group"— including Slovenian and American- born persons— met monthly in someone's home in order to practice umetne selections (four-part formal arrangements of songs) and ncopoâni pesma

(folk songs). The lamtne arrangements are those that were usually sung at events. The Slovenian Heritage Committee also met when they were making plans for upcoming events. All but three of the interviewees were involved in one or more types of preparatory gatherings.

The Slovenian-bom persons also occasionally held dinners and parties for small groups in their homes. While the large open events were held in rented church halls, the smaller ones were always in homes and usually involved a dozen or less invited people. Three Slovenes also reported having had some social contact with Serbs and Croats either through attending Serbian aLccoe or through private parties.

Slovenian gatherings occurred at three types of locations: rented church halls where the largest numbers met and often included non-

Slovenes; the Slovenian Chapel where mainly Slovenes came together in smaller groups; and homes where the most intimate social gatherings among Slovenes occurred.

*

Croats in Washington also belong to several different organizations.

Hrvataka Bvataka Zajedniaa u Ameriai (Croatian Fraternal Union of

America, formed through a 1924 merger and centered in Pittsburgh) is a social and fraternal organization as well as an insurance company. 228

Interviewees described it as being controlled by the second and third

generation Croats in the United States and only three said that they were menbers of it. Two of these three were members because their

families had enrolled them. Overall, little interest among either the

Croatian-bom or American-bom generations was expressed in this

organization. Three interviewees reported that many of the first

generation Croats regarded the Croatian Fraternal Union with outright

hostility because of its pro-Yugoslavia stands. Its publication,

Zaàeâniocœ, is written in both English and Croatian.

Three other Croats reported that they belonged to Hpvataka

KatoHdka Zajeanioa u SgedCnJenim Dvzaoama Amerike (Croatian Catholic

Union of the United States, formed in 1921 and centered in Gary, Indiana).

Its publication, Na3a Naâa (Our Hope) is written in English and Croatian.

In 1971, Lodge #40 was established in Washington, but by 1974 it still had only a very few members.

Two first generation interviewees belonged to the Hrvatska

Akademiga u Amevioa (Croatian Academy of America) vbich was created in

New York City in 1953 by post-World War II Croatian émigrés. It was

described by one interviewee as "an apolitical cultural organization to promote Croatian cultural life in the United States." Prpic also writes

that

The Constitution of this organization states that its sole purpose shall be to further the understanding of Croatian history and culture, while 'the spirit of objective inquiry and non-partisanship' shall be the guiding norms of the Academy's activities [1971; 429].

There are approximately 200 members of this organization in the United

States and CcUiada, with chapters in Canada, Los Angeles, and New York.

Five or six members live in Washington. The JovamaX of Croatian Studies 229

is published by the Academy and includes articles on history and litera­

ture written in English.

Two international political organizations were also represented

by the Croatian interviewees: Hrvatska SetgaSka Stranka (Croatian

Peasant Party) and HrVatska Repiibtikanska Stranka (Croatian Republican

Party). The Croatian Peasant Party was the largest Croatian political party in Yugoslavia between World War I and II; its president. Jura]

Kmjevic succeeded Vladko Ma%(ek, who left Yugoslavia after World War II

and lived in Washington until his death in 1964. The party's head­

quarters are now in London. At the 1968 annual meeting of the Peasant

Party, the representatives for the first time took the position that

Croatia should be an independent state. The following quote from an

address by Kmjevic in London at the 1973 World Congress of the

Croatian Peasant Party summarizes the party's position regarding

Croatia:

3he current situation in the homeland and in the world requires that we, as true, democratic, freely elected and by elections confirmed representatives of Croatian people, bring the Croatian Peasant Party before the free world their just demands for freedom, justice, democracy, humani- taricinism, and their own independent and sovereign Croatian State [Croatia Press 1973: 27].

Younger recent emigres from Croatia living in Washington are

reportedly not members of the Croatian Peasant Party because they con­

sider it to be too pacifistic and not sufficiently revolutionary. The

Croatian Republican Party, on the other hand, is one of several inter­

national political parties with members living in Washington as well as

in other American, Canadian, South American, Australian, and European

cities. Major differences of opinion usually bristle between advocates of the various Croatian political parties. But the Croatian Republican 230

Party, as one of the most powerful of the Croatian parties, met with members of at least a dozen other parties for the second annual Croatian

National Council {.Hvvatsko Narodno Vigede) meeting in 1975. While in

the 1974 meeting of the Croatian National Council representatives of

the Croatian Peascint Party were not in attendance, they did attend in

1975. At the 1975 Council meeting, a written agreement among the representatives was signed, calling for Croatian independence. One interviewee explained the significance of the Croatian Peasant Party's signing of the agreement: previously its members had not been willing to join forces with other more revolutionary Croatian independence organizations.

The Croatian Republican Party was described by one interviewee as "...a world-wide political party professing an ideology of integral freedoms for all segments of life— political, economic religious."

According to this person, the party has Croatian independence as its primary aim. One of the publications of the Croatian Republican Party,

Hrvatska Borba (Croatian Struggle), is published out of Washington and

Australia. Begun in 1971, it describes itself on its masthead as a

^Mgeseane novine za druëtvena poVitiSka pitang’a," "a monthly newspaper of social and political issues,"

Some of the younger Croats affiliated with the Croatian Republican

Party and other political groups regard the Croatiem Fraternal Union with disdain and none claim to belong to it. One said that they feel this way because "the CFU leadership is overly cooperative with Yugo­ slavia. "

Although political concerns are deep for many Croats living in

Washington, neither political nor fraternal, and literary organizations 231 provide the basis upon which many Croatian people regularly gather together. Interest was expressed in having a Croatian cultural center in Washington so that people could meet together more regularly. As it is, they gather either at the monthly Masses in the Croatian Chapel or in private homes. The Chapel of Our Lady of Bistrica, like the

Slovenian Chapel, is located at the National Shrine of the Immaculate

Conception and was dedicated in October, 1970. The Church reportedly has been the place where the most recent émigrés have been able to meet other Croats in Washington for the first time. One interviewee felt that it would not be at all difficult to organize the Croats if a cultural center were available where they could gather together socially and where language lessons could be given. This person saw lack of funds as the major obstacle in obtaining such a center.

Virtually all Croats interviewed stressed the fact that most

Croatian activities go on in private homes. One portrayed dinner parties as being times for "eating, dancing, showing movies, drinking, singing, and being happy."

* * *

Four non-church affiliated Serbian organizations had members among the study group. The largest membership (8) was found in Srpaka Brataka

Vomoo (Serbian Brothers' Help, founded in 1952 and centered in Chicago).

According to interviewees, Srpaka Brataka Pomod was organized as "a charitable organization" originally to aid older Serbs living in Germany,

Italy, 2m d France, who were refugees from World War II. Another more recent aim has been to help older Serbs living in the United States and

Canada. Several thousand members across the United States and Canada contribute to its fund raising efforts; its strongest supporters are 232

mainly among post-World War II emigres and their families. Its affili­

ations among Washington members are mainly with people who belong to

the Saint Luke's (autonomy) Serbian Orthodox Church.

Every year the Washington chapter of Serbian Brothers' Help

celebrates its alava— Sretenge Goepodnge (Presentation of Our Lord) in late February or early March. After the church service at the

National Cathedral, Serbian Brothers' Help festivities were held

in a suburban American Legion Hall. First the Slavaki Kolaë was cut,

à ritual that occurs at all alaoei then a dinner of such national dishes as musdka and aavma were served. Entertainment by Saint Luke's choir and other members in the organization and speeches (in English and Serbian) were part of the program. In 1973 the chapter also held a December luncheon meeting in an area restaurant owned by one of its leading members. Proceeds from both events were earmarked for its charitable program.

Another organization established by post-World War II Serbs and represented among the study group was Ngego5. Described as a literary group, named after the illustrious Montenegrin bishop-prince-poet,

NgegoS was organized for cultural reasons in the 1950's and now has approximately 30 Washington members. Six of the interviewees said that they belonged to it. /Rfice a year NgegoS publishes a Serbian- language collection of articles on Serbian history and literature, using the Cyrillic alphcibet.

A very large older Serbian national organization is Svpaki Narodni

Savez (SNF, Serbian National Federation, founded in 1901 and centered in Pittsburgh). Its newspaper— Amerikanaki Srbdbran— is published in both Serbian and English editions. While Serbian Brothers' Help and 233

Ngegoë have their strongest affiliations with the post-World War II

Serbs, SNF has its greatest support from American-bom and is tied to

the unity Serbian Orthodox Church. IVo interviewees said that they belonged to this organization; both were American-bom. One Interviewee

had been active in its annual national convention and sports tourna­ ments. In 1974 Lodge #173 was established in Washington after an

American-bom Serb who was a member of the unity Serbian Orthodox

Church recruited 37 members to SNF. SNF, like the Croatian Fraternal

Union, has a much larger membership in cities with older Serbian and

Croatian settlements.

The social atmosphere of an SNF convention is imparted in the

following description of the organization by an American-born Serb.

My family belongs to SNF, which has tended to become associated with "the other side of the church" issue [the unity side] even though it's supposed to be non­ church affiliated. Its central office is in Pittsburgh, and each colony has its own lodge. SNF has the largest concentration of Serbs in one organization in the country. It's mainly an insurance company. A Serbian Elks Club. It sponsors m m y affairs; over the past ten years it has sponsored large sports tournaments and other gala affairs. They hold basketball, golf, and soccer tournaments, and many Serbian people plan their vacations around them. All the Serbs stay in one hotel. Everything is well planned; there are lots of orchestras present, and dances are held every night. On Saturday night of the tournament there is also a banquet. Hiey are good oppor­ tunities for Serbs from different cities to meet.

The fourth organization--The Serbian National Committee— describes

itself as:

...a political representative of the Serbian national, political, and democratic emigration in the Free World, in its continuing activity against the Communist dic­ tatorship in Yugoslavia for the freedom of the Serbian people... [Serbian Democratic Forum 1972: 1].

Founded after World War II, the Serbian National Committee published its 234

first edition of the Serbian Demoaratia F o r m in 1971, in English. Only

one interviewee was a member of this committee.

Second and third generation Serbs, especially, reported being much

more involved in church-related activities than in the organizations

described above. Yugoslav-bom Serbs, on the other hand, while also

usually church members and attending services and church slave, appeared

less inclined to participate in church organizations. In particular,

those who were affiliated with the autonomy congregation of the Serbian

Church tended to be more involved in Serbian Brothers' Help and Ngegoë.

A frequent assertion of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the study

group was that they did not belong to many organizations, ethnic or

non-ethnic. Most said that they had little time for being involved in

organizations of either sort. In point of fact, 36 of the 56 interviewees

were regularly active in at least one of the organizations mentioned

above or in the church related organizations of the Serbian Orthodox

parishes. Nevertheless, it may very well appear to ethnic group members

in Washington that their organizational involvement was relatively

limited, in comparison with the potential in cities with larger concen­

trations of their members. Slovenes, for the most part, expressed an

interest in drawing more Slovenian people into their already-established

schedule of activities and organizations. Croats felt a need for

establishing a Croatian cultural center that would encourage AmeriCctn-

b o m Croats to learn their language and would be a place for them to

meet together regularly. Serbs held the opinion that there were already

enough organizations, especially through the churches, and that the work

of the various affiliated organizations needed to be spread among more people rather than concentrated in the hands of relatively few. one 235

Serbian wcmtan observed that she could easily retire now and still have enough to do to keep her busy full-time simply among the various things to be done in the Serbian church community. Outside of ethnic group commitments, occupational and educationally related activities, members of the study group reported themselves as being basically non-joiners of community organizations.

Political Inclinations

In some contexts, the political views of a group of interviewees— and the extent to which they do or do not e;q>ress concern with political matters"WOUld have no relevance. In this study, however, questions about both American and Yugoslav politics were included in the interview schedule in the belief that the responses would provide a measure of ethnic as well as political identity. This assumption was borne out by the responses received.

Throughout the course of the early stages of this study, the researcher was repeatedly told that in comparison with other communities of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes across the country, the three ethnic groups in Washington were conservative with respect to American politics.

Accordingly, an open-ended question, "Do you prefer the stands or argu­ ments of a particular American political party?" was asked of interviewees.

The question permitted a limited yes-or-no response or an opportunity for a more full discussion of beliefs and preferences.

Of all the questions asked, this one was clearly one of the more sensitive; frequently it generated a limited response. Of the 56 inter­ viewees, no conclusive answer could be determined from 22. Among these, typical responses were, "I vote for the person and never vote a straight 236

ticket," "There's no difference between the political parties here,"

and "I am more inclined to go with issues than with a party." Often,

there was some expression of disappointment with the whole political

process, a view likely to have been influenced by the fact that the

interviews were being conducted in Washington in the midst of the Water­

gate scandals. Including four individuals who identified themselves as

"independents," almost half of the study group expressed no clear-cut

party preference or affiliation; ten of the interviewees were also

ineligible to vote, either because they were not old enough or because

they were not American citizens.

Of the remaining 30 individuals, 19 reported affiliation with or

preference for the Democratic Party (or a party further to the left,

such as the Socialist Party, a preference expressed by one interviewee);

11 chose the Republican Party. Interestingly, five second-generation

persons reporting that they were Democrats also reported that their parents were Republicans. In general. Democratic affiliation was more

common among interviewees younger than 40, and Republican affiliation

more common among those who were older. All but one Republican were in

the first generation; 12 of the 19 Democrats were in the second or third

generation.

Given the limited response to this question, any interpretations are

risky. Naturally, the interviewees had their own perceptions about the

sensitivity of the question and about the researcher's own political

orientation; they had their own private thoughts about whether it would

be appropriate to speak frankly of American political affairs. The

limited information which they did supply suggested that in some cases

their responses may have been influenced by two developments which were 237 in progress at the time the interviews were conducted.

The first of these, as mentioned earlier, was Watergate. At least two of the interviewees had campaigned locally for Richard Nixon during one or more of his presidential campaigns. They appeared to be deeply disillusioned by the unfolding crisis of 1973-74. Others shared— if to a lesser degree— their sense that the American political process was in trouble.

The second development was the American policy of detente toward the Communist world. Traditionally, many Serbian, Croatian, and Slo­ venian émigrés of the immediate post-World War II period had seen the

Democratic Party as "soft on Communism” and had looked to the Republican

Party for a continuing hard-line policy. Most ex-POW's and first gener­ ation refugees were themselves very much opposed to Communism— in some cases, openly frightened of it (noting that the Communist Party had been outlawed by King Alexander in 1929, one Croat commented that "only two and a half per cent of the people in Yugoslavia were Communists before the war, and look how Communism took control in such a short period of time"). They had felt an affinity with the hard-line anti-Communist

Richard Nixon of the 1950's; they were disillusioned when the same man became the proponent of detente in the 1970's, and this disillusion­ ment— sometimes eaqoressed obliquely, sometimes openly— contributed to the reluctance of a number of interviewees to express active support of the Republican Parly.

The more recent émigi^s among the interviewees, especially those who had avowedly left Yugoslavia for political reasons, remained more concerned about Yugoslav than about American politics, except in those instances there United States foreign policy ndght have a direct bearing 238 on Yugoslav-American relations. There were, of course, exceptions; among those who had left primarily for economic, educational, or marital reasons, there were several who seemed to prefer leaving Yugoslav politics behind them.

Another potentially sensitive political question was posed; "Do you have any particular feelings about how the political situation should be chcinged in Yugoslavia?" Thirty-six interviewees provided a specific answer; a few others said they could not respond intelligently because they were not well enough informed on the current situation in

Yugoslavia. In retrospect, this represents a surprisingly broad willing­ ness to discuss a difficult topic— especially since rumors were reported to the researcher in the latter stages of the study to the effect that various individuals were suspicious of her own position vis-a-vis

Yugoslavia and about the "real" purpose of her research.*

The responses to this question, in fact, were generally broader and more complete than to the question concerning American political parties.

Answers ranged from a blauiket rejection of the present Yugoslav system— a view shared by at least 14 of the interviewees— to a general, if often qualified, endorsement of Marshal Tito's leadership; outright enthusiasm for the present Yugoslav system seemed to be limited to two or three of

*These suspicions did not appear to be widespread but were understandable in view of the fact that the researcher had visited Yugoslavia in 1970 and had lived there for several months in 1973. Primarily in order to minimize such suspicions, the researcher had decided during the planning of the study to avoid interviews and other contacts with representatives of the Yugoslav Embassy. The information developed by such contacts might have provided a valuable extra dimension to the study, but on balance this did not appear to offset the risk of alienating ethnic group members who might have felt that they were somehow being subjected to surveillance. One of the characteristics of Washington in the 1970's in addition to Watergate and â/stente, has been a justified concern with espionage. 239 the interviewees, with about twice that many expressing some degree of support for it.

Overall, the most frequently e:gressed attitude (held by about half of the interviewees) maintained that Yugoslavia would benefit greatly from more democratization, by which the interviewees generally meant the acceptance of more than one political peirty and the end of dictatorship.

Even this view was couched in different overtones and interpretations, as indicated by the following representative quotations from interviews*:

I would like to see a multiple party system, including the Communist Party. Then the different parties could achieve power by way of elections, as in the United States or France.

If they had a multi-party system of three or four, without being controlled by the Communist Party, I would return im­ mediately; and I would get involved.

I have strong feelings that the Yugoslav system should be demo crati zed.

I am against dictatorships of any form, but I see a great deal of difference between the Soviet Union and Poland and Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia has the best of those three exanples. Unlike many others here, I am not bitter about ray e;q>eriences there.

I don't like the idea of a life-long dictator. But I do think things are better now than they were before.

I'm for a federation, but on an equal basis so that Croatians could control their own econony— not Belgrade.

I have no illusions. As long as there is a Communist regime in the Soviet Union there is little hope that the Yugoslav regime will change basically. Some hope that after Tito it will be more liberal, more western-oriented, but I see just as much possibility that the opposite will happen, that Yugoslavia will become more a part of the Soviet bloc again.

♦Because of the sensitivity of this issue, quotations regarding it are given without reference to generation, sex, or the ethnic group member­ ship of the Interviewee except where indicated by the context of the quote. 240

At least nine of the interviewees— representing all three ethnic groups— took the position that some separation of the republics should be implemented or at least considered as a viable alternative to the present federation. The following quotations represent a cross-section of these views:

There is much debate about Yugoslav politics among Croats, yes; and everyone has his own thinking on the issue, but one thing they all agree on is that Croatia should be an Independent nation.

The only way to the future is through the separation of Croatia— a sovereign Croatia. There is no such thing as Yugoslavia. It is only a dictatorship based on crimes and force.

When Tito dies, that will be a good thing, since he has lived too long. I think that the country needs to break up. Everyone hates each other.

I've always thought that Yugoslavia should have never been since there is too much hatred there, but I can't understand why once it was formed they couldn't find a way to get along. It's been a dilemma that's never been solved.

Ideally I would like to see Croatia sovereign now, a state of equal rights and its own culture. Before, I had hoped that the Yugoslavs were headed toward a more realistic federal structure and decentralization. But since the purges of 1971 I have felt that there must be either massive change or no change at all. Either way, it's not going to be easy for the people living there.

I do have strong feelings— I would want it changed. Not because I would want to go back, but because I think the people deserve better. As a unified whole, Yugoslavia has not worked.

Some seven individuals, most of them American-bom, said that they had no special feelings on the issue, either because they preferred not to become involved or because of a lack of background.

I don't have any particular opinion because I don't know enough about it to tell.

I have nothing to say to that question, but I will say that as far as I cun concerned Yugoslavs can have whatever government they want as long as it doesn't interfere with 241

me here. It shouldn't be our place to tell them they shouldn't be Communistic. That's been one of our major mistakes in our government in the past— getting involved in telling too many governments around the world what kind of system we want them to have.

When I was growing up in the United States there was very little discussion about Yugoslavia. I don't feel qualified to talk about the political situation there.

Among the interviewees, only one felt such unqualified support for the present system that he could sura it up in a single sentence— "In rty opinion, what they are doing there now is good." There were six or more responses, mainly among second emd third generation interviewees, which could be said to represent a generally positive disposition. These responses tended to emphasize a view that while the situation could stand improvement, it was better than in the past, and that changes might not necessarily work out well:

Tfhen I was younger, I thought like everyone else I knew that Tito and the Communist Party were bad for Yugoslavia. But after being there, and after reading a lot, I have developed very different feelings. I think Tito is basically a good man who has done good things for Yugoslavia. Yugo­ slavia is not like the other Eastern European countries, and the past 15 years have been pretty good. I could never say this to most of ny family's close friends. It would be a bad thing if Yugoslavia would get closer to the Soviet Union when Tito goes. Tito's biggest problem is the ethnic crisis, and the real problem of replacing him when he dies.

It's far frcxn perfect. But I tend to think that Slovenes are better off now, under Tito, than they ever were before.

One of the things Yugoslavia could do without is radical nationalism. I can't personally relate to a revolutionary framework— rather to the necessity for compromise and negoti­ ation. In the time period since 1919 it seems to me that the past 25 years have been the least bloody. To me, that represents progress, but those in power now still have trouble with internal antagonisms.

The inevitable death of the octogenarian Tito loomed larged in the minds of interviewees concerned with developments in Yugoslavia. Some 242 ei^Gcted his death to be followed by Russian troops overrunning Yugo­ slavia and forcing it back into the Soviet-East European alliance.

Others anticipated massive internal disruption, even civil war, brought on by ethnic group antagonsim. For others, there was the belief that

Tito's passing would lead to democratization of Yugoslavia since the federation would no longer be so reliant on one mem. Croats often expressed the hope that after Tito's death Croatia would be able to withdraw from the federation. For better or worse, the interviewees recognized Tito as the glue that had held the Yugoslav federation together for 30 years; from whatever perspective, they tended to share the view expressed by a wry joke commonly heard in Yugoslavia today that "Tito is the first true Yugoslav— and the last."

As a group, they were not optimistic about the future of Yugo­ slavia. They saw the proximity of the Soviet Union as a great potential threat, especially when combined with internal turbulence; further, those who felt that the Yugoslav economy was strained and troubled— a majority view— could see no grounds for encouragement in the global economic distress that appeared likely to continue. At least one interviewee, a Croat, e:q>ressed a certain fatalism: "It will be a bad time probably, but Croats are comfortable with bad times; those are the kinds of times we have the most of." Like many e;q)ressions of fatalism, this one appeared to be not much more than a thin veneer, not really masking the concern that many interviewees e:q)ressed for the future of the country that they or their families came from.

* * * 243

In a final section of questions on politics, interviewees were asked whether or not they thought ethnicity should become a greater or lesser concern in American politics. The predominant opinion of at least three-fourths of the interviewees was that, especially where the

Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were concerned, ethnic group political involvement should not increase. Some suggested that it should decline.

Basically I am against pressure groups. Voting as informed voters is better. I dislike the idea of gathering political favor with white ethnic groups. It's a reaction to the situ­ ation with the Blacks, since many resent any favoritism for Blacks.

No, it should be a smaller concern. In fact, they should abolish it. Ethnicity is an echo of the civil rights movement.

No, it should not be greater. We have to be more realistic and get away from ethnicity in politics. We need more Ameri­ cans and more flag-waving.

Generally, I think ethnicity should become less political.

On principle, no, it should not become greater. It is not realistic. As time goes on, ethnic groups should be remem­ bered, but ethnicity, as such, will eventually dwindle.

It should not be more emphasized than it is now. It is exaggerated.now. It's way out of proportion. Most of the Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian politicians haven't been good and have been arch conservatives.

Absolutely not. Never for Serbs. It would be contrary to Americeui principles. They are Americans first, Serbs next. Politicians try to get the vote, but they are not really thinking of the ethnic group. And this is true for all ethnic groups; politicians are only out for their support.

No, ethnicity is good for folklore, not politics.

If this were to happen, it would be only for selfish reasons. And I don't think it should happen. Besides, Yugoslavs would never be able to get together like the Chicanos since they are too individualistic.

No, I don't think they should be more active. Ethnic groups play a very insignificant role in American political life. They are used mainly as vote getters at election time, although in certain areas they can be balance tippers. 244

The one area in which several participants felt that ethnic groups such as theirs mg h t take a more active political role was on legislation for ethnic studies programs. Such prograne, it was sug­ gested, should be based in schools at all levels, but primarily in elementary and secondary education. Caution was expressed against making ethnic curricula into forums for particular ethnic groups; preference was for a broadly-based cross-cultural program in which the ethnic makeup of the United States would be more fully explored than is presently the case. (The 1965 Title IX Ethnic Heritage Studies Program

Act was written with this in mind.) Some interviewees argued that presently schools tend to teach mainly about Anglo-Saxon contributions to America, ignoring other nationalities even though they constitute substantial segments of the population.

Those individuals who saw some need for ethnic groups to become more involved in American politics specified that the ethnic groups should take stands on issues directly affecting them, such as the ethnic studies program. One other area thought to be a legitimate concern of ethnic groups was the status of immigration laws and the civil rights of recent immigrants. A few of those interviewed felt that newly arrived émigrés are still discriminated against in hiring practices as well as other civil rights areas.

Another potential benefit of taking political action, according to some interviewees, could be that such action might bring sensitive issues out into the open for general public discussion and resolution; otherwise, such issues would merely be discussed and re-discussed among a relative handful of people. One interviewee remarked: 245

I get together with ray friends. We talk. We bring up the same old problems, we have the same old arguments, we arrive at the same old solutions which actually solve nothing because it is only a few people settling the prob­ lems of the world like old men on a bench in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House . They may be close to the President but it is not close enough to do any good.

In his view, more political action on the part of ethnic groups could thus lead to less rather than more factionalism.

Certain interviewees reasoned that the members of their ethnic group had done quite well without using pressure group action and that they did not need political power to protect their interests. In direct contrast, another individual saw every ethnic group as having special needs and, therefore, felt that each should have some political power. And one other contended that Americans should pay more attention to the various ethnic groups and what they had accomplished "because they are the best proof of how well people can succeed, even under diffi­ cult circums tance s."

A final commentary upon the potential effect of political views upon ethnic identity was made by a second generation Serb. It brings attention to the influence of developments within Yugoslavia upon the ethnic orientation of members of the three ethnic groups in Washington.

People here need a significant world event to remember their ethnic background. For the Serbs who cure here, that event is World War II. In the case of children b o m in America, the only way that parents can impress upon them what being Serbian is all about is by taking them back to the Old Country. Otherwise, Serbian history is only an abstraction. By returning, they can see for themselves some of the results of the ravages of World War II which they aren't exposed to here and, more importantly, they can l e a m from other fcuaily members and friends of family who lived through that era of our history. 246

Religious Affiliations

Outside of strong family ties, two very effective avenues to socializing children toward a marked ethnic identity are through religion and bilingualism. Language learning is discussed in the up­ coming section on ethnolinguistics; the relationship between religion and ethnic identity is explored in this section.

As listed in Appendix C (III) Ethnie Aeaription of Intervieweesj

(IV) EeZigious Affil-iation as a Childs and (V) Present Religious Affili­ ation, the study group subdivides into various religious preferences depending, in part, on ethnic group membership. Ethnic ascription was determined on the basis of how the interviewees presented themselves to the researcher. Certain ethnic categories may appear ambiguous or confusing to the reader. "Serbian and Croatian" refers to those individuals who were b o m of mixed parentage and considered their tradition to come from both ethnic groups. "Russian" refers to an individual who was b o m and raised in Yugoslavia of Russian-bom parents.

And "Yugoslav" indicates the one individual who, although b o m within a specific ethnic group, now describes himself as a Yugoslav. Although such instances of self-defined "Yugoslavs" appear to be rare among the three ethnic groups in Washington, the researcher met at least six individuals who consistently or occasionally referred to themselves as such.*

Of the 25 Serbs in the study group, 23 were raised as Serbian

♦This self-characterization was not the result of any influence by the researcher, vho refrained from the use of the term "Yugoslav" in deference to general sensitivity about the term, and instead referred to the specific ethnic group to which tdie interviewee belonged. 247

Orthodox and two as Episcopalians. As adults, of the 23, two who had been Serbian Orthodox as children also became affiliated with the

Episcopalian Church. Yet all four of the Episcopalian Serbs retained strong emotional ties to the Serbian Orthodox Church and would occasion­ ally attend services. All four cases of Episcopalian affiliation occurred while in Washington, not while living in Yugoslavia. At least two considerations account for the switch from Serbian Orthodoxy to

Episcopalian affiliation. Until 1960 there was no Serbian Orthodox parish in Washington, and those Serbs who settled in Washington before that time tended either to go to another Orthodox Church (Russian or

Greek) or to join a new religious denomination. Interviewees explained that the Episcopal Church has traditionally been receptive to Serbs and, in the case of Washington, has helped Serbs to establish their own parishes. The National Cathedral in Washington, an Episcopal Church, since the early 1960's has provided space for the first Saint Luke's parish (autonomy) to meet. By the time that Saint Luke's had become established, several Serbian families in Washington had already been attending Episcopal services at the National Cathedral, and some retained that affiliation even after the Serbian Orthodox parish was created.

All 12 Slovenes and all 14 Croats were affiliated with the Roman

Catholic Church as children, as was the one self-ascribed Yugoslav.

Two Slovenes said that they were presently agnostics, as was the single

Montenegrin. One of the Serbian and Croatian individuals was raised in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox faiths, and the single Russian

Yugoslav was Russian Orthodox.

Only two of the 56 interviewees grew up with strong religious attachments to more than one denomination; one was Episcopalian emd 248

Orthodox and the other, Roman Catholic and Orthodox. On the other hand, seven persons with children had married spouses who were affiliated with a different religious denomination. Five of the seven were Orthodox; in three of those cases the children were being raised in the other spouses' faiths (Roman Catholic and Episcopalian). In another family the interviewee was an agnostic and the spouse, a Protestant, and the children were being raised Protestant, but of an undefined nature.

Finally, a Roman Catholic interviewee was married to a Protestant, and the children were growing up Romeui Catholic. Of the three interviewees whose children were not being raised in their religion (or lack of religion), two were women and one, a man. Two females and two males composed the four cross-religion marriages in which the children remained in the religious faith of the interviewee. Therefore, the choice of church did not appear to be directly related to the sex of the parent.

"Straddling" of religious faiths was also reported by the two interviewees who had grown up in homes where the parents represented two religions and for the children of three interviewees with spouises having different religious affiliations. Straddling also occurred in those two instances where the religious affiliation of the interviewee had shifted from the Orthodox Church to Episcopalian; in those families the children were exposed to both the Orthodox and Episcopalian faiths.

No interviewees suggested that there was friction between parents of different religious backgrounds regarding the religion the children should be raised in; if this was an issue it never emerged among the interviewees.

As mentioned earlier, of the three ethnic groups, only the Serbs 249 have their own parishes in Washington. One Saint Luke's (autonomy) continues to meet at the National Cathedral although it has purchased property in McLean, Virginia and has drawn up architectural plans for a church and a hall on its land. The other Saint Luke's (unity) purchased a house in northwestern Washington in 1973, which was converted into a church and a home for the priest and his family. The Slovenes and the Croats attend monthly Masses held in the Slovenian or Croatian

Chapels at the National Shrine, but they have no parish affiliation with Slovenian or Croatian Roman Catholic Churches. Roman Catholic

Churches with a predominantly Slovenian or Croatian membership exist in several American cities that have many more Slovenes or Croatians than Washington does (e.g.. New York, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago,

Milwaukee, Minneapolis, etc.). Those churches usually sponsor extensive social and cultural activities in addition to religious services, thereby serving as centers for ethnic activities. The Slovenian and Croatian

Chapels in Washington do not sponsor such activités, but because of the monthly Masses Croatian and Slovenian people can meet together at regular intervals. An emnual pilgrimage of Croats is also held at the

Croatian Chapel of Our Lady of Bistrica that draws Croats from through­ out the whole nation. In addition to attending the monthly Masses, many Croats and Slovenes are also members of non-ethnic Roman Catholic parishes in the Washington area.

Nine of the 12 Slovenes reported that they at least occasionally attended Slovenian Chapel Masses since their beginning in 1969 (the

Chapel was completed in 1970). Previously at least five Slovenes had been members of a Slovenian parish in another part of the United States.

Very different responses were given to the question about the role 250

religion has played in their ethnic identity. Three of the 12 Slovenes

felt that it did not have much importance in their own ethnic identity;

From the age of 16 on, I have had no ties with the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, I think the Sloveniein priests let the Slovenian people down and did not help them to keep their rights. For one thing, services were held in Latin, rather than Slovenian, and I suspect that if they had been in Slovenian, Carinthia would not have been lost to Austria.

Because sty father and grandfather were both atheists, my upbringing did not encourage a strong Roman Catholic attach­ ment. But I do think that many of the Slovenian priests helped in the educational developments of Slovenia.

When I was growing up, there was a political push in Yugoslavia not to affiliate with a religion, and ity profession also did not encourage it; it could hold you back to be too openly religious. So I can't say that I was very involved in religion. Today on major holidays we go to church, and we are decent Catholics, but we're not very orthodox in terms of fasting.

Three others, even though they now attend the Slovenian Chapel

Masses, noted that their own background did not really impress upon them that Slovenian ethnic identity and their religion were particularly interconnected.

I see religion as playing quite an important role in Slovenian ethnic identity, but in my upbringing, the family was not strongly Roman Catholic.

Religion is a much stronger element cunong Slovenian people here theui it was in ______. For me religion is something else to leam about that nuikes being Slovenian interesting.

Religion and ethnicity go somewhat together, but not that closely. For one thing, I was never a member of a Slovenian parish.

The other half of the Slovenes interviewed saw religion as clearly interlocked with Slovenian ethnic identity. The historical functions of the Romem Catholic priests in the furthering of Slovenian causes— in

Slovenia and the United States— were also often cited. 251

Slovenia was strictly Roman Catholic. Religion provided the stronghold for the Slovenian language. Priests were the only ones who stayed with the people. In the United States the church is the only place to meet Slovenian people. The Slovenian langv^ge is given major importance since here the service is in Slovenian, the gospel is read in both English and Slovenian, and the sermon is usually given in Slovenian. At least 50 per cent of those who attend the Masses speak Slovenian very well, and maybe only 20 per cent don't speak it at all.

Religion has always been a basic element in my being Slovenian.

Religion and Slovenian ethnic identity have always been so interrelated in my experience that I can't imagine the two being separate. I can not conceive of being Slovenian without being religiously attached to Roman Catholicism. It was characteristic of the Slovenian culture that I grew up in since most of the Slovenes I knew left there because of politi­ cal and religious persecution. Those Slovenes who go to the church here in Washington are very religious, although I have met a couple who are very anti-religious and never go to church-related functions.

Religion plays a fairly large role to the extent that if there were no religious-centered activities, people would not get together. The church provides an opportunity to make and maintain contacts.

Like the Slovenes, the Croats in the study group also expressed widely varying attitudes about the role of religion in their ethnic identity. Eleven of the 14 interviewees had attended Croatian Masses at the National Shrine from time to time. Some said that they went everytime that a Croatian Mass was held. Of those who did attend the

Croatian Masses some did not approve of the priests' political orientation.

Maybe you could say religion has been an important part of Croatian ethnic identity, but it has also been a disadvantage to political change in Croatia. The church wants the people for its own, and the priests are never really political, here or there.

Religion has not played that large a role. The two don't go together in ny mind.

It hasn't had that much impact. That's because the Roman Catholic Church has too much of ctn international and not national concern. 252

In contrast, other Croats had the opinion that the church has played a constructive role in Croaticin ethnic Identity.

I think religion is important because the church helped the Croatian people in difficult times. There's one big difference between the Serbs and the Croats; Serbs say Serbian Orthodox and Croats would never say Croatian Roman Catholic.

There's very much emphasis on religion among Croats. It's almost as if Mary had been a Croat. Religion was. especially important among Croatian immigrants, but it's not as stressed in Croatia today.

It plays a major role. Croatian Catholicism is more than just part of the universal Roman Catholic Church; it has indigenous characteristics. The gospel is read in Croatian, and eighth century traditions remain in the service. And many of the decisions of the Ecumenical Council were an out­ growth of Bishop Strossmeyer's ideas.

You can't separate the ethnic tradition from the ethnic religion.

Insofar as the church provides a base upon which ethnic activités can be focused, and a setting in vAiich children can learn about their ethnic traditions, the Serbs have a major advantage over the Slovenes and Croats: they have two parish churches in Washington. That advan­ tage, however, poses problems in and of itself since the Serbian Ortho­ dox Church in America and Canada is split into two factions— one that is unified with the Mother Church in Yugoslavia and headed by the

Patriarch in Belgrade (unity faction} and one that is split from the

Mother Church (autonomy faction). By the time the split occurred in

1963, the first Saint Luke's parish had been established in Washington and already had been meeting at the National Cathedral for three years.

This parish voted to join the autonony side of the split. In 1967 some persons who had previously belonged to Saint Luke's who were dis­ pleased with the decision of the church body to join the autonomy side and some other Serbs who had never been affiliated with Saint Luke's 253 began to organize a second Serbian Orthodox parish that was associated with the unity faction. It was also named Saint Luke's. After meeting for a few years at the All Saint's Church (Episcopal) in Chevy Chase,

Maryland, this parish in 1973 purchased a house in northwest Washington and converted it to a church and a home for the priest and his family, which was dedicated in the spring of 1974. Both Serbian churches have their own priests (pop).

The split in the church appeared to be a very sensitive issue among the interviewees since much is at stake in the schism: church properties— vdiich are valued at substantial amounts of money— and status among other religious groups in the United States. Some law suits between the unity and autonomy factions are pending and may determine ownership of Saint Sava Monastery and other property. More importantly, the split has wrought havoc among previously close friends and within families throughout the United States because of divided allegiances to the two sides of the schism.

Outside of church journal articles and academic theses of Serbian

Orthodox priests, only one scholarly study has been written about the schism, that of sociologist Djuro J. Vrga (a Serb), which he completed for his doctoral dissertation in 1968. In his research on the schism in the Holy Heavrveotion parish in Chicago, Vrga found that social and political differences between the old immigrants (pre-World War II) and new immigrants (after World War II) were at the root of the split within that parish (Vrga and Fahey 1975). Although Serbs in Washington evidence some significant occupational and educational differences from those studied by Vrga in Chicago, his description of the consequences of the schism on Serbian ethnic life is applicable to the situation in 254

Washington and deserves extensive quotation.

The open break in the unity of the Serbiem Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada occurred in 1963. No single parish was left untouched by this division which came to be known as schism. Originating in America, the seat of the only Serbian Orthodox Diocese outside Yugoslavia, the schism eventually spread to all Serbian Orthodox parishes in Western Europe, Australia, and Latin America.

The division of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the whole Serbian ethnic group occurred in the form of a conflict be­ tween the Serbs who continue to recognize and accept as binding the canonical and hierarchical authority of the Holy Council of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia, and those Serbs who prefer an independent religious existence, because they consider that all acts of the Mother Church are made under pressure of the Yugoslav communist regime. The division of the Serbian Orthodox Church and the whole Serbian minority group occurred over the question of whether the supreme body of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia had the right to suspend and divest Bishop Dionysius and to divide the single Serbian Orthodox diocese in the United States and Canada into three dioceses.

The church controversy, with strong ideological overtones, is conceptualized in terras of conflicting identifications and loyalties of differing segments of the Serbian ethnic group. Therefore, it appears as a special form of factionalism which divides the v^ole ethnic group along definite lines of internal group differentiation. However, this differentiation reflects, to a great extent, the position of group members in the larger American society which has provided them with differential positions and rewards which often do not approximate the ex­ pectations and life aspirations of many new immigrants [Vrga and Fahey 1975: 3].

The Serbian Orthodox Church has been the primary integrating force in the life of Serbs regardless of internal differences— social, political, regional or any other— and the sources of Serbicui historical ethnic identification. Thus, the division of the Serbian Orthodox Church appears, in all its consequential proportions, as a deep cleavage in the communal life of the Serbian ethnic minority group in the United States and else­ where [1975: 4].

The schism in the Serbian Orthodox Church, basically an intra-group problem, has also become an inter-group issue. For canonical reasons, the schism beccune a matter of serious concern for other Orthodox churches. When Bishop Dionysius failed to secure recognition from a single autocephalous Orthodox church, he made a direct appeal to the Russian Patri­ arch in Moscow, on March 2, 1966. 255

For alleged communist conspiracy against America through the Serbian Orthodox Church, the schism also came to the attention of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security as well as to some congressmen. The schism was given a wide coverage in local press, on radio, and television, especially when disorders and even physical fights at meetings of the parish membership called for police intervention.

Internally, the schism as a split of religious loyalty of a once very compact religio-ethnic group was accompanied by the strong emotional reactions of the proponents of the two feuding factions. The polarized groupings in the church controversy resulted in the break between many seemingly inde strue table relationships between former friends, between close relatives, and even between the members of the same families. There is further evidence regarding divided church allegiances between husbands, wives, and children.

Contacts between the followers of opposing factions are at best limited. Since the schism occurred, the followers of the two factions have not engaged in a single common enterprise, and least of all, in religious services which have remained unchanged in ritual and words. The autonomy faction was especially irritated when the bishops of the unit^ faction officially declared that all religious acts of clergy from the opposing faction were considered uncanonical and void. Further­ more, the bishops advised their flock that any participation in religious services conducted by clergy from the opposing faction would be considered heretical [1975: 33-34].

No matter which church (unity or autonomy) interviewees belonged to, they were very hesitant to talk about the schism in detail except to say that it was very unfortunate that it had ever happened. Both some

American-bom and some Yugoslav-bom Serbs went so far as to say that the split would eventually be worked out and that the younger people who are now beginning to take an active role administratively in the churches in Washington and elsewhere believe that the issues causing the schism have been carried to an extreme.

Neither my father nor I think that politics should be brought into the church. What was really a fight between priests and the bishop filtered down to the members. X know families where brothers were divided over the issue. It is a very sensitive problem. I think it will eventually change back to normal through the efforts of young people. They are much less in­ volved in the fight and think it's bad the way it's going. 256

I wish the Serbian Orthodox Church had not gotten so involved in Yugoslav politics. As I see it, the church in Yugoslavia isn't really controlled by the Communist Party. Today with the church being split there is no unity among Serbs.

Some interviewees took a slightly different position on the issue of the schism.

The split was a very significant event and has been felt very much. We never discuss politics with the "other side" because it is like black and white. There is no grey area when it comes to this issue.

I would not belong to the other church since it is tied to the Communist Party in Yugoslavia.

The church split had really hurt the development of the parish.

One consequence of the schism has been to discourage active parti­ cipation of more Serbs in Washington in the church. Out of the 21

Serbian Orthodox-affiliated interviewees, four have not become members of either parish since moving to Washington.

When the schism occurred in 1963, 20 of the 59 Serbian parishes in the United States and Canada went with the autonomy faction; 39 remained with the unity side. This constituted 30.6 per cent of the membership in the autonomy camp, and 69.4 per cent in the unity. Between that time and Vrga's research, nine new unity parishes had been formed where the existing church had become autonomous; six autonomous parishes had been created where they had remained unified; and a few new parishes had been established where none had previously existed (Vrga and Fahey

1975; 31-32).

According to Vrga's data, the "typical" unity-affiliated Serb in

Chicago might be described as follows: American-born, whose parents immigrated before World War II for econcxnic reasons; who was educated in a non-military school and did not advance to a significantly higher 257

occupational status than the parents; who was a registered Democrat with a primaury interest in the welfare policies of the party; who had no interest in living in Yugoslavia; and who believed that the church should stress spiritual matters. In contrast, a member of the autonomy faction might be characterized quite differently; a Yugoslav-born Serb who immigrated after World War II for political reasons from a refugee camp in western Europe; who had been educated in a military academy before the last war and after school, had risen significantly in occu­ pational status from the previous generation of the family; who was a

Republican Party member in the United States with an emphasis on the party's anti-Communist stands; who hoped to return eventually to Yugo­ slavia to live, should the political system change; ëind who felt that the church should be in the forefront of anti-Communism in the United States as well as the primary locus for the maintencUice of pure Serbian ethnic traditions.

These character sketches are, of course, composites of particular orientations of the unity and autonomy factions of the Chicago parishes.

While Vrga's data is not directly comparable to the material gathered for this study on Serbs in Washington, it is appropriate to attempt some tentative comparisons between the members of both factions in light of Vrga's findings.

As of February 1964, 70.3 per cent of the American-bom members and 73.1 per cent of the old immigrants (pre-World War II) of the Holy

Resurrection parish in Chicago were in favor of the unity faction. In contrast, 69.7 per cent of the refugees and 43.8 per cent of the escapees joined the autnony side. Within Vrga's sample of 84 members, 36 belonged to the autonomy and 48 to the unity sides. He found recency of immi- 258 gration and province of birth or ancestry to be importeuit factors in the choice of factions. Of the old imudgrants, 73 per cent were in the unity while 67 per cent of new immigrants in the autonomy factions;

79 per cent of those coming from Serbia or Montenegro sided with the autonomy and 66 per cent coming from other provinces with ethnically mixed populations (such as Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina) sided with the unity. The autonomy faction also tended to have many more members who left for political purposes than did the unity faction. While 55 per cent of the autonomy persons were educated in military schools or academies, only 30 per cent of the unity persons were.

Vrga also found a very different intergenerational occupational mobility pattern between unity and autonomy persons; autonomy individuals evidenced a greater upward mobility (before leaving Yugoslavia) over the previous generation in the sense that 61.8 per cent of their fathers were peasants and 73.5 per cent had a higher occupational status than their fathers. Only 8.8 per cent of their fathers had been professionals.

In comparison, only 33 per cent of the unity individuals had an occupa­ tional standing that was higher than their fathers'.

American political party preference also varied; 61 per cent au­ tonomy Serbs were Republicans and 68.8 per cent unity Serbs were Demo­ crats. Additionally, 68 per cent of the autonomy individuals felt that the first priority of their political party should be an anti-communist foreign policy, and 33 per cent of the unity individuals said that welfare policy was the number one issue.

Further, a greater percentage of the immigrants in the autonomy faction were determined to return to Yugoslavia should communism be replaced by a democratic system. In the autonomy faction, the two most 259 highly valued functions of the Serbian church were "to preserve the purity of Serbian customs and traditions" and "to be the leading force in the struggle against communism in Yugoslavia," On the other hand, the proponents of the unity faction felt that the church should first,

"teach Orthodox religious truths" and second, "organize Serbs in a spiritual community" (Vrga and Fahey 1975: 57).

How do these characteristics compare with the two Serbian Orthodox parish memberships in Washington? First of all, the autonomous Saint

Luke's parish, which was established before the other, remains a larger congregation; it has approximately 120 families and single individuals as active pledged members compared with about 63 families and individuals on the unity parish rolls. As things now stand, a much larger percentage of the affiliated Serbs in Washington remained with the autonomy faction than among the Holy Resurrection parish in Chicago.

Secondly, about half of the autonomy faction in Washington is composed of post-World War II émigrés, cong>ared to about a third for the unily faction. In general, pre-World War II Serb émigrés came from areas other than Serbia, while post-war émigrés have generally come from within Serbia itself; among those interviewees who originated in Serbia, only two belonged to the unity Saint Luke's. On the basis of general knowledge about the two churches in Washington, it seems safe to say that while the autonomy parish is composed of more first generation post-war emigres coming from Serbia proper, it is also made up of close to that many Americsm-born persons whose family originated in non-

Serbiam republics. It is difficult to separate the place of origin from the generation in America as factors of church affiliation, since they are so interconnected themselves. 260

In the e;q>erience of the researcher, Vrga's conclusion that the

autonomy faction is largely supported by those who left (or \dio did not

return to Yugoslavia) for political reasons is borne out in the affili­

ations of Washington Serbs. With very few exceptions, ex-POW's and political refugees were members of the autonomy Saint Luke's. The unity parish members tend to be American-bom or recent (I960's on) emigres who came mainly for economic purposes.

Only three of the interviewees were educated in military academies

(one was educated after the war), and all belonged to the autonomy

church; but two of those three Serbs plus one other had served as

officers in the Serbian army before being taken prisoners-of-war by the

Germans in 1941. Two other men interviewed also fought under Mihailovic

during the war; of the five who fought for Serbia in World War II, all

either have their own businesses or are professionals in Washington.

Furthermore, none of the five had fathers who were peasants, and three had fathers in government work. Although occupational adjustments were made on the part of all Serbiéui refugees and ex-POM's ccxning to

Washington soon after the last war, their adaptation was considerably more successful than that which Vrga describes for escapees and refugees

in his sample. The most difficult adaption was for those trained as

lawyers, since they could not transfer their education to the American

legal system. Two factors seemed to have helped immensely in their

adaptation: an emphasis on education while growing up in Yugoslavia

and after coming to the United States and positions that the United

States government provided for many of the better-educated Serbs, especially in l^guage training. All in all, the immediate post-war emigre group in Washington came from middle and upper class families 261 in Serbia and had not experienced the one-generation jimp in occupational status that Vrga describes for the autonomy Serbs in Chicago.

Although party affiliation data is too scanty to make conclusive comparisons with Vrgas's figures, in general there did appear to be a stronger Republican preference among the autonomy faction than among the unity group. This would appear to be strongly related to the ratio of first generation to American-bom persons.

It was only among the autonomy Saint Luke's interviewees that references were made to a desire to return to Yugoslavia to live if the government should be democratized. Interviewees from both parishes had returned for visits.

While no questions were posed to interviewees about the preferred functions of the church as an organized body, the researcher found the concerns of the autonomy faction to be more directed toward Yugoslav politics and the maintenance of Serbian customs (as observed in Serbia) than was true for the unity church. The argument for purity in Serbian traditions (language, music, liturgy, etc.) and interest in Yugoslav politics came mainly from those persons who immigrated after the war.

The breakdown of church membership into categories can be mis­ leading when it comes to accounting for church leadership. Although approximately half of the autonomy Saint Luke's was composed of post-

World War II emigres and their families, the administrative leadership was primarily in the hands of American-bom Serbs, One Yugoslav-bom

Serb explained that while he had been involved in the formation of the parish from "day one," the first generation Serbs had always encouraged the American-born to handle the administrative duties of the parish because of their greater experience in such matters. For one thing, 262

the Serbian Orthodox church in Yugoslavia had been state-financed and

those coming after the war were not used to the idea of collecting

membership dues. Those b o m in the United States were more inclined to

handle the fundraising responsibilities because of their experience

with churches in the United States.

Like every Serbian Orthodox parish in the United States and

Canada, both Saint Luke's churches have a Circle of Serbian Sisters

(kolo) vdiich functions much like a women's auxiliary in the administration

of the church in that it serves the church by preparing for all religio-

social activities. Saint Luke's (autonomy) koZo was organized soon after

the church was founded in the early 1960's; by 1974 there were 25 paid

members, with 19 particularly active women. All but one of those active

members were American-bom, according to one interviewee. In addition

to making arrangements for all social functions of the church, including

the preparation of food, the kolo held bake sales, rummage sales, and

picnics with the purpose of raising funds that go into the building fund.

Under its revised by-laws, someone who was not Orthodox, but who was of

good moral character, could belong to Saint Luke's Circle of Serbian

Sisters.

In 1968 the Saint Marina Circle of Serbian Sisters was established,

affiliated with the unity Saint Luke's parish. By 1974 there was a total

of 15 members, eight of whom were active; in addition, approximately 35

women were available to contribute food and time for churdh functions.

This koZo also held bake sales, picnics, and dinners from which funds were collected, cuid was responsible for weekly coffee hours after the

church services. Most of its active members were also American-bom,

The administrative body of Saint Luke's (autonomy) consisted of a 263

president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, financial secretary,

four trustees, an audit board chairman and two other members of the audit

board; the board of trustees was composed of the aforementioned and con­

sisted in 1975 of nine men and three women. The Saint Luke's choir,

which sang at all church services and most social events, had mainly

American-bom members; it had its own slate of officers and had developed

a reputation among the Orthodox churches as an especially good choir for

such a small parish. Choral music is a focal part of a Serbian Orthodox

service. The priest (proto) began his service to Saint Luke's in 1968

and was b o m in Yugoslavia.

Saint Luke's (unity) in 1974 had a first generation man as presi­

dent and four other American-bom men as vice president, secretary,

treasurer, and financial treasurer. This parish also had its own choir

at all Sunday services. Its priest (pop) accepted an invitation to

Saint Luke's in 1973 for his parish position. Before the dedication of

Saint Luke's new church in April 1974, dozens of members worked on

converting the house they had purchased into a church-fellowship hall- home, rather than contracting most of the work out. Since the formal

dedication and opening of the new church home, this parish has expanded

substantially.

Between the weekly church services, church sla v e , picnics,

organizational meetings, and other events, both Saint Luke's parishes provide a full calendar of activities to their parishioners. Group projects with a specific purpose— such as clearing land and preparing it

for future construction of the chapel-hall complex in McLean by the

autonomy parish— were particularly successful at drawing members together.

As with the Slovenes and Croats, Serbs were asked to talk about 264 the role their : religion played in their ethnic identity.

Serbian Orthodoxy was central to many participants' ethnic identity as

Serbs.

Serbs have ethnic identity because of the church. Everything revolves around the church. In the United States, Serbian Orthodoxy is a minority religion which is different even from the Greek and Russian Orthodox religions; this has helped to retain an identity as Serbs. Croats have assimilated much faster because of being Roman Catholic which has tended to merge them in more quickly. As Serbian Orthodox, Serbs have had an alien status. The Serbian Orthodox Church already had a tradition of independence when people emigrated to the United States. Those Serbs living in the northwestern side of the River Sava were part of the diaspora under Austria-Hungary. Serbs were a minority there, and they had their own schools and elected their own parish priests, establishing an independent tradition that was later carried to the United States.

— Second generation Serb

Serbian Orthodoxy has been a very inportant element in Serbian history. Without the church, we could not have survived the Turks. — First generation Serb

Religion has had a great impact on Serbs. It is what has kept them together all those years.

— First generation Serb

Religion and nationality are practically one thing among the Serbs. I don't know of any other group where religion played such a strong role.

— Second generation Serb

religion is the major focal point of ny being a Serb.

— Second generation Serb

Religion is very important. In fact, it and Serbian ethnicity are one and the same. That's because the church is broken down according to nationality.

— Second generation Serb

Religion is the crux of it all. — Second generation Serb 265

It is very important. They all want to be buried together. It is almost part of the native soil tradition.

— First generation Serb

It has played a considerable role, especially for those Serbs who lost family in the war and have had a hard time. It is especially important for the first generation.

— Second generation Serb

Although almost all of the interviewees, both American and Yugoslav- born, were adamant in their feelings that the Serbian Orthodox church was a focal point in their own ethnic identity, some opinions to the contrary were also expressed.

It has nothing to do with my ethnic identity as a Serb.

— First generation Serb

I am not all that religious. Rather than saying that I am a Serb because I am Orthodox, as I have heard people here say, I would say that I am Orthodox because I am a Serb.

— First generation Serb

I just happened to be b o m that way, but ny family was not awfully religious partly because it was at the time of the Tito government and religion was not being stressed. People b o m in Yugoslavia under communism do not observe all the customs that they do here. Such as the traditions six weeks before Christmas and Easter. Old immigrants ceurry over those traditions and the new ones coining now don't know many of those customs. Many of the people who are in the church are from the Lika migration, a very poor area. Now even those descendants are very American, but they still remember much about the customs. While they want to keep those cus­ toms, those who grew up there forgot those things and are less religious even though they believe in God. They just grew up under different circumstances than before the war.

— First generation Serb

From these comments and others, one conclusion appears to be that those Serbs of the second, third, and beyond generations who have main­ tained their ethnic ties cuid those Serbs who grew up in pre-World War II 266

Yugoslavia to e:^erience the ravages of the war tended to emphasize religion as either the focal point or a focal point of their ethnic identity as Serbs.

Ethnolinguistics

Language Learning and Maintenance

Perhaps the foremost quality members of the stu^ group had in common was multilingualism— both as children and as adults. Both multilingualism and reading habits reflected the educational and intel­ lectual background of the interviewees. At the time of the interviews, persons in the first generation were either multilingual (31) or bi­ lingual (4). Within the second generation, 15 were multilingual, one bilingual, and two monolingual. And the three third generation individ­ uals were bilingual, although two of the three spoke a non-Slavic second language. (For the purposes of this study, to be bilingual is to be able to converse comfortably and effectively in two languages, although not necessarily equally well in both; to be multilingual, one must have reported such a facility in three or more languages. )

Language maintenance can be investigated in terms of language retention throughout the lifetime of individuals or in terms of similari­ ties and differences in ethnic language retention from one generation to the next. One indication of the continuity or discontinuity of language use among members of the study group was the shift from the first language learned (initial language) as a child to the primary Icuiguage or languages at the time of the interview (according to how the inter­ viewee identified his primary language). In the following lists, the languages designated as the initial language are compared with those 267 designated as the present primary languages by all 56 interviewees, according to generation.

First Language Learned

First generation Second generation Third generation Serbian 11 4 - Croatian 11 5 - Serbo-Croatian 5 1 Slovenian 7 2 - Russian 1 - - Greek - 1 English - 5 3 35 15 3

Primary Language

First generation Second generation Third generation Serbian 10 1 Croaticui 9 1 Serbo-Croatian 4 Slovenian 3 English 2 15 Russian & English 1 Slovenian & English 2 Serbian & English 1 Croatian S English 1 Serbo-Croatian & Slovenian Slovenian & Croatian 1 35 18

For the "first language learned" the five first generation "Serbo-

Croatian" respondents included four Serbs and one Serb and Croat, and the one second generation "Serbo-Croatian" answer came from a Serb. Of the 11 Croatian speakers, two were more explicit about the Croatian varieuit they had learned as children; one was dakavski and the other, kajkccveki Croatian. Probably many other vernacular Serbian and

Croatian first language speakers were amo^ng the study group, but no question was consistently asked of all interviewees regarding the variants they had first learned. 268

The occurrence of multilingualism among first and second generation interviewees was notable. . Second generation bilingual and multilingual persons tended to speak the ethnic langimge as their second tongue in addition to English as their primary language. Above and beyond that,

German, French, Russian, Italian, and Spanish were the most frequently reported languages, but for the most part these were learned in school cuid not in the home. French, then German, then Spanish were most fre­ quently spoken among Serbs; French, then German, among Croats; and French among Slovenes in the second generation.

Even more discernible third and fourth language clusters were reported for the first generation. Among Serbs, French was the third most frequent language after Serbian (or Serbo-Croatian) and English.

Twelve Serbs spoke French; eight spoke German; 5 Russian; and 4 Italian.

Croats mentioned French (5), German (4), and Italian(4), vdiile the

Slovenes most often gave German (5), Russian (3), and Italian (2), and

French (2). Overall, on the basis of these numbers as well as other information supplied by interviewees, Serbs had traditionally been more

Inclined to learn French and Russian rather than German and Italian as second languages; Croats had usually done the reverse— to emphasize

German and Italian; and Slovenes had most often learned German as their first non-Slavic foreign language. At least six Serbs (four first and two second generation) were raised in what they called FrcUicophile families, mesming homes where French was spoken regularly for long periods of time while the children were growing up and ^ e r e French was formally studied under tutelage from the age of six. One second generation Serb learned French, Serbian, and English contemporaneously as a youngster and retained all three languages into adulthood. One first generation 269 interviewee explained the role of French in Serbian society between the wars.

At the time, in upper class society a person was not socially accepted if he didn't know languages, especially French. English only started to become more in demand right before World War II. My family was a strongly French-cultured feuaily, although I also learned German and English as a child.

Out of the 56 interviewees, only five persons said that they did not speak either Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian, at least moderately fluently. Two of these persons were in the third generation and three in the second. Of these five, three had spoken the ethnic language as a secondary language to English as children, but had lost their facility through the years. One other person learned the ethnic language as an adult, but had not been exposed to it as a child.

Several interviewees pointed out that there were some major dif­ ferences between the speech of first and second generation members within their ethnic group, depending on regional background and dia­ lectical differences. One first generation Serb observed

I have met highly educated Serbian-Americans who had learned Serbian from their uneducated parents; therefore, they speak it without proper grammar and become embarrassed about speaking the language. Yet, they have done much to continue the Serbian heritage in America, and I respect them for that contribution.

Communication between Serbs and Croats was reported to be facili­ tated when they spoke the literary forms of Serbian emd Croatian. One

Croat drew attention to her experiences in Washington.

When I have had any contact with Serbs, I have noticed that they would not be able to understand kajkccvskt, my dialect; so I would make a point to speak Stokavski and we would be able to understand each other.

Depending on one's national leanings (e.g., Yugoslavism or na- 270 tionalism), interviewees disagreed about the status of Serbian and

Croatian as a single language or as separate tongues. Serbs tended to treat them as one l^guage with two variants and Croats as distinct languages, but this was not uniformly the case. All agreed that

Slovenian is a language distinct from Serbian and Croatian; not everyone would agree that Macedonian is different from Serbian, although it has been afforded separate linguistic status in post-war Yugoslavia. Some

Serbs said that is is the same as Serbian, and Croats tended to claim that it is distinct.

The question of Serbo-Croatian (Croato-Serbian) versus Croatian and Serbian as discrete languages among Serbs and Croats in the United

States stems from hot debates among linguists and writers in Yugoslavia, mainly since the "Novi Sad agreement" in 1954, but the history of the controversy goes back to 1850, when Serbian and Croatian representatives signed a "Literary Agreement" in Vienna. According to the American linguist Thomas Magner:

The substance of the agreement was that Croats and Serbs would both use the same dialect of Serbo-Croatian, specifically Vuk's dialect Vuk Karadzic's ijekavski ëtokavéki as the basis for a common standard language. ...by this new agreement the Croats and Serbs were simply agreeing to select one of the stokavian dialects, namely ijekavian rather than ekavian or ikavian.

In 1954, slightly more t h ^ one hundred years after the signing of the 'Literary Agreement,' representatives of the Croats, Serbs, and Montenegrins met in Novi Sad and signed a similar agreement which affirmed that the ' spoken language of Serbs, Croats, and Montenegrins is one' with a uniform literary standard developed in Belgrade and Zagreb. The Novi Sad agreement further declared that the standard language has two equally acceptable pronunciations, ijekavian and ekavian, and that the language may be represented either in the ta tin to a ,the Latin alphabet developed by the Croats, or in divtV ioa, the Cyrillic system perfected by Vuk [1967: 336].

By 1965, when the Fifth Congress of Yugoslav Slavists convened, a 271 liberalization of the Yugoslav political system had developed, indirectly fostering a spirit of increased competition between Croats and Serbs over all conceivcble matters— political, economic, and linguistic. A major conflict arose at the Congress over selecting the most appropriate models for the literary variants of Serbo-Croatian : peasants*, writers', educated urbanites', or mass media. Also at stake in the disputes that erupted at that meeting was the status of variants of Serbo-Croatian. As Magner explains :

...more is involved here than simple language description. What is mirrored in these Lilliputian charges and counter­ charges are significant changes in the Yugoslav political system: running parallel to the present government policy of economic decentralization is a powerful tendency toward political decentralization, toward regional and national autonomy [1967: 338].

At issue was the autonomy or unity of the two Serbo-Croatian

variants. Lexical, phonetic, accentual, moxphological, and syntactic

differences were cited by Croatian linguists and writers as the basis

for establishing Croatian as a literary language separate from Serbian.

The importance, however, of such differences does not depend on their number or variety but rather on sociological and political factors which may at a given time invest the differences with extra-linguistic significance. Even if the differences between the westeni and eastern variants of Serbo-Croatian were reduced to one, say western vtcik and eastern Voz, 'train,* a Croat receiving a train ticket which had VOS stamped on it could still, at least in today's situ­ ation, feel aggrieved [Magner 1967: 342].

In 1967 "A Declaration about the Name and Position of the Croatian

Literairy Language" was published in Zagreb newspapers and signed by members of 18 literary and academic Croatian organizations. They argued that the Yugoslav Constitution must be altered to include four literaxry la.nguages in Yugoslavia: Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, and Macedonian.

Secondly, they insisted that the Croatian literary language be used by 272 the mass media, schools, and in official capacities "vdienever the

Croatian population is affected (Magner 1967: 346). Tito and Communist

Party officials denounced the Declaration and expelled certain supporters from the Communist League, including Ljudevit Jonke, a professor at the

University of Zagreb who had become a hero among Croats over the language issue (Magner 1967: 346).

The status of Croatian as a variant of Serbo-Croatian or a distinct language remains an emotionally-charged controversy within Yugoslavia today. The heat from this clash is felt among émigré Croats throughout the world, including Washington, D. C. "There is no such language as

Serbo-Croatian" was a position repeatedly expressed by Croats interviewed.

No degree of arguing (which the researcher did not engage in) from a linguistic point of view to the effect that the Serbian and Croatian literary variants are mutually intelligible and therefore linguistically constitute one language would register with any acceptability with

Croats who feel strongly that Serbian and Croatian are discrete languages.

The linguistic issue, as Magner demonstrates, mirrors intense political feelings among Croats.

The linguistic controversy was also reflected in inteirviewee responses about their eibility to read and write in the Cyrillic alpha­ bet. In Yugoslavia the Latin alphabet has become widely used throughout the countiy for telephone directories, road signs, official publications, and mass media ( Borba is published daily in both Latin and Cyrillic editions). Therefore, Serbs learn both alphabets as a matter of course.

Of the 35 first generation participants, only two could not read in

Cyrillic (both Croats); all Serbs could read and write equally well in either alphabet, but most Slovenes and Croats read and wrote more 273

slowly in Cyrillic. One Croat who did not know how to read Cyrillic explained that when he was growing up between the wars he objected to having to le a m to read and write in Cyrillic since he was b o m at a time when Croats were struggling against Serbs. According to another interviewee, since World War II cyrillic was taught in Croatian schools from the third grade on; therefore, students automatically learned it although usually remaining slower in reading and writing in cyrillic than in Latin. That did not mean, according to some Croatian inter­ viewees, that they presently like to read in cyrillic. The Latin alphabet, like the Croatian language or variant, remains a loaded symbol of

Croatian national identity. Objection was expressed among recent

Croatian émigrés that Borba was available at a newsstand in Washington, only in the Cyrillic edition, which they refused to read.

Of the 18 second generation persons, seven could read in Cyrillic, usually much more slowly than in Latin. Five of the seven were Serbs, cUid one of them was equally fluent in either Cyrillic or Latin. One

Croat and one Montenegrin were among the seven. Eleven had no facility in cyrillic: four Croats, four Serbs, and three Slovenes. It appeared vexy unlikely, unless Slovenes and Croats studied Russian in school, that they would learn to read and write in Cyrillic; even if their parents remembered how to do so, they had not taught their children.

When parents were Serbs educated in the literary Serbian language, the chances were greater that their American-born children would learn

Cyrillic. No one in the third generation had any facility with the

Cyrillic alphabet.

To the question "Do you think that the ability to speak and read in Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenieui is important for maintaining ethnic 274

identity among Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in the United States?" the

overwhelming answer was a definite "Yes." Thirty-four of thirty-five

first generation, 13 of 18 second, smd two of three third generation persons replied affirmatively; one first and two second were undecided; and three second and one third answered negatively. The undecided and the "No's" were scattered among all three ethnic groups. Fluency in the native tongue among their children (as well as other languages) was especially valued among Yugoslav-born persons.

While language learning may have been highly valued as part of one's ethnic identity among the interviewees, the number of interviewee families in which the children had learned the language was less than might be expected from the previous response. Of those eight persons with grown children, five had children who could speak Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian (all of the parents were in the first generation) and three who could not (two of first and one of second generation). Seventeen interviewees had young children; in 11 of those families the children had at least moderate fluency in the ethnic language, ranging from complete bilingualism to full understanding but limited speaking ability.

Nine of those 11 parents were in the first generation and two were in the second. Six persons with growing children reported that their children had either no familiarity with the language or only knew a limited number of words and phrases (two in first, three in second, and one in third generation). Five of those six parents had married spouses of a different ethnic background.

Even when parents expressed the desire that their children learn or said that they had learned the ethnic language, the necessity of exposing their children to it sufficiently so that they would learn it posed 275 serious obstacles in the maintenance of the language into the next generation. Although a few individuals felt that a school of some sort— through the

It can only be done in the home. The common mistake that is made here and in Germgmy is to teach the children the lêmguage of the country they are living in when they will learn that language easily on their own from other children.

You have to force kids to speak it and expose them to it at home.

Everything has to be done at home because it is dis­ couraged on the outside. At home parents must insist on speaking the native language.

Other than a general desire on the part of parents for children to learn the language, certain factors exert a particularly strong influence on the children's desire to learn a second language. First, if both parents are from the same ethnic group, the chances are greatly increased that the children will learn the language. Of the 16 inter­ viewees with grown or growing children who have leazmed the language, nine have spouses from the same ethnic background. There were 21 inteinriewees in the second and third generation; sixteen leaimed the ethnic language as children, and of those 16, fourteen had parents from the same ethnic group. Among the nine persons with children who have not learned the language, seven were married to spouses of a different ethnic group.

A second factor is the degree of fluency in the language on the part of the parent; all 16 in the parental group with children who spoke the language were fluent in it; four of the nine with children who did 276 not speak the language had either limited or no ability in the ethnic language. All 16 second generation interviewees who learned Serbian,

Croatian, or Slovenian as children had at least one parent who was fluent in that language.

A third variable is the presence of gremdparents or extended relatives with Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian background living either in the same home or nearby while the children were growing up. Five of the 16 parents with children who had learned the language had grand­ parents or extended family in the curea. Only one of nine parents whose children did not learn the language had such relatives nearby.

Seven of the 16 second generation interviewees growing up knowing the language had grandparents or extended family at home or close by.

According to several interviewees, grandparents were much more likely to speak the language regularly with their grandchildren than were the parents.

One other factor was inportant: whether or not the family had taken the children to Yugoslavia to visit family there. Only three of the 16 individuals with children who speak the language had not taken them to Yugoslavia while only two of the nine whose children do not speak it had returned to the homeland with them. Of those 16 who grew up in the United States, 11 spent some time there as children whereas none of the "No" group had.

Attitudes varied regarding the role that language learning played in ethnic identity. Sometimes they were expressed in terms of experiences with their own children; occasionally they reflected childhood experiences; and less often they anticipated raising their own children. 277

My children never learned Serbian. They already spend so much time on their school work that I wouldn't Wcint to impose more on them.

The language should be a more important part of ethnic identity. It is more important if the family wants to keep in touch with the mother country, less if they plan to restrict themselves to the United States. At any rate, bonds are less strong if children don't leam the language.

I think the language is absolutely necessary. The rest of the culture depends on it. You need to start with the children young in order for them to learn it.

Yes, the language is important; it is elementary. If you espouse ethnicity as a value, the language is essential. Cultures cam be fundamentally inaccessible without language.

If you really want to know the country, you have to read the literature.

It is very necessaxry for a child to have a really good handle on one language, the language of his society. Then he can go on to learn another.

I know many people who don't speak Slovenian and still feel a very strong tie to the old country. The best way to know about Slovenia is to live there, not to know the language.

Surprisingly, Washington is not a good locale for being able to enroll in either Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian classes. The reason is

simple: although the federal government provides language training for

State Department personnel, those classes are not open to others; only

George Washington University offers a Serbo-Croatian course, and it is

scheduled, at most, only every other year and only as an introductory course. Private tutoring is available, but it can be very expensive and is not always beneficial to a student who has no experience with the

language emd who is not used to studying under a private tutor. It is clear that in this area some coordination between ethnic groups and universities in Washington could bring about at least a two-year program

in both Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, such as has been arremged between 278

Slovenes in Cleveland and Kent State University. There is, of course, the question of whetdier Croats— or non-Croatian American spouses who speak no Croatian— would enter a course entitled Serbo-Croatian since many Croats in Washington argue that there is no such language. Even so, wi-th the available numbers of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Wash­ ington and their non-etdmic spouses, well-publicized university courses could potentially draw several new students yearly. Given tdie partic­ ularly great emphasis on language learning in general among the study group, it would seem that such an experiment might prove very successful.

Reading Orientations

Much of the literature on ethnic groups in America includes a section on the ethnic press— newspapers, magazines, and journals— but there is usually little in the way of discussion of the reading pat­ terns of members of the ethnic groups. Anticipating that reading preferences of Serbs, Croats, amd Slovenes in Washington might conprise an inportant index of ethnic identity, the researcher asked several questions about such patterns.

Among those questions, one asked whether participants had ever used the Slavic reading room at the Library of Congress, and if so, for what purposes. Since the Slavic reading room receives all the major current journals and magazines from Yugoslavia and other Slavic countries, maintains the most extensive book holdings on those countries of any library in the United States, and gives access to the library's ethnic journals, newspapers, and books on Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the

United States, it would seem to be the logical place for people living in Washington to read such materials. Although some of its holdings 279 are written in English, they are predominantly in the Slavic languages, which presumably means that most of the people using the Slavic reading room would have some reading knowledge in one of those languages.

From the study group of 56, 18 said that they had used the Slavic reading room; 12 were from the first generation and six from the second.

All 18 did have a reading knowledge of either Serbian, Croatian, or

Slovenian. Some of those persons reporting that they had never used the reading room explained that they had never realized that it existed and would be interested in going there. Seven of the IB who had already done reading there indicated that they went relatively frequently in order to read periodicals and newspapers coming from Yugoslavia. The most regularly read newspapers were PoVttika, the major daily from

Belgrade, published in Latin and Cyrillic editions, and Vijesnik, the

Zagreb daily. (Vigeanik u Sviseâu "Vijesnik on Wednesday," published in magazine format with longer, topical articles, was of special interest to certain interviewees.) The other 11 interviewees had used the reading room primarily for doing research for papers, theses, dissertations, articles, and books.

A more general question was posed to the participants regarding the amount of reading they did in magazines, periodicals, newspapers, and books that were either published by a Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian ethnic organization or ones that dealt specifically with Yugoslavia.

Only ten participants reported that they never or very infrequently read emything about Yugoslavia or the ethnic groups in America— in book, magazine, or newspaper format. On the other hand, 20 regularly read such materials coming from Yugoslavia directly to them, through family members or friends, through libraries, or through places of employment. Addi­ 280 tionally, many people also read newspapers and journals published by

Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian ethnic organizations in the United

States, Canada, South America, Australia, or Europe. Some of those publications consisted of political commentaries on the present situ­ ation in Yugoslavia while others were part of the ethnic press in

America. Many American-born Serbs subscribed to either Srbobran or the

Observer and some read both; Srbobrccn, published by the Serbian National

Federation, is affiliated with the unity Serbian Orthodox church body, and the Observer is the publication of the diocese of the autonomy

Serbian Orthodox church, located in Libertyville, Illinois. Religious journals from the various churches represented by interviewees were also mentioned as occasional reading material for some and frequently read by others. Literary publications of the ethnic organizations in the United States included NjegoÉ (Serbian) and JottmaZ of Croatian

Studies, Zarja and Stovenea Glasilo were read by mainly American-bom

Slovenes.

Some individuals read little in the way of articles in periodicals and newspapers except when articles appeared in The Washington Post; but more than 30 persons said that they liked to read books about Yugo­ slavia or its nationalities. As a follow-up question, interviewees were asked if they would recommend any recently-published books about Yugo­ slavia, or Croatia, Slovenia, or Serbia. Certainly the most frequently cited book was Walter Roberts' then newly published (1973) history of

World Wcir II in Yugoslavia: Tito^ MihaiZovidj and the Allies^ 1941-

1945, Of the nine individuals mentioning this book, six were Serbs,

2 Croats, and 1 Slovene. Many other interviewees were aware of the book when the researcher asked them about it, but they did not note it 281 independently as one they would have thought to recommend. Why this particular volume? It had already received quite a reaction in Yugo­ slavia, which interviewees were quick to note. Dan Morgan of The

Washington Post has described the furor it caused among Yugoslav of­ ficials.

...Yugoslav officials mentioned it at the State Depart­ ment while discussing other bilateral matters in July. Officials in Belgrade, who conceded that they had not read the book, also complained about it to U.S. embassy repre­ sentatives there.

The gist of the Yugoslav complaint is that the book equated President Josip Broz Tito's partisan movement with the ineffectual resistance efforts of Royalist leader Dragoljub (Draza) Mihailovic. Mihailovic's Chetniks were the main hope of the Allies at the outset of World War II, but the Allies switched their support to Tito after it be­ came obvious that Tito was fighting the Germans and the Chetniks were often collaborating with the occupiers.

The section of the book that apparently most disturbs the Yugoslavs cites never-before disclosed documents which suggest that top partisan leaders also negotiated with the Germans at one point, in response to German probes for an "accommodation."...

The partisan readiness to pursue peace feelers plainly has no place in the mythology of the Titoist movement. This mythology always emphasized the uncompromising attitude of the partisans.

Nevertheless, the Yugoslav government has not denied that the meetings took place. Roberts relies on painstaking personal research in German files in Bonn, and in records of the Nuremburg War Crimes Trial now at the National Archives in Washington.

The author, \dio served in Belgrade and in other European cities before being promoted to the highest career job in the USIA, based his book on nearly seven years of research. It has been hailed by scholars as a meticulous piece of histori­ cal analysis [1973].

The reaction of those nine interviewees to Roberts' book was, in general, supportive of the idea that someone would spend the necessary time to research the complexities of World War II in Yugoslavia without 282 trying to prove a polemic point of view. Earlier books on the subject tended to take a strong position on the part of one or another of the political movements existing in Yugoslavia at the time of the war. In contrast, Roberts* book presents no clear-cut heroes. Because Roberts ferreted out new historical material rather than reshuffling and rein­ terpreting old information, Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes with scholarly curiosity about what had really transpired during the war especially welcomed his book.

The continuing concern among post-World War II immigrants from

Yugoslavia and their children with the war period was reflected in the fact that several other books about the war were recommended by mem­ bers of the study group. Ilija Jukic (1974) wrote a personal account of his World War II experiences that was recommended by two Croats—

The FaVl of Yv^ostavicu Suggested memoirs or biographies of significant figures during the war included Milovan Djilas* Memories of a RevoVur tioruxry (1974) and M. Raymond's Mem for this Moment: The Life

Death of Aloyeim Cardinal Stepinao (1971). Another Croatian recom­ mendation was Ivan Me^trovié's 1961 memoirs.

Croatian history and Croatian nationalism were frequently cited topics of approved books among Croats interviewed. Among the former were ivo Omréanin's Diplcmatic and Political History of Croatia (1972),

Stephen Gazi's A History of-Croatia (1972), and Francis H. Eterovich and

Christopher Spalatin's volumes on Croatia: Land, People, and Culture

(1964 and 1970). The national question of Croatia was written about by

N. Dinko Mulja in Tugoslaria in Crisis (1973) and Les Shaw in Trial by

Slander (1973). Another applauded book dealing with the nationality status of Croats and Serbs was published in 1971, written by O. Dominik 283

Mandlc, a Croat, entitled Rwati i Serbi: Doa Stcopa, EdstiSita Nctroâa

("Croats and Serbs: Two Ancient, Distinct Nations'.'}. In a review of

this book Matthew Me^trovié, a Croatian historian at Farleigh Dickenson

University, writes that the book "...is a survey of Croatian history seeking to show that the Croats and Serbs have constituted since their obscure origins in emtiquity two separate nations possessing distinct cultures, history, and sense of statehood" (1972: 931). In short, many of the recommended books by Croats were along the theme of Croatian separatism and their rightful position vis-a-vis the Serbs.

One Slovene endorsed Joseph Felicijan's The Genesie of Contractual

Theory and the InetaVlatton of the Dukee of Carintkia (1967), which presents the theory that Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of

Independence drew from the ancient Slovenian ceremony of installing their Dukes as the basis for his contractual theory. Two researchers of Slovenes in America were mentioned by two or three Slovenes as worth­ while reading: Giles Edward Gobetz StofVenian Americans in Greater

Cleveland (1975) and John A. A m e z Slovenoi v New lorku (1966) and

Slovenian Conmmity in Bridgeport, Connecticut- (1971). Two Croats also approved the 1971 study of George Prpic The Croatian Immigrants in

America.

Two books about developments in Yugoslavia since the war were suggested by two different individuals. One was Paul Shoup's Communism and the Yugoslav National Question (1968) and the other was Yugoslav economist's Rudolf Biélanié's Problems of Planning (1967).

Some interviewees were particularly partial to literary contri­ butions of Miroslav Krle^a, a foremost Croaticm novelist and short story writer in the twentieth century, and Ivo Andrié, a Nobel Prize winning 284

Bosnian who died in 1975. Krle^a's writings were recommended by two

Croats in the s t u ^ group; his Return of RhiVùp Latinotiah (1970) was his most current novel while The Criahet Beneath the Waterfall (1972) was his most recent collection of short stories. While Andric's The

Bridge on the Drina (1962) won him the Nobel Prize and remained the most popular of his writings, The Woman from Saradevo (1966) was more recent.

In general, at least half of the interviewees expressed strong interest in reading book-length histories, novels, biographies and memoirs, and community studies dealing with Yugoslavia or with Serbs,

Croats, and Slovenes.

Ethnic Identic and Washington, D.C.

The Study Group's Perceptions of Washington as a City

Some caution was suggested to the researcher against making any extended generalizations cibout any of the three ethnic groups in

America solely on the basis of observations in Wcishington. In essence, it was suggested by some participants that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington may very well be atypical of any national socio­ cultural patterns. Some also urged traveling to other cities— Pittsburgh,

Chicago, Cleveland, in particular— in order to meet the leaders of large national organizations and to see what those communities are like, as a counterpoint to those ethnic groups in Washington. As part of the inter­ view, those people who grew up in other American cities or communities where larger ethnic populations lived were asked about the differences and similarities in ethnic group life between Washington and other localities. Virtually everyone saw those differences as being clearcut.

While many felt very positively about living in Washington in comparison 285

with other metropolitan areas, some expressed their preferences for

other cities and regions on the basis primarily of social and climatic,

not occupational reasons.

Several persons remarked on the necessity of living in Washington

because of the nature of their professional work. A Slovenian woman

commented that "if you happen to be a political creature, this is the place to live." The potential for political action was also noted by

a Croatian man as a primary consideration for living in Washington, as

"the best place to operate politically." And a Serbian woman evaluated

Washington as "a good place to work, but not as good as a small town

for living."

Those interviewees who came from Europe usually ranked Washington

high, if not the highest, on their list of American cities and regions

they thought they would most like to live. in.. .With--its.vast.park system

and the extensive greenery found throughout many neighborhoods, its

height limitation on buildings, its federal buildings and museums, much

of Washington feels and appears more European than other American cities.

Another important feature to many émigrés and their families, as well as

to many American-bom, was the cultural program offered by the John P.

Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and several participants noted

an extraordinary isprovement in Washington's cultural life when the

Center opened in 1971. Washington was also described as being an

international and cosmopolitan city without being big and hectic like

New York; one interviewee evaluated Washington as being "one hundred per cent better than New York City." Many Serbian, Croatian, and

Slovenian people in Washington viewed the city as being still a big town, with all the amenities of a city but with fewer of a city's normal 286 disadvantages and everyday strains.

In general, most interviewees described Washington as a beautiful city, but many also commented on disturbing changes they had witnessed since the 1950's: the razing of old buildings to build new ones, a practice that Europeems often find baffling since they come from a tradition stressing restoration and preservation of old structures; the continuing ghettoization of neighborhoods, sometimes their own; the increase of crime both in the city and in the suburbs; startling jumps in the cost of living; and the strains of living in an often intense political atmosphere, with Watergate as the outstanding example.

The organizational cuid geographical expansion of the federal government and its accompanying growing pains were often very apparent to interviewees living in Washington. At the same time that Washing­ tonians— including Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes— migrated to the suburbs, large sections of the government also moved out to the fringes, primarily because of limitations on available land in the city. Some of the more sizeable government agencies are now located outside the District, an important factor in the residential and commuting patterns of Washing­ tonians. For increasing numbers of suburban dwellers employed by government agencies, their commute is now between their suburban home and their suburban office.

Among other American cities and regions that interested members of the study group as places they might want to live, San Francisco was the most consistently mentioned, because of its beauty, weather, and general cosmopolitan atmosphere. Other California towns and cities were also often mentioned: San Pedro, which is a fishing community out­ side of Los Angeles, mentioned in part because thousands of Dalmatieuis 287 still reside there and because the weather is so much like that along the Adriatic Coast in Dalmatia. Climate or geographical location was also given as an important consideration in specifying Colorado, Florida, and Vancouver as attractive places to live. Other cities considered inviting on the basis of ethnic communities and activities Included

New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Cleveland. American-born, especially, recommended those locations for ethnic members who are particularly interested in leading a full social life within the ethnic group. However, most of these opinions were offered only speculatively, since none of the interviewees expressed a strong determination or desire to move from Washington to some other part of the United States in the near future.

Advantages and Disadvantages in the MaintencUice of Ethnic Identity

The sprawling layout of Washington and its suburban communities was the fundamental characteristic of the metropolitan area that repeatedly was identified as the principal factor in limiting intra-ethnic social life among members of the three groups. Members of each were quick to mention this dravdxack of the city. "It would be much easier if the Slovenes weren't so spread out; getting together is a lot of work." Following the predominant settlement patterns of non-Black and non-Spanish speeJcing residents within the city, Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes have not established ethnic neighborhoods, but have moved into dispersed sections of the area because of available housing and con­ venience to work emd schools. Several participemts mentioned the dis- advantages for ethnic group life caused by Washington being a non­ industrial city; one Serb linked this particular characteristic with 288 residential patterns. "The most difficult problem is that there are no factories or places where more than two Serbs work together. There­ fore, they don't live close together and are scattered at great distances from each other." Another Serb translated those characteristics to an advantage:

The physical character of Washington poses limitations on social contacts among the Serbs who are here. But X think it's better this way, as opposed to having ethnic neighbor­ hoods. This way we can invite people in when we want to see them and have a good time, but we are also left alone enough to be free to run our lives in our own way. That means that we have neither ethnicity nor Americanization forced upon us.

On the other hand, an American-born Serb saw the dispersion as a real disadvantage since he would prefer more regular daily contact;

The size of the city affects ties among Serbs. There are lots of people who are Serbs on Sunday but not the rest of the week. There is too little daily contact. If it were a smaller town, there would be closer friendships among the American-born Serbs. As it is, we're really spread out, and there are not ethnic sections in the area.

While it is possible to get from the middle of the city to the open countryside of Maryland and Virginia in relatively short order (by comparison with, say. New York and Boston) distances between the dozens of dispersed communities where Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes reside limits frequent face-to-face contact between members. When interviewees were asked if any other members of their ethnic group lived in their neighbor­ hood or general vicinity, they usually could think of only one family, at most, living nearby; that family was usually several miles away, certainly not within walking distance. One exception was a small section of Bethesda, Maryland, where seven or eight Serbian families live within approximately a two mile radius; all of them know each other. Addition­ ally, in northwest Washington one small neighborhood had three homes of 289 one extended family living in close proximity. That type of close family residential arrangement was repeated at least half a dozen times throughout the Washington area. For the most part, however, maintaining contacts with others within the ethnic group required considerable time and effort.

Another restriction on frequent social interaction within each ethnic group is ûfçjosed by the relatively small numbers of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in the area, compared with some other American cities.

Croats, especially, felt that this was a major disadvantage for Croatian social life in the Washington area. "There are just too few Croatian people here," one interviewee commented, "and we lack social ties. We have no major organizations. In essence it is an Americanized community."

Another Croat argued that the small size of the Croatian community is not totally accidental:

Washington has mainly intellectual people living here, and there is a major emphasis on government work, which you need to have your citizenship in order to work in. Therefore, some newcomers are discouraged about finding jobs. Even among the well-educated Croats, few stay. For one thing, Serbs got here first, and it's been hard for Croats to get government work.

Conflicts between Serbs and Croats, between Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes and the Yugoslav government, and between the unity-autonomy factions of the Serbian Orthodox Church were all identified as reasons why Washington provided a less than ideal ethnic climate.

A main disadvantage is that embassies are located here. That means that a big party among Serbs might be interpreted as a political symbol against Yugoslavia. If social gather­ ings are purely ethnic, without politics, that is good. All told, though, Washington is a place which is replete with political conflict.

— First-generation Serb 290

I see the primary disadvantage as being the climate of Serb versus Croat and vice versa that exists here...although we have found that if Serbs and Croats are of similar professional background, they get along better.

— First generation Serb

There are definite disadvantages: the small numbers, the geographical dispersion, and the separation of the church.

— First generation Serb

Other interviewees downplayed the significance of such conflicts; they found distinct advantages— mainly intellectual— in Washington life:

For intellectuals, Washington is a very favorable environ­ ment since it has good possibilities for cultural life. Cultural groups from Yugoslavia perform here, zmd there is the Library of Congress to do research and other reading in.

— First generation Croat

Usually the people b o m in Yugoslavia have more in common with each other, since the others tend to live still in a Yugoslavia of 50 or 60 years ago. We also feel more comfort­ able together because we have similar professional and cultural backgrounds.

— First generation Croat

Most foreign-bom interviewees said that they had not e:q)erienced any real discrimination against them in Washington because of their ethnic background. Some felt, in fact, that a foreign or ethnic identity was a positive advantage in the city from a social stemdpoint and rarely interfered with career advancement as long as one was proficient in

English (and had attained citizenship). A minority of those interviewed said that getting government positions was more difficult for the foreign-bom of their ethnic group either because of their personal or political views and ethnic background or because they lacked American citizenship. 291

Historical Heroes as Symbols of Ethnic Identity

"When I toink of He^trovié, I think of strength, and struggle, and very great dignity," one Croatian interviewee said, "and those qualities to me are what a people should strive to achieve. So it is not surprising that I am a great admirer of MeMtrovic."

Ivan Me^trovic (1883-1962) was a sculptor of unusual force and power whose work became greatly admired in the United States as well as in his homeland of Dalmatia. For many South Slavs in the Washington area— and especially, perhaps, for his Croatian compatriots— his work and life evoke a sense of common heritage, and he retains an honored status as a con­ tinuing symbol of ethnic identity and pride; accordingly, a brief review of his life can shed light upon prevailing ethnic group values.

By the time World War I broke out, Me^trovic was already deeply respected in Europe. As a boy growing up in the mountains of Dalmatia, he had carved wooden figures with such skill that his work became famous and he was sent to study in Vienna. Much impressed by Rodin, he devoted his energy to a series of monumental sculptures commemorating both past battles against the Turks and the present-day struggle for freedom among the various nationalities that would become Yugoslavia— and he was out­ spoken, both artistically and politically, on behalf of Croatian indepen­ dence from Austria-Hungary. In London, during the war, he moved energetically in diplomatic circles, arguing for establishment of a free

Yugoslavia.

...The end of the war, however, brought with it disappointment with the national idea, which until then had provided the main creative impulse for his work. It brought with it, too, dis­ appointment with the idea of justice and international under­ standing, and even disappointment with man. Affected by the great atmosphere of slaughter and the fall in the standard of values, he began to retreat into a world of his own, seeing 292

salvation only in love and in true understanding among people. Instead of heroic figures from the past, inciting man to fight on, he began to turn to figures from the Bible which seemed to urge love and forgiveness [Keîîkemet 1969: 3-5].

Political doubts and disillusionment notwithstanding, Mestrovic's art continued to have a powerful impact throughout his 79 years. It has been written of him that

.. .Me^trovifc's dynamic personality ignored the traditions of his time and milieu, and created a style and form of its own. His themes are manifold: religious, allegorical, classical, and national. He is renowned for his sculptures of American Indians, his portraits of fsunous personages of the past and present, for his self-portraits, and for works depicting mem­ bers of a family... Mestrovic's sculptures radiate peace and harmony, as well as his own personal love for his fellow man [Bajurin 1964: 331].

Meâftrovié immigrated to the United States after World War II and spent the remainder of his life teaching sculpture at the Universities of

Syracuse and Notre Dame. Honored by numerous exhibitions and by the esteem of both American and European artists and critics, his intense patriotism seemed to be elevated beyond factionalism by his art: at his death, he was honored equally by the Tito government in Yugoslavia and by intensely anti-Tito immigrants in America. One of his statues— of

Saint Jerome— stands in front of the house of the Croatiem Franciscan

Fathers in Northeast Washington today. * It is not uncommon to hear

Me^trovié spoken of with respect and affection by those who may or may not have shared his outlook but are impressed by the sweeping grandeur

*Also referred to as the Croatian House of Studies, the Croatian Francis­ can Fathers* house was opened in 1951 near Catholic University, with its main purpose the teaching of the Croatian language to high-school boys interested in eventually serving as priests in Croatian-speaking communi­ ties across the country. Within a decade, however, dememd for Croatian­ speaking priests had declined, primarily because of the general ability of Croatian-Americeuis to speak English, and the House has had no students since 1964; a resident Croatian priest remains at the House, and Croatian priests studying at Catholic University usually reside there. 293 of his sculpture, and by the vision that inspired it. Interviewees e^rressed admiration of Me^trovic, in fact, for both artistic and political reasons; one said of him:

His sculpture alone is so powerful that you know he must have been inspired, and that is enough to be proud of. But when you think of the times that he lived through, and all the terrible things that happened to his people, and then you see in his art the refusal to accept defeat, it becomes an inspiration to try again, to not give up— politically, personally, or artistically.

— First generation Croat

* h *

Ngegoë— a Serbian literary society with many Washington members— is named for Petar Petrovic-Njego^, prince, bishop, poet and altogether remarkable leader of nineteenth century Montenegro whose dedication to freedom for his people left a lasting impression on South Slavs. Like

Me^trovic, he was a complex and troubled man, perhaps most inspiring today to those who share his anxious view of the endless struggle for justice.

The Montenegro of Kjegos's time was a wild, remote land, inacces­ sible except to the most determined traveler, a land which had lost its independence to Turkey in the fifteenth century and had been slowly regaining it ever since. Overrun by the Turks, the Montenegrins had retreated into their mountains— terrain so impassable and so suited to defense that the Germans could not defeat the Montenegrins there in

World War II, even with the assistance of twentieth-century air power and artillery— and had developed a proud, disciplined but economically and educationally deprived society. All this began to change in the early nineteenth century when the Petrovi^-Njego^ family began to serve

Montenegro as bishops and heads of state. 294

The Petar Petrovié-Njego^ after whom the literary society is named was named Rade at birth in 1813; he changed his name to. Petar.when he succeededihis iuncleJjPetaE as'Bishop 1?iyears later.. He recognized the need to build Montenegro into a modem state while at the same time maintaining the unity and allegiance of the Montenegrin clans; to a nation of illiterates, he introduced printing presses emd poetry, a system of education, and the first plan of government administration in Montenegro's history. His energies were legendary: somehow he was able to wage defensive war against the Turks, the Austrians, and the

Venetians while simultaneously coercing tribal chieftains to accept the concept of a central government and finding time to write epic poetry published in a literary journal which he established and produced on a printing press which he installed at Cetinje.

Petrovic-Njego^, whose education before assuming the leadership of the state had been haphazard, traveled widely, studied foreign lan­ guages, read copiously, and in his poems describing the great and small things of Montenegrin life he sought to communicate his "dream to see

Serbdom free and united. In his time he was a steadfast and almost fanatical champion of Slavdom" (Barac 1955; 91). At the same time, his work reflects a melancholy, brooding, often pessimistic spirit— a sense that the lofty goals of the young man might not come to pass, not in his own lifetime cuid possibly never, regardless of how worthwhile they were.

His life was, in fact, cut short; his health collapsed when he was 38, and he died in 1851 in Cetinje. In both his life and the literary legacy which he left, he seemed to embody qualities greatly admired by

South Slavs; not surprisingly, more than one interviewee referred to him in describing historical figures whom they most admired. 295

In naming the local chapter of the American Slovenian Catholic

Union (KSKJ), Slovenes in Washington selected Bishop Baraga as their exemplar. Like Me^trovic, Frederic Irenaeus Baraga was an immigrant to America, arriving in 1830 at the age of 33. In the Our Lady of

Brezje Slovenian Chapel at the National Shrine of the Immaculate

Conception, a "relief depicting Bishop Baraga baptizing an Indian,,. is a symbol of the Slovenian contribution to American civilization as well as to the missionary effort of the Catholic Church" (The Slovenian

Chapel Dedication Committee 1971: 53).

Upon his own request, in 1830 Baraga was assigned to the diocese of Cincinnati, and from there he began his missionary work among various

Indian tribes. From Ohio, his missionizing extended into Michigan,

Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Canada among the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.

In the course of his religious teachings, "Baraga...did for the Lake

Superior Indians what many centuries earlier Sts. Cyril and Methodius did for the Slavs— he gave them books in their own language. Today these very books are the principal sources of information on the Ottawa and Chippewa languages" (The Slovenian Chapel Dedication Committee

1971: 52).

* * *

Other religious figures have been incorporated into the Croatian and Slovenian Chapels at the National Shrine. In October, 1970, the Most

Reverend Franjo Kuharié, Archbishop of Zagreb, consecrated the altar in the Chapel, Our Lady of Bistrica, Queen of Croatia. During the Chapel's dedication approximately 3,000 Croats were in attendance. The primary support coming from the Croatian Catholic Union, the Chapel was a dona­ tion from the Croatian people. The Chapel dedication has been referred 296 to as "the greatest religious gathering of the American Croatians"

(Prpic 1971, 192).

The Chapel of Our lady of Bistrica located in the narthex of the Crypt Church builds a bridge between the people of Croatia and the people of Croatian gmcestry in the United States and Canada. Maria Bistrica, near Zagreb, has attracted pilgrims for centuries. Our Lady of Bistrica will attract pilgrims to the National Shrine for centuries to come [Mary's Shrine 1970: 2).

Around the statue of Our Lady of Bistrica and Child are seven rondels depicting hallmarks of religious events and personages throughout

Croatian history. In the first rondel Saint Nicholas Tavelic, a Francis­ can monk and a martyr from the fourteenth century who was canonized in

1970, is coupled with Blessed Ozana Kotorka, a fifteenth century nun in the Dominican Third Order. In another rondel a Croatian peasant is being baptized, symbolizing the Christianization of the Croats, which is formally recognized to have occurred in 640. The Croatian Coat of Arms is in the keystone position of the seven rondels. Another national hero— Aloysius Cardinal Stepinac (1898-1960), who was Archbishop of

Zagreb, is portrayed in the seventh rondel; this painting is a rendition of Mestrovic's bust of Cardinal Stepinac.

# * *

The Slovenian Chapel is dedicated to the Madonna and Patroness of

Slovenian people. Our Lady of Brezje. Like Our Lady of Bistrica for the

Croats, Our Lady of Brezja is a famous shrine in the homeland. The

Most Reverend Maksimiljan Drzecnik, Bishop of Maribor, Slovenia, conse­ crated the altar in August, 1971. Three thousand people witnessed the dedication of the Chapel, many of whom came from Slovenia for the event.

The culmination of efforts on the part of many Slovenian organizations and individuals, the Slovenian Chapel was the result, in large part, of 297 the work of the Slovenian Women's Union and the American Slovenian

Catholic Union (KSKJ),

The Chapel of Our Lady of Brezje, located on the West side of Memorial Hall in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, is the gift of the American Slovenes and is a concrete expression of their abiding love for the Mother of God. The new chapel is a link between Brezje, now spiritually located in the Nation's capital, and the town of Brezje, located in a beautiful valley near the charming village of Bled which snuggles beneath the Sloveniam Alps. Brezje is the best known and most frequented shrine to Our Lady of Slovenia Wiioh is located in the northwest section of present day Yugoslavia. The shrine at Brezje is dedicated to Our Lady Help of Christians, and is popularly known as Marija Pomagaj (Mary, help me) of Brezje. The heart of the Shrine at Brezje is the picture of Our Lady.

The focal point of the Chapel of Our Lady of Brezje in the National Shrine is a copy of the miraculous picture of the Virgin and Child. It was executed by Leon Koporc, professor of art in Ljubljana and is a gift of the Bishops of Slovenia [Mary's Shrine 1971: 2].

In addition to the picture of Our Lady of Brezje, four marble plaques portray historical events in the Slovenian religious heritage: the baptism of Prince Gorazd in 745, signifying the Christianization of the Slovenes; the ministry of Bishop Anton Martin Slomsek; the work of

Bishop Baraga among the Great Lakes Indians ; and the immigration of

Slovenes to the United States, bringing with them their religious and cultural contributions to American society.

Saint Sava is acknowledged to be the central figure in Serbian religious history. Saint Sava (Rastko, 1173-1236) was the youngest son of the Serbian Grand Duke Stephen Nemanja. He gave up his political inheritance to become a monk at Mount Athos in Greece. There he founded

Hilander, the Serbian monastery. Saint Sava was also responsible for estciblishing the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1219 and served as its first 298

Archbishop.

Of all her saints, the Serbian Orthodox Church venerates St. Sava the most. And not only the church, but the Serbiam people as well commemorate and celebrate Saint Sava the most. The name of St. Sava is not only called upon for help, remem­ bered and venerated in our day, but that name has been called upon for help, remembered and venerated for the full 750 years of our church— from 1219 until today.

Every nation has its history, some rich and stomy, and some less rich and quiet. The history of our Church is very stomy and rich. It is closely related to the history of the people, so much so, in fact, that the history of the Serbian people cannot be separated from the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church and vice versa, the history of the Serbian Church cannot be separated from the national one. Both can be reflected i:pon and studied as one history. Every humcui society begins to live a conscious life from the moment it takes an Interest in its past, in its history. With our people interest in their past has always existed. It was manifested through a life with the past. There was an active life with that past. More often the present is inspired by the past, so that the past is always actual, equalized with the present. To the small Serbian nation her church was a talisman for a long time and through her difficult history (that sometimes reminds one of Golgotha) the church lead and the nation was her talisman. And only the Church safeguards the national individuality, tradition, culture, and language. ...

St. Sava was great as the first archbishop of the indepen­ dent Serbian church, as the organizer of that young church, as a diplomat and as a teacher and enlightener of his people. To this, one could add that he was great even as a scholar. The public work of St. Sava is manifold. ...It can easily be said that as God's saint he was the greatest. And had he not walked in Christ's way till the end of his life his work would be remembered and forgotten as in the case of many other arch­ shepherds, teachers, educators, and diplomats iGrgurevich 1969: 10-131.

In mcuiy respects Saint Sava was to the Serbian Orthodox Church what Saint Peter was to Roman Catholicism, and to religious Serbs in

Washington today he is revered as the rock upon which their church was

built. Around the relatively few available details of his life a kind

of mythology has grown; as one Serb described it; 299

When I was a child and I was losing interest in religion, the priest saw I was interested in great battles emd clashes like any child, and described Saint Sava to me in very romein- tic terms, with particular detail about how he was b o m into royalty cUid how his father tried to stop him from becoming a monk, even sending an army to capture him back from the monastery. Later Saint Sava was described to me by another priest as very bookish, very reflective, not activist at all. It occurred to me that he could be whatever one wanted him to be, which is a mark of true greatness.

Saint Sava, Our Lady of Brezje, Our Lady of Bistrica, Bishop Baraga,

Petrovic-NjegoW, Ivan Mel^trovic— whether the symbols are religious, secular, or both, they convey for Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washing­ ton a sense of identity and value. Among the interviewees, there was, not surprisingly, a widely varied sense of the relative importance or unin^ortance of such symbols; no discernible pattern emerged, but some comments seemed to indicate that these symbols took on greater signifi­ cance at different times for different people.

I know Me'^trovié was important to some of my relatives when they came to the United States and needed at times to feel some special sense of worth, but when I was growing up he was mostly a name. But when I went to Split and Zagreb for the first time and visited his museums I was overwhelmed. I think seeing his work for the first time had a profound effect on ity wanting to know more about my origins. Now I still study about him from time to time cUid I think he may have more significance for me them he did for someone in my parent's generation.

— Second generation Croat CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OVERVIEW AND PROSPECTS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Indications of Ethnic Identity Maintenance

Since this is a study of how people maintain their ethnic identity, there is a natural tendency to dwell on maintenance rather than non- maintenance. A balanced perspective requires that those individuals whose social lives do not reflect their ethnic heritage be accounted for in some way. It is virtually impossible, however, to identify and quantify with any precision the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington who do not maintain their ethnic identity. The only way to attempt to distinguish between those who socially affiliate with other ethnic group members and those who do not is to compare census data totals and figures derived from an informal tally taken over the course of this research of ethnic group members.

As was discussed in Ch&pter III, place-of-birth and mother tongue census figures for 1970 suggest that the Washington SMSA is home to approximately 3,000-3,500 Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes over three gener­ ations. In comparison, an informal canvass of the same ethnic groups led to an estimate of about 1,300 people, including family members, which is approximately one-third to one-half the figure derived from census data. Because the informal canvass included those individuals who were

300 301

in any way acknowledged to be affiliated with any ethnic organization and those individuals identified as Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes by other ethnic group members, 1,300 is probably a liberal figure, considering

that many of those individuals do not lead social lives centering on the ethnic group. In short, somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of those individuals accounted for by the census bureau on the basis of nativity and mother tongue criteria as first and second generation

Yugoslav-Americans or Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian mother tongue speakers were not identified to the researcher as being ethnic group members.

One generalization that can be made about the study group is that the degree of ethnic identity maintenance is not directly related to generation in America; at least 13 of the 35 first generation individuals, for one reason or another, had not maintained strong social ties, if any, with other ethnic group members in Washington. They tended, in­ stead, to center their lives around work, family, and generally non-ethnic social affiliations. The converse of this observation was borne out by interviews: the three third generation and 11 of the 18 second gener­ ation participants were conducting social lives that revolved considerably around their ethnic groups. Yet, it should also be noted that in selfcting interviewees the researcher's chances of identifying second and third generation individuals with a relatively strong ethnic identity were much greater than the chances of locating those without such an identity. For various reasons, it was easier for other ethnic group members to identify first generation persons than second and third generation persons in Washington since they more readily blended into the urban background. Identifying markers such as language and ethnic names allowed for much more immediate recognition of first 302 generation individuals than American-born.

Another issue that might be raised regarding the maintenance of ethnic identity is the influence of the present-day attitudes of the wider society on the reassertion of ethnic identity in instances where it previously may have lain dormant. The three third generation inter­ viewees seemed to have found novel ways to express their ethnic identity within the atmosphere of the later 1960's and early 1970's: language learning, familiarity with ethnic folklore, or musical expertise. The second generation individuals, on the other hand, tended to be more consistent throughout their lives in terms of the degree and focus of their ethnic identity, although many noted that they presently felt less discrimination toward their being ethnic than they had in the past. The most significant single discouraging factor in their ethnic identity was its competition with other duties and interests in their lives, not a hostile social atmosphere.

Doroains:.in Which Incentives and Constraints Operate

The underlying assumption of this study, as stated previously, is that the direction of ethnic identity in pluralistic societies can be better understood by exploring the relationship between socialization, decisions, and values of individuals vis-à-vis the wider society. In short, the focus is first on the individual and second on the ethnic group. It has been argued that the individual integrates incentives and constraints from his socialization experiences into his value system.

Those incentives and constraints originate from his interaction with members of the ethnic group as well as with other people in his socio­ cultural environment. In turn, values provide the rationale for 303 decision-making with respect to maintenance or abandonment of ethnicity.

Incentives and constraints constitute one segment of the individ­ ual' s socialization experience, and they represent widely varying domains of that experience. They reflect values held by the individual, the ethnic group, and society in general; thus, they are both externally and

internally generated. They might be thought of as the various internal and external influences upon the individual to make certain decisions rather than others.

The demographic and ethnographic data presented in earlier chapters suggests that incentives and constraints fall into six major domains : historical, demographic, societal, organizational, familial, and individ­ ual. Figure 2 illustrates the interplay between external incentives and constraints and internal ones resulting from the interaction between values, decisions, and socialization for the individual.

The Historical Domain

Exposure of individuals to the historical domain of a group occurs either through direct involvement with historical developments or through indirect knowledge— acquired by reading or by listening to interpretations of events by others. The individual's conception of the role of the group in history, and of its contributions to society, is basic to the development of values regarding ethnic identity.

Wars, economic conflict, religious strife— these traumatic and difficult experiences can serve as the cmicible of a group's historical tradition. The legends and accounts of such experiences can be built from events of brief duration or from circumstances remaining unchanged from generation to generation. For example, ancient trauma— periodically reinforced by new wounds— supplied the cause of continuing hostility 304

Figure 2

HISTORICAL A FAMILIAL

INDIVIDUAL

- Incentives and Constraints D - Values C - Decisions

Domains of incentives and constraints on Individual decision making. 305

between Serbs and Croats both within and outside Yugoslavia, and

between Slovenes and Germans in Southeastern Europe. The experience

of World War II exacerbated this bitterness and generally amplified the

distrust felt by various peoples throughout Yugoslavia for Italians and

Germans— feelings which are maintained today, more than a generation in

time after the fact. Ethnic antipathy among the South Slavs draws

heavily upon atrocities that occurred during the last war.

The unhappy story of conflict which had marked the relations between the South Slav peoples during the interwar period appears as an idyll of harmony and good­ will when compared with the terrible plague of hatred, mistrust, and internecine strife which was unleashed in 1941. ... The ultimate bitterness was that many of these wounds were self-inflicted.. Of the one and three-quarter million who died in battle or at the hands of the Nazi thugs, over six hundred thousand were murdered by their brother Slavs [Heppell and Singleton 1961: 170-1711.

In contrast, ethnic group history also encompasses traditional

alliances with other ethnic and political groupings. In one respect,

amicable associations have something in ccxnmon with antagonistic rela­

tionships: they tend to shift from decade to decade and century to

century, sometimes creating closer bonds for a time with groups for which there had traditionally been feelings of enmity.

Political objectives of external powers have had a particularly

strong intact upon internal ethnic deviciveness among the South Slavs.

Such was the case between 1941 and 1945. When the Germans and Italians

invaded Yugoslavia in the spring of 1941, antagonisms between Croats

and Serbs were fully exploited by the Nazi occupiers. In a move to

institutionalize the Croat-Serb split, an Independent State of Croatia

{Hezccoisna Drzava Hwataka) 306

...was proclaimed on April 10, 1941, with German guideuice and assistance, ... in the name of Dr. Ante Favelié, the leader of the Ustasha movement. ... According to Ustasha ideology, the Independent State of Croatia was to be a one-nation state, and the Serbian minority in its territory, numbering almost two million and representing about a third of the population, was to be eliminated as a conscious part of the Serbian nation partly by conversion to Roman Catholicism, partly by expulsion, and partly by extermin­ ation [Tomasevich 1969: 78].

Under such extreme conditions of ethnic hostilities, divergent attitudes are still to be found within ethnic groups regarding their position vis-a-vis other ethnic groups. Take, as a case in point, the division among Croats in World War II. Some were strong Partisan supporters; others were enthusiastically pro-German; still others remained detached from both camps. Serbs and Slovenes were likewise subdivided into factions. In the re-telling, however, such distinctions may sometimes be blurred, and even today many Serbs and Croats are prone to promulgate a bitterly oversimplified view of each other, as groups, during the war— with Serbs emphasizing the Nazi-sympathizing, Serb- persecuting element among Croats, and Croats recounting stories of the anti-Croatian element among Serbs. Wartime atrocities are still cited by both groups as evidence of the other's barbarousness.

The Yugoslav experience in World War II is stressed here because it has had and continues to have profound repercussions, as evidenced by the reports of interviewees in this study. For some, the war was a direct and personal experience; for others, it has been experienced vicariously through the stories amd accounts of family members and friends who lived through it; for still others, the war may have had hardly any impact at all on their ethnic identity, except to the extent that others with strong feelings have altered the climate of the ethnic group's life in the United States. 307

In essence, the study group divides into three categories with respect to the directness of historical experiences in Yugoslavia. The position of an individual in these categories exercises considerable influence in deteimiining the role of the ethnic group’s histoiry in his ethnic identity.

For most first generation persons who came to the United States after World War II, the war and its aftexnnath potentially have a very strong impact on ethnic identity in the United States; personal exposure to and involvement in those events is of critical importance and very often leads to strong antagonism toward members of other South Slavic ethnic groups in the United States and to a sense of disillusionment with the political stxnxcture of Yugoslavia today.

For the children of the post-war emigres, the horrors of the war­ time and immediate post-war years have been transmitted and interpreted by family members, friends, and acquaintances who experienced them directly, and by literature. These intexpretations— often vivid, often veiy deeply felt— have conditioned their values regarding the ethnic group's history.

The third categoiY consists of individuals descended from immigrants

\dio came to the United States before World War I or between the two World

Wars. These individuals, American-born under circumstances substantially different from those experienced by the children of post-war emigres, are more remote from the war as a conditioning influence, notwithstanding the availability of information provided by the emigres and by literaxry sources. The distinction between these socialization experiences points up the value of investigating historical factors such as World War II and their potential influence on the development of values individuals hold 308

for their ethnic identity.

In addition to the relations that an ethnic group has with other

groupings, the contributions that members of the ethnic group have made

to society Eire also releveint to the incentives and constraints operating

upon the individual ethnic group members, especially to the extent that

they provide identification models. The achievements of persons such

as those cited in Chapter IV— Ivan Me^trovic, Petar Petrovic-Njego^,

Bishop Baraga, Our Lady of Bistrica, Marija Pogmaj of Brezje, and Saint

Sava— function in different settings and contexts as symbols of ethnic pride to Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes. Books appear with some frequency

extolling the contributions to American society of ethnic group members.*

The identification models are, in fact, sometimes claimed by more

them one group. Nikola Tesla comes to mind as an example. There is no

dispute that he ccime to the United States in 1884 with four cents in his pocket, earned $20 in a few hours by repairing a dynamo, went on to become one of the foremost electrical inventors in the country--responsible

for the development of alternating-current systems, among innumerable other contributions— and died in 1943. For countless immigrants, he has been held up as a prime example of ethnic pride £md potential. Interest­

ingly, he is now claimed by both Serbs and Croats as one of their own.

George Prpic identifies him as a Croat on the basis of birth and parental ethnicity; "Tesla was born the son of a Croatian Orthodox priest..."

<1971: 346). G. G. Govorchin identifies him as a Serb on the Scime basis:

"He was one of the five children of Miljutin Tesla, a priest of the

‘Examples of books written by Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes describing contributions of each ethnic group include the following: Eterovich 1971 and 1973; Gobetz 1975; Govorchin 1961; Mladineo 1937; Prpic 1971; Stipanovich 1974; and Vujinovich 1974. 309

Eastern Orthodox Church, and Djuka Tesla, the daughter of a priest and a member of a prominent Serbian family" (1961: 217). It is not within the scope of this study to arbitrate the question of Tesla's ethnicity; the fact that it is a matter of dispute is worth mentioning, however, as an indicator of the emotional issues surrounding even the ascription of ethnicity to major figures.*

An identification model can serve admirably for one group, only to arouse profound antagonism in others, as the case of Louis Adamic testi­ fies. A prolific writer, Adamic was born in Slovenia in 1899 and migrated to America at the age of 14, became a contributor to H. L. Mencken's

Amex^acn Meraiay in 1927 and published his first book, Dyncatrite, in 1931.

On the basis of critical acclaim and growing popularity, he returned home to Slovenia and Yugoslavia on a visit in 1933 and became an energetic devotee of a continuing political union of South Slavs when he returned to the United States. During World War II and afterwards, he spoke and wrote in strong support of the Partisans and Tito, a position which alienated him from many Croats, Serbs, and Slovenes in the United States.

He became a highly controversial figure, proudly supported on the one hand, fiercely denounced on the other. In 1951 he was found dead in his

New Jersey farmhouse, shot in the head, with a rifle in his lap. Whether it was an act of suicide or murder remains disputed to this day, and more than one interviewee in the study group suggested that Adamic had been killed by those who opposed his positions and feared the effectiveness of his writing (he had visited Yugoslavia in 1949 at Tito's invitation and

‘Shortly after the outbreak of World War II, in a letter to a nephew, Tesla referred to himself as "the oldest Serb, Yugoslav, and American in the U.S.," and argued that "the fate of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes is inseparable." 310 was working on a book supporting Tito's government at the time of his death). Not surprisingly, Adamic's contributions to American society are evaluated in strongly contrasting terms by Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes, depending on their orientation, conditioning, and experience.

The Demographic Domain

Demographic conditions of a person's living environment provide certain incentives and constraints on ethnic identity. Whether one has grown up in a community where one is able to interact with other ethnic group members on a day-to-day basis or whether one has had no such experiences are important elements in the socialization process. In

Washington, where close neighborhood solidarity is almost non-existent, there is little possibility of such immediate and continuing interaction on a neighborhood basis. This is an important fact to take into account when attempting to predict the direction of ethnic identity maintenance for the generation of children now growing up. In a city such as Wash­ ington, parents must make special arrangements with other ethnic group members if their children are to have regular contact with other children of the same ethnic background.

The absence of ethnic neighborhoods among Serbs, Croats, and

Slovenes in Washington ties in with another fact of life found there, as well as increasingly in other American metropolitan areas: the geographical mobility of families and individuals. When families come and go with the frequency that is the case in Washington, the continuity of friendship ties between families is regularly disrupted, making it even more difficult for children to build and maintain strong, permanent bonds with members of other families.

Also related to the geographical mobility factor are the economic 311

and educational aspirations of ethnic group members. College, then work opportunities, often carry children away from the families and the communities they have grown up in. Most Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes who have settled in Washington left their strongest ethnic ties behind in doing so. Their children, in turn, frequently leave the area for educational reasons, and may or may not return.

The divergence between various immigrant generations represented in a neighborhood or city can also influence the socio-cultural environ­ ment one grows up in. A first generation Serb— Slobodan K.— described his experience upon arriving in a Midwestern American city and the antagonism he witnessed between the generations there, which he attri­ buted in part to educational differences:

When I came to the United States there was a big gap between the post-war immigrants and the new ones who came 40 to 50 years before. They didn't like to see the new immigrants get ahead. That gap is still there, and I have found that I get along better with American-born Serbs and the post-war immigrants than I do with the old Serbs. The newcomers really stick together. There has been much jealousy between the old and the new, which can be explained to some extent by the educational gap.

A young person growing up in a community where the hostilities between members of different immigrant generations are strongly felt may be greatly influenced in his desire to be or not to be ethnic by such an experience. When discord runs high, there is the possibility that the individual will become disillusioned with his ethnic group and will decide to put it at arm’s length, concluding that antagonisms between ethnic groups makes it impossible to identify with the objectives of his own ethnic group; he does not want to relate to the image which he perceives it as having in the wider society.

For Serbs and Slovenes, and to a lesser extent Croats, the ethnic 312

groups in Washington tend to be very heterogeneous in regard to the

generations represented, so that at least three generations are found

in most organizations. Therefore, the way in which those generations

relate to each other is highly visible to children now growing up. As

an example, the conflict between American-born and Yugoslav-born Serbs

over the position of the Serbian Orthodox Church and its ties to the

mother church in Yugoslavia is a focal point of such generational dis­ putes. While the two church factions are certainly not exclusively

represented by only American- or Yugoslav-born, they do tend to be

divided, in general, by generational differences. Younger American- born Serbs (especially in the third generation) reportedly feel that the position that many of their elders have tàken over the church split is

exaggerated and not of vital importance; they wait for the day when the

intense emotions of the 1960's and 1970's over this issue cool down and

factionalism is reduced. They are uncomfortable with the schism; but others find that they can live with the situation as it is. How an

individual is able to work around hostilities between such factions is

an ingxortant dimension in ethnic identity values.

In addition to the demographic factors found in the American environ­ ment in which an individual grows up, first-hand exposure— or lack of

it— to the European "homeland" is a powerful influence on ethnic identity, as Tomislav R., a second generation Croat, attested:

Visiting Croatia completely changed my orientation. Just completely. I think that if I had not gone there, I might still be interested in learning more about the history, but it wouldn't have much of a personal impact on me. Before I went over there, my Croatian identity had become dormant, and I didn't think that that was going to change. But, in fact, what happened was that I met many people over there— relatives and friends of the family— whom I got to )cnow well and really like. So I returned home wcuiting very much to keep in touch 313

With them. I had also learned a whole host of other things, such as the language. Due to that visit my orientation toward my Croatian identity changed all of a sudden. It was no longer something I could simply take or leave.

Related to an overall influence on a person's ethnic identity values, contact with the homeland has special impact on the désire to learn, relearn, or maintain one's facility with the ethnic language.

This was noted by several interviewees who had either had such an experience themselves or who had seen their own children chcinge their attitudes toward learning the language after visiting the homeland.

The Societal Domain

The socio-cultural influence of the wider society in which the ethnic group exists can be an important factor in the direction of an individual's ethnic identity. The social climate for white ethnic groups has undergone some major changes over the past century, and depending on when and where they were born, different ethnic group members have had various experiences with the attitudes of members of the wider society. Over the past decade there has developed a generally positive emphasis in American society in reasserting ethnic group ties as long as they do not directly conflict with the power positions of other ethnic groups. In other words, ethnicity has had positive impli­ cations as long as it has not become a competitive force in political and economic affairs.

Prejudices and discrimination toward members of relatively small white ethnic groups such as the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes have ranged from such relatively mild examples as belittling ethnic names or refusing to pronounce them correctly to more flagrant instances of economic and political persecution. Conditions at the time that a child begins 314 making plans for his educational and occupational future have potentially major consequences for his decisions about those plans and his ethnic

identity. If it is to his disadvantage to emphasize his ethnicity, he

operates under pressure to deemphasize it and to attempt to become

totally assimilated with the wider society. If the situation, in con­

trast, is such that relatively little judgment is expressed by non-ethnic group members about being ethnic, as is true to a great extent in Washing­ ton today, the individual's options are considerably greater insofar as being able to be both socially accepted and economically successful even while visibly maintaining his ethnic identity. Interviewees overwhelm­

ingly expressed the opinion that pressure to deemphasize ethnicity in

Washington was minimal as long as they were fluent in English. Even those not yet able to speak English upon arrival in the United States often found Americans helpful— sometimes to a fault— in encouraging their language learning. Dunja V., a first generation Croatian woman, described this phenomenon:

I knew very little English before coming to the United States and have learned most of it here. I have found people to be very patient and a great help in learning it, but they do not like to correct me. They tend to be uncritical and supportive.

The degree to which the wider society attributes a certain status to being a Serb, Croat, or a Slovene is also very important to the impressions that a person holds about his ethnic group. Recognition accorded to major contemporary ethnic figures is of special significance, since such individuals can provide identification models for the young ethnic group member, as mentioned previously. The fact, for instance, that Frank Lausche, a Slovene from Cleveland, became governor of Ohio and later United States Senator might well have provided encouragement 315

for young Slovenes with political or professional aspirations.

The Organizational Domain

The availability of ethnic organizations— religious, political, social and cultural, and educational— provides potential incentives and constraints on the development of an individual's ethnic identity values. Because of the limitations on more informal daily contact with ethnic group members, the ethnic orgnaizations that exist in Washington are important to the socialization experiences of young people. Even so, contact that most children and adolescents have with other members outside of their immediate family, according to interviewees, occurs weekly at the very most and often much more infrequently. For Serbs, weekly church services provide the major opportunities for children to see other ethnic group members; for Croats, such contact occurs through the monthly Croatian Masses; while for Slovenes, contact is mainly at the monthly Slovenian Masses or at the several annual events held by

Slovenian organizations.

In sum, while Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian organizations in

Washington are of major inportance in providing a source of social inter­ action between ethnic group members, the events sponsored by the organizations— with the exception of the Serbian weekly church services— are infrequent, at best. If parents wish to increase their children's exposure to other ethnic group members, they must sipplement such organizational activities with social events held in the home. 316

The Familial Domain

Of the five external socio-cultural domains under discussion having especially strong influence on ethnic identity, family factors appear to be far and away the most important. This was the case from both the perspective of interviewees looking back on their childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood and of interviewees' experiences with their own children. Usually the greatest influence from family members came from parents, occasionally from grandparents, and, less often, from a non-ethnic spouse. Mothers, especially, appeared to play a primary role in inculcating ethnic identity among children. Katharine C., a second generation Slovene, and Tomislav R., a second generation Croat, described the importance of their parents in the development of their ethnic identity:

My mother is the one who is mainly responsible for my Slovenian ethnic identity. She has really pushed it. I can't imagine feeling that I had much of a Slovenian back­ ground if it weren't for her. My father used to tell me anecdotes about his childhood, but not so much about the Slovenian people. But my mother was always concerned about the nationality. And really concerned about preserving some cultural heritage in her family. If I had not been brought up in that environment, I would not have become interested in the Slovenes in Washington.

My parents are responsible for exposing me to my ethnic identity. But my mother a little more than my father, simply because she spent more time with us. They made a concerted effort at it, there's no doubt about that. They must have spent more time doing that them other parents with immigrant kids, certainly more than in other families I knew. To the extent that bedtime stories were Croaticin bedtime stories. And in time those stories became tales from Croatian history. Then they made many references to relatives, the people they had left behind. In these various ways I think they tried to establish a tie between us and the hcmeland. 317

In another instance, the non-Croatian husband of a second gener­ ation Croatian woman encouraged her to maintain her ethnic identity and to continue it into their family. According to Lillian M.;

The fact that my husband is interested in my cultural background has heightened its importance to me. If it were not for him, I would probably downplay it. It was only after we were married that I returned to Yugoslavia; he enjoyed the trip at least as much as I did.

Marital patterns of parents are particularly critical to the direction of ethnic identity among their children as well as for the ethnic spouse. When one parent is not a member of the ethnic group, the ethnic spouse ordinarily must make a concerted effort to stress the ethnic background of the family; otherwise, it tends to be deemphasized.

In cases of such mixed marriages, a special bond might develop between the ethnic parent and a child or children who take a special interest in their ethnic identity; an "adoption" process might occur in which the non-ethnic parent becomes dedicated to maintaining the ethnic identity in the family; or two distinct,strong ethnic traditions might be pre­ served in the family. Subtle but sometimes more candid negotiations between a husband and wife, at the time of their marriage and then when the first child is born, over the question of emphasis or deemphasis of ethnicity in the family provide a significant development in the outcome of the children's ethnic identity. In addition to the ethnic background of the parents, the availability of extended family members either in the home or nearby often has a major impact on the children's socialization experiences. John K., a third generation Slovene, recalled: "My paternal grandfather used to tell us stories of Slovenia which I found very interesting; my children like to hear them now."

The sibling position, or birth order, of those interviewed appeared 318

to bear some relationship to the degree to which ethnic identity was

emphasized in their lives, in comparison with their brothers and sisters.

Of the 21 second and third generation individuals, nine were the eldest

(five men and four women); five were the youngest (three women and two

men); five were only children (four women and one man); and two were

middle children (one woman and one man). Seven of the nine eldest

children reported that in comparison with their siblings they were clearly

the most interested in their ethnic identity; êind the remaining two were as dedicated to strong ethnic group ties as their siblings, if not

more so, both having ethnic spouses and being very involved in ethnic

organizations. The five youngest were also either the most active or

at least equally as active in ethnic activities as their older brothers

and sisters. Why the predominance of eldest children in the study group?

Helen B., a second generation Slovene, found that by being the first-born

in her family she had a better opportunity to leam of her ethnic back­

ground from her parents.

Even in my family I was a great deal closer to the Slovenian culture than my brothers and sisters. Being the oldest, I had more exposure to it.

While no interview questions were posed directly regarding the

influence of birth-order among siblings upon ethnic identity, certain

relevant observations were made in the course of the interviews. As

Katharine C. suggested, being first-born carries with it the likelihood

that the child will have the greatest exposure to the family's ethnic

heritage. For one thing, contact with grandparents and other extended

relatives usually spans a longer period of time than for the younger

siblings, and parents may very well be the most enthusiastic and deter­

mined about inculcating ethnic identity in the first-born cunong their 319 children. Whether the parents realize it or not at the time, they may also simply have more time to teach the language and talk about the past then later when multiple children are making multiple demands.

From the child's point of view, being the eldest might also carry with it a responsibility to carry on the family's hertiage— including the ethnic tradition— primarily because he is the one to have initial access to it. Whatever the incentives and constraints operating on these

21 second and third generation interviewees, the fact remains that the eldest children were most highly represented in the study group; only- children and youngest-children were the second most highly represented; and middle-children were the least represented.

While most people interviewed had their strongest familial ties with family members living in the United States, some retained their strongest ethnic ties with parents remaining in Yugoslavia and had very limited involvement with ethnic group members in the United States. As an example of this type of bond, Milica F., a first generation Serb, noted the importance that her parents, who still lived in Yugoslavia, had on her interest in ethnic identity:

Every year I return to Yugoslavia to visit my parents, only to visit them. And I don't know if I would continue to go if they weren't still alive. My family is closer and friendlier than families I have seen here; I would starve in America in order to go visit them every summer.

Ritual life revolving around the ethnic group is reportedly depen­ dent primarily upon the family taking a continuing interest in maintain­ ing those activities. Religious and secular customs take on special meaning for the child when they have been observed in the home or when the family participates as a unit in them outside the home. Often the growing child does not fully appreciate the impact those experiences 320 have upon his ethnic identity until much later in life. Anna T., a second generation Serb, took note of that fact in her interview:

As a child, I did not realize just how much I was being brought up in and influenced by a Serbian ethnic tradition. It* s only looking back on it that I realize how central it was to much of my family's life. The church was the focal point of the Serbian community. The church had a hall where all kinds of social activities were held. On Sunday evenings toy family and I would go to dances at the hall. There was much less separation between parents' and children's activities than there tends to be now.

All in all, interviewees identified the family as bearing the major responsibility for exposing children to their ethnic traditions, thereby providing incentives and constraints to decision-making and values among individuals as they grow up.

The Individual Domain

In Chapter I it was emphasized that socialization is not a passive process through which the individual absorbs and acquires a socio­ cultural heritage, but rather an active process through which the individ­ ual makes selections from many alternatives available to him. Incentives and constraints that are internally generated (that is, from within the individual rather than from his socio-cultural environment) reflect those values that the individual has developed throughout his socialization experiences, and they constitute an important factor in his decision­ making. At the time that new incentives and constraints from outside sources (i.e., historical, demographic, societal, organizational, and familial) are under consideration, the individual must attempt to integrate them with already internalized values. Those values, in combination with external incentives and constraints, determine his decisions. In turn, his decisions potentially influence his values, especially if decisions he has made contradict earlier-held values. 321

The individual domain of decision-making has not been as fully explored in this study as the interplay between external incentives and constraints and decision-making on the part of individuals. Societal influences upon the individual's values are transmitted to the individual through incentives and constraints, and his values have an impact on society only through the channel of his decision-making. Thus, while values are the mediating agent between incentives and constraints on the one hand and decision-making on the other, they require that individ­ ual decisions function as a transmitter in order to influence the external social world.

Decision-Making Areas of Ethnic Identity

Five decision-making areas have been selected for a detailed description and analysis on the basis of availability of data from the study group and on the basis of opportunities for isolating those incentives and constraints that are most clearly related to particular types of decisions. Two of these decision-making areas fall within the general category of "names": changes in surnames and giving ethnic names to children born in the United States. The third area has to do with whether to marry a spouse from the same ethnic group. The fourth is the decision to learn the ethnic language. And the fifth deals with the degree of emphasis on religion as a focus of ethnic identity.

For each of these five areas of decision-making, a summary of the patterns found within the study group is presented in addition to cui analysis of those incentives and constraints that were indicated by ethnic group members as being especially relevant to these five types of decisions. 322

Changes in Surnames

As was noted previously in Chapter IV, only one person in the study

group had changed his surname entirely,^d even his name was "ethnicized"

by other Serbs when they added a Slavic ending to it. Small alterations

in the spelling and pronunciation of surnames were more commonly seen.

While approximately half of the first generation faunilies retained the

-c ending, usually deleting the diacritical mark in writing their names,

the others of the first generation and almost all of the second generation

changed it to -ch. Occasionally the -c became -tch. Other small changes

in spelling frequently occurred, such as the shift from -s to -sh and

from to -zh. Although some few sounds in Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian

are difficult to approximate in English spelling and pronunciation, it

appears that in most of the families of interviewees great care had been

taken to change the spelling only enough to encourage the closest approxi­ mation possible of the original pronunciation. Other than such slight

changes that facilitated pronunciation, one person had shortened his

surname for purposes of professional identification.

Influences upon interviewees or their families to make any changes whatsoever in their surnames are grouped according to societal and

familial incentives. Within the societal domain, there are four sub­ categories: economic, legal, technical linguistic, and.social.

These five grotpings of incentives are outlined below:

Societal-economic

1. Economic discrimination, at the time that the family of origin immigrated to the United States.

2. Ease in finding and keeping a job, in earlier generations. 323

Societal-legal

1. Opportunity to change name legally, at the time of eligibility for American citizenship.

Societal-technical linguistic

1. Absence of conparable letter in English orthography.

2. Difficulty of pronunciation.

3. Difficulty of spelling.

Societal-social

1. Apprehension of ridicule or criticism by peers.

Familial

1. Adoption of husband's name at the time of marriage.

2. Pressure from other family members.

3. Retention of changes made in previous generations.

4. As a way to distinguish nuclear family from other related nuclear families living in the same geographical area.

Constraints against making changes in surnames also fall into soci­ etal and familial domains, but a historical dimension within the ethnic groups was also reported.

Historical

1. Development of an overall sense of ethnic pride among ethnic group members, and resultant pressure by ethnic group members to retain original name.

Societal-social

1. Decrease in general societal pressure to change names.

2. Increase in acceptance of— even social value of— an 'ethnic' name.

Societal-technical linguistic

1. Ease in pronunciation of a name once it is explained to people.

2. Willingness of most people in the United States to spell and pronounce their names for the benefit of others, making it easier for those with unusual ncunes to have them correctly spelled and pronounced. 324

Familial

1. Sense of family pride represented by name.

2. Absence of changes made by parents or grandparents.

In general, the constraints against changing surnames now outweigh

the incentives to change them, according to interviewees. With the

decrease in economic restrictions upon people having ethnic names and

the reassertion of ethnic pride, it is much less likely that changes in

surnames will continue to occur.

Giving Children Ethnic or Non-Ethnic Names

The naming of children can provide a striking example of negoti­ ations that occur between the two parents and, often, between them and

extended family members and/or the prospective godparents. Sometimes other children are included in those negotiations. In discussions about what to name the child, various incentives and constraints come into consideration. When the parents represent two distinct ethnic back­ grounds, the negotiations may take into account two very different per­

spectives on the Incentives and constraints. Three characteristics of the relationship between the parents are central to this issue: the degree of commitment by each parent to an ethnic identity; the spouse's commitment to the other spouse's ethnic identity; and their perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages that certain names might have for the child. Other factors are also inportcuit: the balance of power between husband and wife in decision-making; their closeness to the grandparents on both sides of the family; and their familiarity with an ethnic language and the use of ethnic names.

Of the 21 interviewee families having children in the United States, ten have given ethnic names to all of their children. Three have selected 325

ethnic names for some children and Anglicized or English hames for the others. One family gave ethnic names for purposes of the children's baptism and English equivalents for legal purposes on their birth certificates. In the other seven feutnilies where non-ethnic names were exclusively chosen, five held to a degree of tradition by giving the

Anglicized version of other family members' names. Among interviewees who did not yet have any children, but were expecting to, the general preference was to give names with some ethnic meaning as long as they could be easily pronounced by Americans. Certain names were considered to be easier than others for Americans to pronounce correctly and while still identifying the child as Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian: Andrei,

Danica, George, Ivan, Katarina, Maria, Mark, Mladen, Milica, Nicholas,

Olga, Petar, and Victor. Expression of ethnic identity through the symbol of a child's name seemed less critical, on balance, than attempting to protect the child against anticipated difficulties with his or her peers. Deciding on names often entailed a compromise between a con­ sideration of the child's identity as an ethnic group member and of his anticipated identity as a member of the wider American society.

The particular incentives cited by interviewees for giving their children ethnic names were primarily familial and historical. Familial incentives included: following a family tradition; encouragement of godparents to give an ethnic name; and naming the child after a family member already having an ethnic name. Desire to give a national name or the name of an ethnic hero constituted a historical incentive.

In general, constraints against giving an ethnic name were societal.

Families wanted to avoid complications in pronunciation of the child's name vdiile they also hoped to avoid identity problems for the child with 326

his peers outside the ethnic group. The latter was the most wide­

spread consideration among parents in the study group.

Marriage to Ethnic as Opposed to Non-Ethnic Spouse

Slightly more than a third of the interviewees were single,

divorced, or widowed (19); another third were married to persons of the

same ethnic background (18); and a fifth were married to Americans not

of the ethnic group (11). Of the remaining eight persons, four were married to foreigners of different ethnic backgrounds and four were married to members of other South Slavic ethnic groups (e.g., Slovene married to a Serb). For the 18 who had married within their ethnic

group, 14 were first generation individuals; none of the 18 had met and

married in Washington. (In fact, only three members of the entire study

group had actually met their spouses-to-be in Washington.)

The 11 individuals who had married non-ethnic group Americans

included first, and second, and third generation individuals, with

slightly more than half in the second and third generations. Conversely, all four ethnically-mixed South Slavic marriages involved persons only

from the first generation.

Insofar as marital patterns in Washington were concerned, there was

clearly a tendency not to marry people with the same ethnic background.

The constraints against such marriages were strongly felt and often

regretted by interviewees; many reported a desire to find an ethnic

spouse. This incentive, in fact, appeared to be a factor in the large

number of unmarried individuals within the study group. The incentives

for ethnic marriages fall within the organizational and individual

domains as cited below. 327

Organizational

1. Increasingly active Serbian Orthodox parishes having many families with young children who might in the next few years begin to marry other Serbs from the same church.

2. Involvement of some few ethnic group members in national organizations through which they meet other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes.

Individual

1. Perception that children will grow up with a strong ethnic tradition only if both parents are from the same ethnic background.

2. Belief that marriages tend to be more stable and rewarding when the husband and wife have the same ethnic heritage.

Demographic constraints upon ethnic group members in Washington tend to overshadow the incentives that individuals might have for marrying someone within their ethnic group. In addition, there are also some individual constraints :

Demographic

1. Insufficiency of other unmarried ethnic group members in Washington within the same age group.

2. Absence of contact with ethnic group members of the same age group in other American cities.

3. Differences between generations— literary and linguistic, artistic, religious, or political— regarding the focus of their ethnic identity.

Individual

1. Emphasis on professional goals that encourage people to stay in Washington and to marry someone with a similar educational background rather than marrying someone with a similar ethnic identity.

2. Divergence of attitudes among certain Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian women and men regarding the role of the woman in the home and in society, discouraging some women to marry within the ethnic group. 328

To L e a m or Not to Learn the Ethnic Language

While there was a decided difference in emphasis on ethnic language learning according to generation in America, there was still an overall stress on bilingualism and multilingualism in the study group. Interest in language learning, in general, extended to familiarity with the ethnic language. Out of the 56 interviewees, only five persons said that they did not speak Serbicui, Croatian, or Slovenian with at least moderate fluency. Two of those five persons were in the third generation and three in the second. Of those five, three had spoken the ethnic language as a secondary language to English as children, but had lost their facility through the years. One other person had learned the language as an adult, but had not been exposed to it as a child.

Even though there was widespread familiarity with the ethnic language in the study group, there was also a clear generational dif­ ference in interest in learning, speaking, and teaching the ethnic language to their children. The values that interviewees expressed about main­ taining the ethnic language reflected, in great part, the conditions under which they had learned Slovenian, Croatian, or Serbian and the form of the language that they had spoken as children. The ethnic languages, as spoken by most second and third generation persons whose parents or grandparents had inmigrated early in the century, were based primarily on dialects that had been spoken in villages that family members had left.

Of the 11 second and third generation persons descending from the pre-

World War II migration, only one individual continued to speak the ethnic tongue as the primary leinguage in the home. Therefore, familiarity with the ethnic language had drastically declined among those individuals.

Taken together, these developments meant that the Serbian, Croatian, or 329

Slovenian that most second and third generation persons in Washington spoke was radically different from the literary forms of the languages spoken by those coming from Yugoslavia after the last war. Not only did the lamguage differences often prove to be embarrassing for many

American-born persons, as they attempted to speak the ethnic language with more recent émigrés; sometimes they found communication virtually impossible. Inevitably, the primary language of conversation became

English whenever mixed generations of ethnic group members met, with the exception of second generation individuals who had grown up in homes where the ethnic tongue was spoken consistently as a second language.

In some settings the ethnic language remains: both Serbian

Orthodox Churches continue to use Serbian extensively in their services, with the autonomy parish using it more consistently than the unity parish; the Slovenian Roman Catholic Masses are conducted mainly in

Slovenian; and the Croatian Masses are given in Croatian. Outside of those services, however, differences in language usage often signal other generational differences; and rather than cementing ties between the generations, language often acts as a barrier to close social affili­ ation. Because the first generation persons usually prefer to speak the ethnic language in church and other settings where there are ethnic group members in attendance, differences in language cibility are especially acute in those situations where there is a mixture of American- born and Yugoslav-born.

Considerations important to the decision to learn the ethnic language {or to remember what had been learned during childhood) include demographic, organizational, familial, and individual incentives, as outlined below: 330

Demographic

1. Involvement of first generation persons in many ethnic organizations, especially literary societies, through which they expose American-born individuals to the ethnic language.

2. Availability of first generation persons who speak and write the ethnic language fluently to serve as language teachers.

3. Increased number of Serbs, Croats, cind Slovenes in Washington, encouraging more frequent social interaction during which the ethnic language might be spoken.

Organizational

1. Use of the ethnic language in Serbian Orthodox Church ser­ vices, Croatian Masses, and Slovenian Masses.

2. Existence of literary organizations which publish journals in the ethnic languages.

Familial

1. Encouragement by extended family members, especially grand­ parents, and godparents to speak the ethnic language.

2. A visit or visits with extended family members still living in Yugoslavia.

3. Insistence by parents that ethnic language continue to be spoken as the primary or secondary language in the home.

4. Social activities held by parents where other ethnic group members are in attendance.

5. Emphasis on language learning in general in the home.

Individual

1. Perception that facility in the ethnic language is an im­ portant dimension of ethnic identity emd through it other areas of ethnic identity are opened up, such as being able to read the ethnic literature.

2. A general interest in language learning.

Constraints upon learning and maintaining one's ability to speak the ethnic language encompass all six domains: 331

Historical

1. Different evolution of the ethnic languages in Yugoslavia and the United States whereby Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian in Yugoslavia have become increasingly standardized literary languages while in the United States localized variants have been maintained among those individuals who immigrated before World War II.

Demographic

1. Absence of ethnic neighborhoods and isolation of ethnic group members in non-ethnic, widely separated residential areas, dis­ couraging day-to-day social contact.

2. The relatively small number of ethnic group members in Washington, especially within the same age group.

3. General differences between generations in terms of fluency in ethnic languages and familiarity with literary forms.

Organizational

1. Absence of long-term ethnic language classes and infrequency of the class meetings.

2. Infrequency of organization-sponsored events, especially among the Croats and Slovenes.

Societal

1. Lack of an overall concern in American society for foreign language learning and a major emphasis on English, at the expense of all other languages.

2. A view that Serbiam, Croatian, or Slovenian are not parti­ cularly useful languages to learn for purposes other than interaction with ethnic group members in the United States or Yugoslavia.

Familial

1. Having only one parent with a Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian ethnic background.

2. Absence of extended family members, especially grandparents, living nearby.

3. Absence of other relatives living in the United States.

4. Encouragement by parents to speak English in the home, at the expense of the ethnic language.

5. Inability of one or both parents to speak the ethnic language sufficiently fluently to teach it to the children. 332

Individual

1. The individual’s perception of the ethnic language as being an abstract means of communication used by only few adults in his social environment.

As was noted in Chapter IV, four factors appear to have had a particularly strong impact upon interviewees in respect to the main­ tenance of ethnic identity into the second and third generations. First was the opportunity of the child to visit the homeland of the parents

so that the language would gain some concrete meaning and would not

remain an abstraction to the child. Second was the question of whether extended family members, especially grandparents, vdio spoke the language had lived nearby while the child was growing up. Third was the ability and desire of one or both parents (particularly the mother) to speak the language in the home. And fourth was the ethnicity of the parents; if

they were both from the same ethnic group, the chances were considerably greater that the child would leam the language.

Within the study group, those first generation individuals and second generation persons whose parents had immigrated after the war tended to place much greater value on language as an integral part of their ethnic identity than did those second and third generation persons from families who had come to the United States earlier in the century.

Religion as the Primary Focus of Ethnic Identity

In general, religion was the most common focus of ethnic identity within the study group and more consistently so among the Serbs. How­ ever, there were some different attitudes regarding the centrality of religion to their ethnic identity, depending in great part upon which ethnic group they belonged to and upon generation in America. 333

Most American-born Serbs characterized their ethnic identity as being centered on their Orthodoxy. But many Yugoslav-born Serbs immi­ grating after the last war found the ritual activity of the Serbian

Orthodox Church in America to be more accentuated than it had been in

Yugoslavia. In fact, some described contemporary Orthodox ritual in this country as being similar to traditions in the early twentieth century Serbian Orthodox Church. They claimed that the church in the

United States had not yet adopted the many changes that it had under­ gone elsewhere over the past century, especially since the end of World

War II. Most of the Yugoslav-born Serbs felt their religious con­ victions were very deep and personal, even though they may have felt less institutional attachment to Serbian Orthodoxy.

In contrast, Serbs born in the United States frequently saw their religion as the vaCson d'etre for their ethnic identity. This difference was explicit in the remarks of two Serbian men. Victor S., American- born, saw his religious commitment to be the crux of his ethnic identity and the focal point of Serbian ethnic identity in the United States.

He contended that "Serbs have ethnic identity because of the church.

Everything revolves around the church. ... My identity is as a Serbian

Orthodox person." The remarks of Vladimir N., a Serbian man who came to the United States after the last war, contrast with the preceding statement. "Rather than saying that I am a Serb because I am Orthodox, as I have heard others say, I would say that I am Orthodox because I am a Serb." Regardless of the differences in the views of the two men, however, both saw the church as a source of ethnic reinforcement.

While there was a greater tendency among American-born than among

Yugoslav-born Serbs to place the primary focus of their ethnic .identity 334

on their Orthodoxy, nevertheless, as a group, the Serbs tended to emphasize religion as either the focal point or a focal point of their ethnic identity.

A rather different relationship between ethnicity and religion was found among Slovenes and Croats, both of whom are ordinarily Roman

Catholic. Since the early 1970's the Slovenes and the Croats have had their respective chapels at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Con­ ception where monthly Masses are held. Those two chapels do not provide a comparable social setting to the two Serbian Orthodox Churches since neither is community-owned nor community-administered by the local ethnic groups and since Masses are held relatively infrequently.

Of the twelve Slovenes interviewed, only six saw religion as clearly connected with their Slovenian ethnic identity, although nine of the twelve attended the Slovenian Chapel Masses at least occasionally.

Three of the twelve did not consider their religion to have any role in their ethnic identity and the remaining three thought of it as being only slightly related. Interestingly, the three individuals who saw no connection whatsoever between religion and ethnicity were Yugoslav- born and two of them had come to the United States many years after the end of World War II, thereby being exposed to the post-World War II era. The three Slovenes who held an intermediate opinion about the role of religion in their ethnicity were all American-born. Of the six who saw their religion and ethnicity as closely intertwined, four were first generation and two were second generation.

The Croats in the study group also expressed widely varying attitudes about the role of religion in their ethnic identity. Eleven of the fourteen interviewees had attended Croatian Masses at the National 335

Shrine. Yet only four of the fourteen saw their religion as being an

integral part of their ethnic identity; two of these were first gener­

ation and two second generation.

Unlike most of the Serbs interviewed, only six of the eleven

American-born Slovenes and Croats had grown up in cities where there was a Roman Catholic parish in which members of their ethnic group pre­ dominated, and only two of those six had had a steady involvement in an ethnic parish throughout their entire childhood. Therefore, for most of the Slovenian and Croatian interviewees born in the United

States their attachment to Catholicism was not directly connected to their ethnicity. More often it was those who had grown up in Yugoslavia, especially Slovenes, who described their ethnic identity as being much more directly tied to their religion. Such persons had a difficult time separating their religion from other aspects of their ethnicity.

Due to the differences described above, incentives for and con­ straints upon religion as a primary focus of ethnic identity varied from one group to another, as the following outline indicates:

INCENTIVES

Historical

1. A historical tradition among Serbs in which their religion was inextricably tied to their ethnic identity both in the United States cuid in Yugoslavia, including the use of Old Church Slavonic in church services.

2. A historical tradition among Slovenes and Croats in Yugo­ slavia in which there was a strong bond between Catholicism and ethnicity.

3. Identification of Slovenian and Croatian Roman Catholic priests with historically-recognized contributions such as mission- izing in the New World.

4. Involvement of church leaders from all three ethnic groups in national developments in the European homeland. 336

Demographic

1. Sufficiently sizeable group of Serbs in Washington‘to warrant organizing Serbian Orthodox parishes.

2. Location in Washington, D. C., the nation’s capital, where ethnic group members throughout the United States feel they should be represented by an ethnic church or chapel.

Organizational

1. The availability of ethnic parish churches for Serbs and ethnic chapels for Slovenes and Croats.

2. ,An organizational network stemming out of the Serbian Orthodox Churches making the parishes more than weekly meeting places for purposes of worship.

Familial

1. Uniformity in family in religious background and preference and attendance of church services by all family members.

Individual

1. Profound experiences in which religion played an important part in personal survival such as occurred for many people in wartime Yugoslavia.

CONSTRAINTS

Historical

1. Tradition until recently for Roman Catholic Masses to be given in Latin rather than in the ethnic language.

2. Changes in post-World War II Yugoslavia whereby churches were no longer state-supported, and strong religious ties were, in general, discouraged by the government for all religious faiths.

Organizational

1. The absence of ethnic churches in locales where most Slovenian and Croatian interviewees had grown up in the United States.

2. The absence of weekly church services for Slovenes and Croats in Washington.

3. The schism in the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States and Canada, encouraging factionalism rather than unity. 337

Demographic

1. Absence of sufficient numbers of Slovenes and Croats in the Washington area to form ethnic parish churches.

Familial

1. Extensive intermarriage between ethnic group members and non-ethnic group members in Washington, and the formation of families in which there is no common religious heritage.

Individual

1. Decline in overall interest in religious affiliations.

Viewing these five areas of decision-making as a group— to change one's surname; to give ethnic names to children; to marry within the ethnic group; to learn the ethnic language; and to emphasize religion as part of ethnicity— we can determine some generational differences in how much one area is emphasized over another. Unless previous gener­ ations of the family had changed the surname, there were no outstanding differences between the three generations represented in the study group regarding changes in the surname; there was.almost uniform agreement that name changes should not occur unless it was to simplify pronunciation and spelling.

Similarly, giving ethnic names to newborn children was often considered by parents of all three generations as a serious possibility but there was a greater tendency for first generation parents to give their children names that were uniquely ethnic (e.g., Branko, Dragutin,

Du^an, Ljubica, Milana, Milorad, Svetlana, Tat]ana, Tomislav, Vladimir,

Zora) and for second and third generation parents to give their children names that had very similar forms in both languages (e.g., Alexander,

Anna, George, Katharine, Maria, Peter, Victor). In both cases, concern for the eventual adjustment of the child in the wider society was of 338 greater importance to the parents than expressing ethnic identity through the name.

Individuals in all three generations saw value in marrying someone of the same ethnic background; but they frequently cited the demographic constraints upon finding a potential spouse of the same ethnic heritage in Washington. While persons in all three generations pointed out the desirability for others to marry within the ethnic group, those in the first generation appeared to be the most concerned about it in their own lives or in their children’s. Overall, however, the interviewees were realistic about the scant chances that either they or their children would find spouses within the ethnic group.

A major difference in emphasis on ethnic language learning was noted between first generation individuals and others in the second and third generations. While the study group was, in general, oriented toward bilingualism and multilingualism, fluency in the ethnic languages was most often stressed among the first generation and those in the second generation whose parents immigrated after World War II. Emphasis on language learning and usage was outstanding in the first generation as compared with the American-born. It tended to divide the ethnic groups according to generation and to bind members of each generation together.

It was the American-born Serbs and, to a lesser extent, American- born Slovenes who attributed the primary focus of their ethnic identity to their religious affiliation. The central position of religion, particularly the Serbian Orthodox Church, in ethnic group life put the churches in a pivotal position as the guardians and the major stimuli for maintenance of ethnic identity in the United States. 339

Prospects for Future Research

In an attempt to understand more fully the interplay between socialization, decisions, and values on the individual level and, in turn, socio-cultural influences upon individual decision-making, at least two avenues to additional research are suggested by this study.

In the first, the researcher would need to develop, in advance, a clear conception of the decision-making areas to be explored and the data collection required thereby, and would select a more random sanple from the general population under consideration than has been the case in this study. Although decision-making can be investigated with respect to almost any number of areas of human behavior, certain types of decisions appear to be particularly relevant to further study of ethnic identity maintenance and reinforcement: the naming of children; ethnic language learning and usage; expression of ethnicity through artistic and folklife media; selection of godparents; observance of ethnic ritual in the home; friendship patterns; changes in surnames; membership in ethnic organizations; affiliation with ethnic churches; marital patterns; maintenance of ties with the homeland, including travel and correspondence; and selection of residential areas.

Because of the nature of ethnic group life among Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes in Washington, this chapter has emphasized patterns found in names, marriage, language, and religion. In a different ethnic setting— such as among Croats in Pittsburgh, Slovenes in

Cleveland, Serbs in Chicago, or Dalmatian Croats in San Pedro--much more attention would be paid to such areas as artistic and folklife 340

media as indicators of ethnic identity maintenance, since these areas and their ethnic populations are much more directly, connected to and rooted in the rural areas of Yugoslavia from which South

Slavic folk traditions originated.

While a group-wide expansion of this study around specified areas of decision-making may be appealing, another and very different avenue of investigation also appears worthwhile. This approach would involve selecting a limited number of interviewees on the basis of certain demographic variables (sex and age, generation, education, occupation, residential patterns, marital patterns, etc.) and developing for each interviewee an extensive life history, with particular attention directed to critical decisions he has made affecting his ethnic identity. While material comparable to that gathered from the 56 ethnic identity interviewees in this study would be collected regarding historical, demographic, societal, organizational, and familial incentives and constraints on decision­ making, the individual dimension would be much more fully explored than has been possible within the scope of this study.

This is not to say that insufficient attention was given in this research to collating information on all six domains of incentives and constraints, including individual, for particular interviewees; but it was clear that those individual ethnic identity profiles could not be included in this presentation without revealing the identity of the interviewees under discussion. Because of the small size of the Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian populations in 341

Washington, individuals can be readily identified on the basis of

even such fundamental information as place of birth, generation, and

occupation. Accordingly, no ethnic identity profiles were included,

since anonymity had been promised to each interviewee. In order to

undertake additional research keyed to the use of extensive life

histories, researcher and interviewee alike would require full

agreement and understanding on the necessity to reveal the identity

of the interviewee. Clearly, this would have a bearing on the

nature of the information subsequently developed; the risk involved

in such an approach is that the candor of interviewees, essential

for an accurate understanding of the influences on ethnic identity,

could be compromised by apprehension about what might happen when the

individual's life history eventually saw the light of day.

Recognizing this risk, however, it still strikes me as self-

evident that further research along these lines could prove

illuminating and valuable. There is much to be gained from

developing understanding in greater depth of the individual dimension

in decision-making. Ultimately, reinforcement of ethnic identity is

a highly personal matter, subject to influences which can never be

adequately e;q>lored when they are treated on a macrocosmic and thereby

depersonalized scale. The saving grace of individuals functioning in

a bewildering mazeworld of incentives and constraints is that they

remain capable of making uniquely personal decisions for uniquely personal reasons. 342

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR ETHNIC IDENTITY STUDY

Name of interviewee: Location of interview: Date(s) of interview; Time: Number of people interviewed during session: Relationship to interviewee: Other people present:

I. Background of interviewee.

Topics covered: Family members* locations, ages, occupations, education, marital status, place of birth, ethnic and religious affiliation.

A. Interviewee: 1. Name 2. Ethnic affiliation 3. Address 4. Telephone 5. Generation in America 6. Age B. Household: 1. Number of members 2. Names 3. Ages 4. Relationship to interviewee 5. Type of home (apartment, house) C. Summary of interviewee’s background: 1. Full name 2. Birthplace 3. Birthdate 4. Present or primary occupation throughout life 5. Highest educational level 6. Present marital status 7. Year immigrated to the United States 8. Year came to Washington 9. Citizenship status D. Father of interviewee: 1. Full name 2. Birthplace 3. Birthdate 4. Present or primary occupation throughout life 343

5. Highest educational level 6. Ethnic affiliation 7. Present residence E. Mother of interviewee: 1. Full name 2. Birthplace 3. Birthdate 4. Present or primary occupation throughout life 5. Highest educational level 6. Ethnic affiliation 7. Present residence F. Brothers and sisters of interviewee: 1. Full names 2. Birthplaces 3. Birthdates 4. Spouses' ethnic affiliation 5. Present residences 6. Spouse of interviewee: 1. Full name 2. Birthplace 3. Birthdate 4. Present or primary occupation throughout life 5. Highest educational level 6. Ethnic affiliation 7. Religious affiliation H. Children of interviewee: 1. Names 2. Birthplaces 3. Birthdates 4. Marital status 5. Year immigrated to the United States 6. Religious affiliation 7. Present residences

II. Demographic history of the family.

Topics covered: Dates, locations, and family members involved in movement from Yugoslavia (or other states) to the united States and Washington. Reasons for endgrating and conditions of migration.

A. Emigration from Yugoslavia and Europe: 1. First family member to eitdgrate a. Date b. From where to where 2. Members of that Immediate family who followed a. Dates b. From where to where 3. Family members remaining in Yugoslavia (nuclear and extended) a. Relationship to interviewee b. Present location 344

4. Those family members who have returned to Yugoslavia a. Dates 5. Primary reason interviewee or first family member emigrated 6. Primary reason for selecting the United States to emigrate to 7. Previous contacts interviewee or family had in the United States who were helpful 8. Length of wait for documents for leaving and entering B. Immigration into the United States (for first generation): 1. Port of entry 2. Sponsor a. Family member, acquaintance, of unfamiliar person b. Location of sponsor 3. Type of visa 4. Act of Congress entered under 5. Earliest contacts upon arrival a. Family b. Friends c. New acquaintances 6. Location of first residence in the United States a. Reasons for going there b. Work c. Length of stay d. Feelings about it as a place to live and work e. How much help from other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes* living there f. Was it a Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian neighborhood or section of a neighborhood? C. 1. Places you have lived in the United States a. Dates 2. Reasons for moving to Washington 3. Section of Washington first lived in a. Reason for moving there b. Were there other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes there then too? c. Reason for moving elsewhere 4. Do many Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes live in your present neighborhood? 5. How does Washington compare with other American cities you have lived in for a. Work and educational conveniences? b. Contacts with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes? 6. How frequently are you in contact with Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in other American cities? a. What occasions 7. What would be your first choice of an American city or region to live in? a. Why? D. Contacts with family and friends in Yugoslavia: 1. How frequently do you write or telephone to family or friends?

♦Depending on the ethnic identity of the interviewee, one of the ethnic groups or languages was referred to throughout the interview. 345

2. Have you returned or visited for the first time or do you plan to visit Yugoslavia? a. When? b. Where? c. Reasons for going

III. Family, marriage, and social network.

Topics covered: Family ties in the Washington area and other parts of the United States; family saints' days and name days; meaning of terra "family') godparenthood; marriage patterns; friendship and social networks in Washington among Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

A. Feunily ties: 1. Members of family living in area a. Relationship 2. Other family members living in the United States a. Relationship 3. Frequency of family visits in Washington a. Types of occasions 4. Frequency of family visits to other parts of the United States a. Types of occasions 5. Family patron day; name day of interviewee 6. The meaning of the English term "family" a. Most comparable term (or terms) in Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian b. Meaning of those terms 7. Who in your family has godparents or is a godparent? a. Location of godparents to family members b. Frequency of visits c. Ethnic background of godparents d. Are the godparents to family members considered to be "like being a member of the feunily," actually family members, or friends? 8. Who lived in your household when you were growing up? 9. What do you think is different about the Serbian, Croatiein, or Slovenian feunily in the United States that does or doesn’t distinguish it from other American families? B. Marriage: 1. How convenient or inconvenient is it for Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes vdio live in Washington to find other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes to marry, if that is their wish? 2. What are your feelings about either your children or other Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian young people marrying within their own ethnic group? 3. How important do you think marriage within the ethnic group is for maintaining ethnic identity? a. Do you know of any examples of such situations? 4. What ways do unmarried Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington have to meet Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in other American cities? 346

5. In those instances that you know of, if a Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian woman marries a non-Serbian, -Croatian, or -Slovenian man, vAiat are the chances that the children will be raised within a Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian tradition and what do you see usually happening in such cases? C. Social network: 1. Who do you consider to be your best friends in Washington? a. Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes, non-Serbs, -Croats, -Slovenes, or a mixture of both? 2. How often do you meet socially with the people you work with? 3. What types of social gatherings do you attend with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington? a. How frequently? b. Where are they held?., c. What kinds of activities are included? 4. Do you feel that you have more in common socially with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes? a. In what way? 5. Do your children have any Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian friends their age? a. How often do they get together? b. For what occasions? 6. What kinds of social contacts do you have with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in the United States? 7. Where do you think most Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes gather together socially in Washington? 8. What advantages and disadvantages do you think a city such as Washington has for the maintenance of strong Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian ties?

IV. Naming patterns in the family.

Topics: Original surname; changes in names in the United States; traditional patterns of naming children.

A. Surnames : 1. What was the family surname vdien you or your family left Yugoslavia? 2. If it is different from what it is now, when and why was it changed? 3. Changes in spelling or pronunciation 4. Under what circumstances do you think Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in the United States have changed their names? 5. Did your family have a second family surname in Yugoslavia? B. Christian names: 1. What is the traditional pattern for naming children in your family? 2. Was your name Anglicized in the United States? 3. How often do Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington give their children traditional Serbian, Croaticui, or 347

Slovenian names? a. Do you know of such cases?

V. Educational and occupational history

Topics covered: Educational and work experience in the United States and Yugoslavia.

A. Schools attended and graduated from: 1. Elementary 2. Secondary 3. Higher or college 4. Graduate B. Occupation in Yugoslavia and the United States of first family member to imnd.grate: C. Interviewee's previous occupations in the ikiited States and Yugoslavia: D. Usefulness of educational background and work experience to present occupation: 1. When you immigrated to the United States, what kind of work did you hope to get a job in? 2. Are there any other occupations you would prefer to work in now? 3. Have you considered taking further schooling? a. In what areas? 4. How did you decide to work in your present occupation? a. Do you know of any other Serb, Croat, or Slovene in Washington working in the same occupation? b. In your work, what kind of contact do you have with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes? c. Do you belong to any business or professional associ­ ations or labor unions? 5. If you were to generalize, what kinds of occupations would you say that other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington tend to work in?

VI. Membership in associations and organizations.

Topics covered: Ethnic and non-ethnic memberships. A. Which Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian organizations do you belong to? 1. Do they have chapters in Washington? 2. What kinds of activities do they sponsor? 3. How frequently do you participate in those activities? 4. Which are church related? 5. What publications do they sponsor or support? 6. How long have you been a member? 7. Which other family members participate? 8. Would you like it if there were more Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian organizations or associations in Washington? a. How likely do you think such groups would be organized in the near future? 348

B. What non-ethnic organizations or associations in Washington are you a member of?

VII. Language usage and reading habits.

Topics covered: Language learning, importance of language in ethnic identity; outlook on bilingualism; reading in native language.

A. Interviewee's language learning and usage: 1. What was the first language you learned as a child? a. Was this language the native tongue of one or both or your parents? b. What other languages did you speak or hear spoken in the home, neighborhood, or church before going to school? c. By the time you went to school, what languages did you speak or understand? 2. American born English speakers. a. Throughout your life in what situations have you heard Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian spoken? 1. How well were you able to understand and converse in it? b. Did your parents speak, read, and write it fluently? c. How much did your parents encourage you and your sisters and brothers to speak, read, and write in it? d. Did you ever study it in school? e. When do you now hear it spoken? f. Does your spouse speak it? 1. Children? 2. If so, how did they l e a m it? g. What was your attitude when you were growing up and then as an adult toward learning and using Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian? h. How would your rate your ability to speak, read, write in Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian now? 1. Can you read in Cyrillic? 3. Yugoslav born Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian speakers a. Before coming to the United States what situations did you speak English in? b. When and where did you study English? c. For what reasons? d. How would you rate your ability to speak, read, write English when you came to this country? e. How was the transition from Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian to English? f. In what situations do you now converse in Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian? g. Can you read equally well in Latin andCyrillic alphabets? 349

4. American and Yugoslav b o m a. What language would you say is your primary language or the one you feel most comfortable speaking, reading? 1. Which language do you count in? b. Which languages do you now understand, speak, read, write? c. Which language would you prefer your children to learn first or which language did you already encourage your children to learn first? d. Do you think that it is possible for most pre-school children to be able to handle learning at least two languages well at the same time? e. Do you think that the ability to speak and read in Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian is important for maintaining ethnic identity among Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in the United States? 1. If so, what would you suggest as the most effective and convenient means for children to l e a m the native language in Washington? B. Interviewee's reading habits: 1. What magazines, periodicals, newspapers do you regularly subscribe to or regularly read? a. Which of these are written in Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian? b. Which are published by a Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian ethnic organization? c. Do any come from Yugoslavia? 2. Have you ever used the Slavic reading room at the Library of Congress? a. For what purposes? b. How frequently? 3. How often do you read popular or scholarly literature dealing with Yugoslavia? a. On what kinds of topics? 4. Are there any recently-published books about Yugoslavia you would recommend to others to read?

VIII. Religion.

Topics covered: Religion as a focus of ethnic identity; Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian church organizations in Washington.

A. Present religious affiliation: 1. Religion raised in as a child 2. Membership in which parish in the United States a. Length of membership b. Frequency of attendance c. Does the whole family attend together? d. What non-religious activities in the church are you involved in? 350

3. If you were not a member of this parish in Washington, how much contact do you think you would have with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes? 4. What are your feelings about your children or other Serbian, Croatian, or Slovenian children marrying within the same religion? 5. What role do you think your religion has played and plays now in the ethnic identity for you and your family?

IX. A. Politics.

Topics covered: Attitudes regarding politics in America, in Yugoslavia and attitudes regarding the involve­ ment of ethnic groups in American politics.

A. Political discussions with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington : 1. When you get together with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in Washington, how much do you like to discuss political issues? 2. Do you personally prefer to talk mainly about American or Yugoslav politics or both? 3. How much do you usually find yourself in agreement on these issues with other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes? 4. Do you prefer the stands or ^guments of a particular American political party? a. Do you think that this is the same position of other Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes whom you know? B. Political involvement: 1. How much do you ever get directly involved in American politics? 2. What recent issues have you been most interested in? 3. Did you watch any of the Watergate Hearings when they were being televised? 4. Do you have any particular feelings about how the political situation should be changed in Yugoslavia? C. Politics and ethnicity: 1. Should ethnicity become a greater or lesser concern in American politics? 2. Would you like to see more Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes getting directly involved in American politics as Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes? a. What kinds of stands do you think they would take? 351

APPENDIX B

LIPE-HISTORY INTERVIEW TOPICS

A. Special characteristics of Serbs, Croats, or Slovenes in community interviewee grew up in.

B. Experiences in the transition from place of birth and early child­ hood to new communities throughout life.

C. Special skills, abilities, or interests of the interviewee.

D. Observcmce of holidays and family celebrations of the family of orientation and continuity into adult life.

E. Distinctive qualities in the preparation and eating of meals.

F. Customs of shopping in the family.

G. Recreation and leisure time activities of the family and among individual members.

H. General ethnic learning experiences within the family, in school, and among friends during different stages of life.

I. Language usage at home and outside the home.

J. Impact of visits to Yugoslavia upon the individual's sense of ethnic identity.

K. Perceptions about the meaning of "ethnic identity, " and the options society makes available in the maintenance or discontinuity of ethnic identity in the interviewee's life style. 352

APPENDIX C

SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERVIEWEES*

I. Sex and age

A. Women...... 25 (total) B. Men 31 (total) 16-25...... 3 16-25...... 3 26-35...... 7 26-35...... 4 36-45...... 9 36-45...... 8 46-60* *.*>.•*..5 46-60...... 11 61+...... 1 61+...... 5

II. Generation in America

A. First generation (An individual who emigrated to the United States and whose parents were not already here)...... 35

B. Second generation

(1) An individual who was born in Yugoslavia and who followed or accompanied parents to the United States before reaching adulthood...... 5

(2) An individual who was b o m outside of Yugoslavia and the United States of at least one Yugoslav-born parent who followed or accompanied parents to the United States before reaching adulthood...... 3

(3) An individual who was b o m in the United States of at least one Yugoslav-born parent ^ o had emigrated to the United States...... 2 (total) 18

C. Third generation

(An individual born in the Ihiited States of parents whose parents had emigrated from Yugoslavia or of mixed peirentage or grandparentage)...... 3

*The total number of people interviewed using the Ethnic Identity Interview is 56, including five spouses and three children of the interviewees, making a total of 48 different families. 353

III. Ethnic ascription of interviewees

A. SerbicUi...... 25 B. Croatian...... 14 C. Slovenian...... 12 D. Serbian and Croatian...... 2 E. Montenegrin...... 1 F. Russian...... 1 G. Yugoslav...... 1

IV. Religious affiliation as a child V. Present religious affiliation

A. Serbian Orthodox...... 23 A. Serbian Orthodox...... 22 B. Roman Catholic...... 27 B. Roman Catholic...... 26 C. Episcopalian...... 2 C. Episcopalian...... 4 D. Moslem 1 D. Agnostic...... 3 E. Russian Orthodox...... 1 E. Russian Orthodox...... 1 F. Greek Orthodox...... 1 G. Roman Catholic and Orthodox.. .1

VI. Marriage patterns

A. Serb married to a Serb...... 9 B. Croat married to a Croat...... 6 C. Slovene married to a Slovene...... 3 D. Serb married to cui American...... 5 E. Croat married to an American...... 4 F. Slovene married to an American...... 2 G. Serb married to another foreign-bom...... 4 H. Ethnically mixed South Slavic marriage...... 4 I. Unmarried...... 13 J. Divorced, widowed, widowered...... 6

VII. Time of currival in the United States

A. Before World War 1...... 10 B. Between World WarI and II...... 1 C. 1941-1945...... 1 D. 1946-1950...... 11 E. 1951-1955...... 8 F. 1956-1960...... 6 G. 1961-1965...... 7 H. 1966-1970...... 9 I. 1971-1974...... 3 354

VIII. Reasons for immigrating to the United States*

A. To escape the Austro-Hungarian draft before World War I ...... 2 B. Economic opportunity before World War 1...... 8 C. Economic opportunity betzween World War I and World War II...... 1 D. TO escape World War II vdiile it was in process...... 1 E. As part of a "government in exile" in the 1940's...... 2 F. Prisoners of weur cuid refugees in 1940's and 1950's ...... 16 G. Politûcal reasons in 1960 ' s and 1970's...... 6 H. Economic opportunities in 1960's and 1970's...... 9 I. Educational opportunities after World War II...... 3 J. Religious freedom...... 1 K. Married to an American...... 6 L. Curiosity and adventure (after World War II) ...... 1

IX. Occupation of family in Yugoslavia in the qeneratm.on before emigration

A. Agriculture 1. Peasant farmiug...... 16 2. Commercial farming...... 4 B. Maritime...... 3 C. Blue collar work...... 4 O. Service work...... 1 E. Military andthe government 1. Military officers...... 2 2. Government officials (politicians)..... 3 3. Civil servcUits...... 5 F. Merchant...... 6 G. Professional 1. Teaching...... 4 2. Law...... 4 3. Medicine...... 2 4. Engineering...... 1

X. Occupation in the ttaited States of the first family member tx> immigrate

A. Commercial farming...... 2

*Either the interviewee's reason or, in the case of second and third generation interviewees, the original family member's reason for immigrating is given. 355

B. Blue collar work 1. Coal mining...... 3 2. Boilermaker...... 1 3. Machinist...... 1 4. Maintenance and repair...... 1 5. Freight inspector...... 1 6. Construction and painting...... 1 7. Factory work...... 1 C. Service work 1. Nursing...... 1 2. Seamstress...... 1 3. Waitress...... 1 4. Secretarial/clerical/accounting...... 1 D. Business 1. Restaur an teers...... 3 2. Grocery store owner...... 1 E. Graduate student...... 4 F. Housewife...... 2 G . Professional 1. Teaching...... 1 2. Government langt^ge teachers...... 4 3. Law...... 3 4. Medicine...... 6 5. Engineering...... 2 6. Interpreters/translators...... 4 7. Resecurch...... 4 8. Journalism...... 1 9. Priesthood...... 2 10. Architecture...... 1 11. Mathematician...... 1 12. Librarian...... 1 13. Foreign affairs...... 1

XI, Primary occupation of interviewee in Washington

A. Blue collar work 1. Construction and painting...... 1 B. Services 1. Nursing...... 3 2. Seamstress...... 1 3. Waitress...... 1 C. Clerical..... 3 D. Military...... 1 E. Restaurant owner...... 3 F. Student 1. Undergraduate...... 3 2. Graduate...... 4 G. Housewife...... 4 H. Professional 1. Teaching...... 3 2. Government languageinstruction ...... 3 356

3. Law...... 2 4. Medicine...... 5 5. Engineering...... 1 6. Interpreting/translating...... 4 7. Government research...... 2 8. Research in libraries...... 5 9. Journalism...... 2 10. Priesthood...... 2 11. Architecture...... 1 12. Economics...... 1 13. Foreign affairs...... 1

XII. Amount of schooling completed

A. Elementary school orless (8 years)...... 2 B. High school or its equivalent...... 2 C. Nursing school...... 3 D. Secretarial school...... 1 E. Architectural school...... 1 F. College credits...... 7 G. Bachelor's degree...... 15 H. Master's degree...... 11 I. Post-graduate degree in law...... 3 J. Post-graduate degree inministry ...... 2 K. M.D...... 5 L. Ph.D...... 4 357

APPENDIX D

FAMILY ORIGIN OF ETHNIC IDENTITY INTERVIEWEES

Location Community type Number of Interviewees

Slovenia Maribor city 3 Kranj city 1 Ljubljana city 1 Northeastern Slovenia village 1 Between Ljubljana and Maribor village 1 Outside of Ljubljana village 3 Near Italian border village 1 East of Postojna village 1

Croatia Zagreb city 3 Zadar city 1 Karlovac city 1 Glina town 1 Bjelovar town 1 Varazdin town 1 Southern island town 1 Near Rijeka town 1 Suscik town 1 Northeastern Croatia village 1 Near Bjelovar village 1 Kordun village 1 Lika village 3 Central island village 1 Above Split village 1

Bosnia-Hercegovina Near Travnik village 1 Near Serbia village 1

Montenegro Above Boka Kotorska village

Vojvodina Sremska Mitrovica town 1 Srera village 1 358

Location Community type Number of Interviewees

Serbia Belgrade city 12 Sabac city 3 Kragujevac city 1 Nis city 1 Obrenovac town 1 Middle Serbia village 2 359

APPENDIX E

PERSONS DESIGNATING SERBO-CROATION AND SLOVENIAN AS THE MOTHER TONGUE, BY CITY, 1970

Standard Metropolitan Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Statistical Area Number Percent Number Percent

Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, California First generation 352 24.0 51 23.0 Second generation 926 63.5 126 57.0 Third and beyond generations 182 12.5 45 20.0 TOTALS 1460 100.0 222 100.0

Boston, Massachusetts First generation 174 42.0 23 31.0 Second generation 178 43.0 51 69.0 Third and beyond generations 62 15.0 0 00.0 TOTALS 414 100.0 74 100.0

Buffalo, New York First generation 641 26.0 101 53.0 Second generation 1499 61.0 83 44.0 Third and beyond generations 312 13.0 __6 3.0 TOTALS 2452 100.0 190 100.0

Chicago, Illinois First generation 12,497 43.0 1,947 28.0 Second generation 14,054 49.0 4,528 64.0 Third and beyond generations 256 8.0 555 8.0 TOTALS 28,807 100.0 7,030 100.0

Cleveland, Ohio First generation 6,208 45.0 5,374 24.0 Second generation 6,721 49.0 14,055 63.0 Third and beyond generations 767 6.0 2,955 13.0 TOTALS 13,696 100.0 22,384 100.0

Detroit, Michigan First generation 4,706 39.0 310 19.0 Second generation 6,381 52.0 1,182 74.0 Third and beyond generations 1,040 9.0 108 7.0 TOTALS 12,127 100.0 1,600 100.0

Jersey City, New Jersey First generation 1,424 75.0 6 8.0 Second generation 471 25.0 40 52.0 Third and beyond generations 1± 0.0 31 40.0 TOTALS 1,909 100.0 77 100.0 360

Standard Metropolitan Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Statistical Area Number Percent Number Percent

Los Angeles-Long Beach, California First generation 6,286 44.0 527 27.0 Second generation 6,700 47.0 1,229 64.0 Third and beyond generations 1,349 9.0 178 9.0 TOTALS 14,335 100.0 1,934 100.0

Miami, Florida First generation 241 37.0 65 28.0 Second generation 322 50.0 141 61.0 Third and beyond generations 85 13.0 24 11.0 TOTALS 648 100.0 230 100.0

Milwaukee, Wisconsin First generation 2,471 37.0 773 22.0 Second generation 3,659 55.0 2,585 72.0 Third and beyond generations ' 539 8.0 226 6.0 TOTALS 6,669 100.0 3,584 100.0

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. First generation 240 18.0 40 6.0 Second generation 790 60.0 471 65.0 Third and beyond generations 294 22.0 207 29.0 TOTALS 1,328 100.0 718 100.0

New York, New York First generation 10,358 67.0 986 49.0 Second generation 4,841 31.0 868 44.0 Third and beyond generations 368 2.0 137 7.0 TOTALS 15,562 100.0 1,991 100.0

Newark, New Jersey First generation 517 51.0 70 31.0 Second generation 404 40.0 150 66.0 Third and beyond generations 94 9.0 __ 6 3.0 TOTALS 1,015 100.0 226 100.0

Patterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey First generation 1,237 62.0 39 20.0 Second generation 761 38.0 131 68.0 Third and beyond generations 7 0.0 23 12.0 TOTALS 2,005 100.0 193 100.0

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania First generation 1,073 45.0 88 26.0 Second generation 1,137 48.0 211 61.0 Third and beyond generations 175 7.0 46 13.0 t o t a l s 2,385 100.0 345 100.0 361

Standard Metropolitan Serbo-Croatian Slovenian Statistical Area Number Percent Number Percent

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania First generation 4,224 16.5 1,145 19.0 Second generation 18,005 69.5 4,297 72.0 Third and beyond generations 3,616 14^0 537 9.0 TOTALS 25,845 100.0 5,979 100.0

Providence-Pawtucket- Warwick, Rhode Island First generation 24 25.0 0 0.0 Second generation 66 69.0 39 100.0 Third and beyond generations _j5 6.0 0 o. Q TOTALS 96 100.0 39 100.0

San Diego, California First generation 530 39.0 85 30.0 Second generation 713 53.0 187 65.0 Third and beyond generations 106 8.0 15 5.0 TOTALS 1,349 100.0 287 100.0

San Francisco-Oakland California First generation 1,756 35.0 337 24.0 Second generation 2,721 55.0 991 72.0 Third and beyond generations 506 10.0 54 4.0 TOTALS 4,983 100-0 1,382 100.0

San Jose, California First generation 939 34.0 55 16.0 Second generation 1,532 56.0 236 70.0 Third and beyond generations 284 10.0 48 14.0 TOTALS 2,755 100.0 339 100.0

Seattle-Everett, Washington First generation 447 24.0 136 30.0 Second generation 1,228 65.0 276 62.0 Third auid beyond generations 200 11.0 33 8.0 TOTALS 1,875 100.0 478 100.0

Washington, D. C. First generation 495 28.0 74 14.0 Second generation 980 56.0 364 68.0 Third and beyond generations 273 16.0 100 18.0 TOTALS 1,748 100.0 538 100.0

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Table 15. 362 APPENDIX F

MEDIAN SCHOOL YEARS COMPLETED BY FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION YUGOSLAV-AMERICANS, BY CITY, 1970

Standard Metropolitan First generation Second generation Statistical Area Male Female Male Female

Anaheim-Santa Ana, Garden Grove, California 12.6 7.7 13.0 12.4

Boston, Massachusetts 15.1 13.2 * 12.9

Buffalo, New York 7.8 7.1 11.7 12.0

Chicago, Illinois 8.6 8.1 12.1 12.0

Cleveland, Ohio 8.4 7.5 11.7 11.7

Detroit, Michigan 8.2 7.5 12.1 12.2

Jersey City, New Jersey 7.3 7.1 12.0 11.2

Los Angeles-Long Beach, California 10.6 8.3 12.6 12.4

Miami, Florida 9.2 12.1 12.6 12.3

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 8.4 7.4 12.3 12.2

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 9.3 12.1 12.8 12.6

New York, New York 8.9 8.5 12.6 12.3

Newark, New Jersey 12.1 8.1 12.3 12.4

Patterson-Clifton-Passaic, New Jersey 8.7 8.2 12.3 12.3

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 8.5 8.4 12.3 12.1

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 6.3 5.8 11.6 11.3

Providence-Pawtucket-Warwick, Rhode Island * * * *

San Diego, California 11.1 8.6 12.6 12.4

*Data is obtained on the basis of grouping of school years completed (i.e., 5-7, 9-11, etc.) and the median is, therefore, not calculable. 363

Standard Metropolitan First generation Second generation Statistical Area Male Female Male Female

San Francisco-Oakland, California 10.0 8.5 12.6 12.4

San Jose, California 8.9 8.3 12.8 12.5

Seattle-Everett, Washington 8.6 8.6 12.4 12.4

Washington, D.C. 16.0+ 12.6 15.3 12.7

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report, Table 15. PRONUNCIATION GUIDE TO CERTAIN CONSONANTS IN SERBO-CROATIAN AND SLOVENIAN

C, c Pronounced as ts in pots^ matBj bits,

’''îC, c Palatized or "soft" form of £" pronounced similar to t In pasture.

C, £ "Hard" £; pronounced as oh In ahuroh and match.

*Dj, dj Voiced form of c and soft form of d2” pronounced as dg \n bridge,

*Dz, d5 Voiced form of £ and hard dz; pronounced as j In 3am and gudge.

H, h Slightly different from English h. Scraping sound of k, much like German aah^ but less scraping.

J, j Pronounced as 2/ year.

*Lj, Ij "Soft" Z; pronounced as Zi In mitZion and biZZiard.

*Nj, nj Palatized or soft n; pronounced as In canyon.

R, r Trilled sound, occurring also as a vowel; more similarity to German than English r; pronounced similar to the r in three.

5, § Pronounced as sA in ahieZdy ahout^ huah.

2, 2 Voiced form of 5" pronounced as a In mec^ure orZeiaure,

^Consonants not occurring in Slovenian script.

3 6 4 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

AI bln, Alexander and Ronelle Alexander 1972 The Speech of Yugoslav Immigrants In San Pedro, California The Hague; Martlnus Nljhoff.

Andric, Ivo 1962 The Bridge on the Drlna. New York: The New American Library. 1966 The Woman from Sarajevo. London: Calder and Boyars.

Arnez, John A. 1966 SloveneI v New Yorku (Slovenes In New York). New York: Stud la Slovenlca. 1971 Slovenian Community In Bridgeport, Connecticut. New York: Stud I a Slovenlca.

Babies, Walter Vladimir 1964 Assimilation of Yugoslavs In Franklin County Ohio. San Fran­ cisco: R and E Research Associates.

Bajurin, Ruza 1964 Architecture, Sculpture and Painting. In Croatia: Land, People, Culture. Francis H. Eterovlch and Christopher Spalatin, Eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Balch, Emily Greene 1910 Our Slavic Fellow Citizens. New York: Arno Press, Inc.

Barac, Antun 1955 A History of Yugoslav Literature. The Joint Committee on Eastern Europe: Publication Series Number 1.

Baric, Lorraine 1967 Levels of Change In Yugoslav Kinship. In Social Organization. Maurice Freedman, Ed. London: Cass.

Barth, Fredrik 1966 Models of Social Organization. Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper No. 2 3. 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

BauSlc, Ivo 1974 Yugoslavia as a Country of Emigration. Committee for Inter­ national Coordination of National Research In Demography. 1974 Proceedings; 254-265.

365 366

Bengelsdorf, Winnie 1972 Ethnic Studies in Higher Education: State of the Art and Bibliography. Washington, D: C:: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Benson, Morton 1971 Serbocroatlan-EnglIsh Dictionary. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bi£anlc, Rudolf 1967 Problems of Planning. New York: Humanities Press.

Brentar, Joseph C. 1951 The Social and Economic Adjustment of the Croatian Displaced Persons In Cleveland Compared with That of the Earlier Croatian Immigrants. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates.

Colakovic, Branko Ml ta 1973 Yugoslav Migrations to America. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates.

Croatia Press 1973 World Congress of the Croatian Peasant Party. Croatia Press XXVI (3): 27-30.

Cvljlc, Jovan 1918 La Penlnsule Balkanique: Géographie Humaine. Paris: Libraire Armond Colin.

Dj I las, Milovan 1974 Memoirs of a Revolutionary. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovlch.

Dvornlk, Francis 1962 The Slavs in European History and Civilization. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Ehrllch, Vera St. 1966 Family In Transition. Princton, New Jersey: Princeton Univer­ sity Press.

Erlkson, Erik 1959 Identity and the Life Cycle. Psychological Issues No. 1.

Eterovlch, Adam S. 1971 Croat I ans from Dalmatia and Montenegrins In the West and South 1800-1900. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates. 1973 Yugoslavs In Nevada 1859- 1900. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates. 367

Eterovlch, Francis H. and Christopher Spalatin, Eds. 1964 Croatia: Land, People, Culture. Volume I. Tornoto: Univer- : sity of Toronto Press. 1970 Croatia: Land, People, Culture. Volume il: Toronto: Univer­ sity of Toronto Press.

Fellcijan, Joseph 1967 The Genesis of Contractual Theory and the installation of the Dukes of Carlnthia. Klagenfurt, Austria.

Feinstein, Otto, Ed. 1970 Ethnic Groups In the City. Lexington, Massachusetts: D: C: Heath and Company.

Fishman, Joshua 1966 Language Loyalty In the United States. The Hague: Mouton and Company.

Fitzgerald, Thomas K., Ed. 1974 Social and Cultural identity: Problems of Persistence and Change. Southern Anthropological Society.

Gazi, Stephen 1956 Croatian immigration to Allegheny County 1882- 1914. Pittsburgh: Croatian Fraternal Union of America.

GazI, Stephen 1973 A History of Croatia. New York: Philosophical Library, Inc.

Froth Ingham, Helen Losanitch 1972 Mission for Serbia: Letters from America and Canada 1915- 1920. New York: Walker and Company.

Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Patrick Moynlhan 1963 Beyond the Melting Pot. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Gobetz, Giles Edward 1975 Slovenian Americans in Greater Cleveland. Willoughby Hilss, Ohio: Slovenian Research Center of America.

Goffman, Ervlng 1963 Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentlce-Hal1 1971 Relations In Public. New York: Basic Books, inc.

Goodman, Mary Ellen 1967 The Individual and Culture. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press. 1968 influences on Childhood and Adolescence. In The Study of Per­ sonality. dward Norbeck, Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 368

Gordon, Milton 1964 Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York; Oxford University Press.

Govorchin, G. G. 1961 Americans from Yugoslavia. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.

Greeley, Andrew M. 1974 Ethnicity in the United States: A Preliminary Reconnaissance. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Greene, Victor 1968 The Slavic Community on Strike: Immigrant Labor In Pennsyl­ vania Anthracite. South Bend, Indiana; University of Notre Dame Press.

Grgurevlch, Nedeljko 1969 St. Sava: His Life and Work. In The Serbian Orthodox Church through 750 Years. Cleveland, Ohio: Serbian Orthodox Eastern American and Canadian Diocese.

Guldescu, Stanko 1964 Political History to 1526. In Croatia: Land, People, Culture. Francis H. Eterovlch and Christopher Spalatin, Eds. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Halpern, Joel 1967 A Serbian Village. New York: Harper Colophon Books. 1969 Modernization In an Ethnically Diverse State. Jn"Contemporary Yugoslavia. Wayne S. Vuclnlch, Ed. Berkeley: University of CalIfornia Press.

Hammel, Eugene 1968 Alternative Social Structures and Ritual Relations in the Balkans. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentlce-Hal1.

Heppell, Muriel and F. B. Singleton 1961 Yugoslavia. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Herskovits, Melville 1964 ^Cultural Anthropology. New York: Knopf.

Hoffman, George 1963 The Balkans In Transition. Princeton, New Jersey: 0. Van Nostrand Co., Inc. 1972 Regional Development Strategy in Southeast Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and Yugoslavia. New York: Praeger.

Isajlw, Wsevolod W. 1974 Definitions of Ethnicity. Ethnicity 1: 111-124. 369

Jelavich, Charles and Barbara Jelavlch, Eds. 1963 The Balkans In Transition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jukic, lllja 1974 The Fall of Yugoslavia. New York; Harcourt Press.

KeSkemet, DuSko 1969 Ivan MeStrovic. Split and Zagreb; MeStrovIc Gallery and Spektar.

Keely, Charles B. 1974 Immigration Composition and Population Policy. Science 185: 587-593.

KIcovIc, Bozldar 1955 Schools and Education in Yugoslavia. Belgrade: Publicity and Publishing Enterprise.

King, Arden R. 1974 A Stratification of Labyrinths; The Acquisition and Retention of Cultural Identity In Modern Culture. In Social and Cultural Identity. Thomas K. Fitzgerald, Ed. Southern Anthropological Society.

Kluckhohn, Clyde 1952 Values and Value-OrIentatlons In the Theory of Action. In Toward a General Theory of Action. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shi Is, Eds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Kostanick, Huey L. 1963 The Geopolitics of the Balkans. In The Balkans In Transition. Charles Jelavlch and Barbara Jelavlch, Eds. Berkeley: University of California Press.

KrleSa, Miroslav 1970 The Return of Philip Latlnovlch. New York: Vanguard Press. 1972 The Cricket Beneath the Waterfall and Other Stories. New York: Vanguard Press.

Ledbetter, Eleanor 1918 The Jugoslavs of Cleveland. Cleveland, Ohio: Americanization Committee.

Lederer, Ivo J. 1969 Nationalism and the Yugoslavs. In Nationalism In Eastern Europe. Peter F. Sugar and Ivo J. Lederer, Eds. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Levy, Mark R. and Michael S. Kramer 1972 The Ethnic Factor: How America’s Minorities Decide Elections. New York: Simon and Schuster. 370

Lteberson, Stanley 1963 Ethnie Patterns In American Cities. New York: Free Press.

Linton, Ralph 1949 Problems of Status Person!ity. In Culture and Personality. S. Stansfeid Sargent and Marian W. Smith, Eds. New York: Vlking Fund Publications.

Lovrich, Frank 1963 The Social System of a Rural Yugos1av-American Community; OystervI1 le. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates.

Lovrich, Nicholas 1971 Political, Cultural, and Civic Involvement: A Comparative Analysis of Immigrant Ethnic Communities In San Pedro, California. Ph.D. Dissertation In Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles.

Magner, Thomas F. 1967 Language and Nationalism In Yugoslavia. Canadian Slavic Studies i: 333-347.

McClellan, Woodford 1969 Postwar Political Evolution. In Contemporary Yugoslavia. Wayne S. Vuclnlch, Ed. Berkeley; University of California Press.

Mandic, 0. DornInIk 1971 Hrvatl 1 SrbI: Dva Stars Ra2lI£ItI Naroda (Croats and Serbs: Two Ancient, Distinct Nations). Munich and Barcelona: Knjlznlca Hrvatske Rev Ije.

Mary's Shrine 1970 Our Lady of Blstrlca, Queen of Croatia, Pray for Us. XXXI No. 4. 1971 Dedication of The Chapel of Our Lady of Brezje. XXXI I No. 4.

MejaS, Konrad 1955 The Adjustment of Slovenian Displaced Persons In the Metropolitan New York Area. M.A. Thesis In Sociology, St. John's University.

Mel lor, Roy E. H. 1975 Eastern Europe: A Geography of the Comecon Countries. New York: Columbia University Press.

MeStrovic, Ivan 1961 Uspomene na Pol ItISke Ljude 1 Dogadaje (Memoirs of Politicians and Events). Buenos Aires: Knjiznica Hrvatske Revije.

MeStrovic, Matthew 1972 Reviews. Slavic Review 31: 930-931. 371

MIhanovtch, C. S. 1936 Americanization of the Croats in St. Louis, Missouri During the Past Thirty Years. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates.

Mladlneo, Ivan 1937 Narodni Adresar Hrvata, Slovenaca, Srba (National Directory of Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian Organizations, Institutions, Business, Professional, and Social Leaders in the United States and Canada). New York.

Morgan, Dan 1973 Yugoslav Officials Annoyed at WW 11 Resistance Book. The Washington Post. August 19, 1973.

Mosley, Philip 1940 The Peasant Family: The Zadruga or Communal Joint Family In the Balkans, and Its Recent Evolution. In The Cultural Approach to History. Caroline Ware, Ed. New York; Columbia University Press.

NJegoS, Petar Petrovic 1930 The Mountain Wreath. London : Allen and Unwin.

NI land, BIlyanna 1941 Yugoslavs In San Pedro, California: Economic and Social Factors. Sociological and Social Research XXVI : 36-4 1.

Omrcanin, Ivo 1972 Diplomatic and Political History of Croatia. Philadelphia: Dorrance and Co.

Prplc, George J. 1971 The Croatian Immigrants In America. New York: Philosophical Library, Inc.

Raymond, M, 1971 The Man for this Moment: The Life and Death of Aloysius Cardinal Stepinac. New York: Alba House.

Roberts, Walter 1973 Tito, Mlhallovlc and the Allies, 1941/ 1945. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Roucek, Joseph S. 1949 Yugoslavs in America. In Yugoslavia. Robert J. Kerner, Ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Serbian Democratic Forum 1972 Editorial. No. 1.

Shaw, Les ' 1973 Trial by Slander. Canberra, Australia: Harp Books. 372

Shlmahara, Nobuo 1970 Encu1turation-A Reconsideration. Current Anthropology 11; 143-154.

Shoup, Paul 1968 CommunIsm and the Yugoslav National Question. New York: Columbia University Press.

Simic, Andrei 1973 The Peasant Urbanites. New York: Seminar Press.

The Slovenian Chapel Dedication Committee 1971 Slovenian Chapel Dedication. Washington, D.C.

Spindler, George 1968 Psychosocial Adaptation. Jw The Study of Personality. Edward Norbeck, Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Statistical Abstract of the United States 1974 U.S. Department of Commerce: Government Printing Office.

Stipanovich, Joseph 1974 The South Slavs in Utah. San Francisco: R and E Research Assocs.

Stavrianos, L. S. 1963 The Balkans 1815- 1914. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Sulja, N. Dinko 1973 Yugoslavia in Crisis. Croatian American Congress of California.

Tomasevich, Jozo 1969 Yugoslavia During the Second World War. In Contemporary Yugoslavia. Wayne Vuclnlch, Ed. Berkeley: University of California.

TomaSevic, Nebojsa, Ed. 1972 Facts about Yugoslavia. Belgrade: NIP Borba.

Tomich, Vera 1963 Education in Yugoslavia and the New Reform. United States Education Bulletin No. 20.

Trouton, Ruth 1952 Peasant Renaissance In Yugoslavia: 1900- 1950. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1940 Characteristics of the Population. Washington, D.C.:' Govern­ ment Printing Office. i960 Characteristics of the Population. Washington, D.C.: Govern­ ment Printing Office. 1970a Census of the Population, General Social and Economic Character­ istics. Washington, DC.r Government Printing Office. 1970b Census of the Population, National Origin and Language Subject Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 373

Vogt, Evon A. and Ethel M. Albert, Eds. 1966 People of Rimrock: A Study of Values in Five Cultures. Cam­ bridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press.

Vrga, Djuro Jovan 1968 A Study in Ethnic Factionalism-The Schism in the Serbian Orthodox Church in America. Ph.D. Dissertation in Sociology, University of Notre Dame.

Vrga, Djuro J. and Frank J . Fahey 1975 Changes and Socio-Religious Conflict in an Ethnic Minority Group: The Serbian Orthodox Church in America. San Francisco: R and E Research Associates.

Vucinich, Wayne S. Ed. 1969 Contemporary Yugoslavia. Berkeley; University of California Press.

Vujnovich, Milos 1974 Yugoslavs In Louisiana. San Francisco: R and E Research Associ­ ates.

Wallace, Anthony F. C. 1961 Culture and Personality. New York; Random House.

The Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies 1975 Washington Region 74. Washington, D. C.

Weed, Perry L. 1973 The White Ethnic Movement and Ethnic Politics. New York: Praeger.

Wynar, Lubomyr R. 1972 Encyclopedic Directory of Ethnic Newspapers and Periodicals in the United States. Littleton, Colorado: Libraries, Unlimited, inc.