Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature
Pavlína Pintová Czechs in Texas: A Historical Analysis of Czech Language Maintenance among the Early Immigrants and Their Descendents
Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Kateřina Prajznerová, Ph. D. 2009
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. ……………………………………………..
Pavlína Pintová
Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Kateřina Prajznerová, Ph.D. for her kind help, advice and valuable suggestions.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: The Lure of “Krásná Amerika” ...... 1
1.1 Definitions of Important Terms ...... 3
1.2 The Situation in the Czech Lands in the Nineteenth Century ...... 4
1.3 A Profile of the Immigrants and the Characteristic Features of the Czech
Migration ...... 7
1.4 The Harsh Voyage to America ...... 8
1.5 The Czech Settlements in Texas ...... 9
2. Language and Assimilation ...... 11
2.1 The General Situation and the Main Factors Influencing Texas Czech ...... 11
2.2 The Characteristic Features of Texas Czech ...... 13
2.2.1 Language Shift and Language Death ...... 14
2.2.2 Americanization ...... 16
2.3 The Written Cultural Heritage ...... 17
2.3.1 The Czech Press in Texas ...... 17
2.3.2 Other Written Literary Works ...... 25
2.4 Gravestones ...... 26
3. The Influence of Institutions on Language Maintenance ...... 28
3.1 Czech in Texas Schools and Universities ...... 28
3.2 Religion ...... 32
3.3 Czech Clubs and Other Organizations ...... 34
4. Conclusion: Czech in Texas Now and Its Prospects for the Future ...... 40
5. Endnotes ...... 45
6. Appendix……………………………………………………………………...... 48
7. Works Cited……………………………………………………………………..52
1. Introduction: The Lure of “Krásná Amerika”i
Immigration has always been a broadly discussed aspect of American society.
Throughout its history many people from various nations have relocated to America in order to begin a new and better life. This is also the case of Czech and Moravian immigrants who started to come to the the United States in the 1850s (Eva Eckertová
13). Of course some people immigrated before this period but Karel Kučera refers to the relatively small number of these early immigrants (15). “Krásná Amerika” seemed to represent a distant paradise. Oldřich Kašpar comments on the long term interest in
America. He points out that this interest had been strongly influenced by the various travelogues since the early sixteenth century. For instance, Mikuláš Bakalář Štětina’s writing about the “New World” ii from 1506, Zikmund of Púchov’s “Czech
Cosmography” iii from 1554 or Daniel Adam of Veleslavín’s “Historical Calendar” iv of
1578, and later the works of enlightenment authors also concerned with America
(Kašpar 9 12). People from Czech lands immigrated to various parts of the United
States, but according to Eckertová the destination of many of them was predominantly
Texas, Wisconsin, and Iowa (16). I wanted to focus my BA thesis on immigration and my supervisor told me about the Czech Moravian community in Texas. After the primary research I began to discover the rich world of this Czech Moravian community and its history. It seemed unbelievable how these people established themselves on
Texas soil and have managed to preserve their culture for an unusually long time.
However, the topic turned out to be very broad and therefore I decided to explore one important feature of their culture, and that is language. It will be shown that their mother tongue played a key role in the preservation of Czech Moravian identity in
Texas. The language maintenance in the community has been the most enthralling part of the Texas Czech Moravian culture. Not only did it support the cohesion of the
1 immigrant community, it also reflected the degree of assimilation of Texas Czechs. My thesis will trace this gradual assimilation and will tackle the present situation regarding the Czech language in Texas. “Language and social interaction have been generally considered to be indicators of acculturation,” as it is claimed by Kevin M. Chun, Pamela
Balls Organista and Gerardo Marín (71). Although Texas Czechs tried to maintain their language and culture, they could not resist the majority American culture. Sean S.
Gallup notes “a strong institutional base of support: fraternals, mutual aid societies, vernacular press and radio, and now ethnic heritage societies” (107) that have helped to preserve the language. However, a gradual weakening of language use among Czechs in
Texas has been inevitable despite the recently renewed interest in ethnic matters. Apart from language itself, I also focus on the possible influences affecting the language maintenance: that is the press, educational support including schools and universities, and religion, which have played an important role in the preservation of language. As far as my sources are concerned, I would like to thank Lida Dutkova Cope and Eva
Eckert for providing me with their articles on the topic and Clinton Machann for his advice. Together, they enabled me to get an insight into the problematics of language and helped me explore the development and decline of Czech in Texas from the beginning of the main wave of Czech Moravian immigration until today. The works of
Eva Eckert and Lida Dutkova Cope are not paginated because I studied the authors’ versions in the text editor. My main sources include Krásná Amerika by Clinton
Machann and James W. Mendl, which is also a comprehensive history of Czech immigration to Texas, Kameny na prérii and the above mentioned articles by Eva
Eckert and Lida Dutkova Cope’s materials on the topic. Moreover, the structure of my work is similar to some parts of Machann and Mendl’s Krásná Amerika : it includes many areas and it was difficult to avoid certain similarities in the outline although I tried to figure it out on my own. I decided to focus on language and the basis for my work
2 became the chapter named “Czech language, Journalism, and Literature.” Besides these sources I also used some information concerning the issue from the Svoboda newspaper, either drawing on my own notes or on the materials by Eva Eckert.
All in all, Czech has been transplanted into Texan environment and has partly survived until today. The language has been maintained due to the immigrant press such as Svoboda , an unusually long term attempt to preserve Czech in educational facilities, religion and various Czech clubs and organizations concerning Czech issues. Although the communities ceased to be coherent after World War II and the most important piece of Czech journalism in Texas, Svoboda , discontinued, Czech seems to be still surviving and is actively used among the descendents of the immigrants. However, its future is questionable, but when taking into consideration the activities of numerous organizations and individual people as well, and the possibility of teaching Czech at high schools, it is probable that Czech in Texas will be preserved and used for some time.
1.1 Definitions of Important Terms
There are some potentially confusing terms that I use throughout the thesis, therefore I will explain their meaning. I often use ‘Czech’ although it includes Texas
Czechs who predominantly came from Moravia. As it would be awkward to employ phrases such as Moravian Texas Czech etc, I have borrowed the definition of Machann and Mendl that “The term ‘Czech’ will be used to refer to a native of the traditional
Czech regions or homelands: Bohemia, Moravia, and portions of Czech speaking
Silesia” (6). Similarly, Gallup examines this problem and concludes that “the more accurate” expression would be “Texas Czech Moravian” (xi). Presupposing that the reader is now aware of the predominantly northeastern Moravian origin of the Czech immigrants in Texas, I will also refer to ‘Texas Czechs’ v and the ‘Czech language in
3
Texas’ or ‘Texas Czech’ in the same sense. vi Machann and Mendl also comment on the problematics of the different use of spelling and using capital letters in Czech and
English. I mostly use Czech forms of names (e.g. ‘Haidušek’ instead of the americanized form ‘Haidusek’, ‘Mořkovský’ instead of ‘Morkovsky’). Again, when citing Czech names of books and other sources (e.g. Kameny na prérii ), vii I use only the initial capital letter in the title, unlike in English titles.
1.2 The Situation in the Czech Lands in the Nineteenth Century
Kevin Hannan viii reports that “The earliest immigrants arrived in the 1830s and
1840s.” He adds that “at least 80 percent of the total Slav immigration to Texas from
Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia originated in Moravia.” Dutkova Cope sums up the situation by saying that “Distraught by the economic, political, and religious situation in the [nineteenth] century Austro Hungary, ix the ancestors of Texas Czechs began in the mid 1850s their search for more tolerable living conditions in America”
(“Texas Czech”). The whole Europe suffered from “historical conflicts and economic shifts” (Eckert, “The Years of Svoboda ”). Furthermore, the industrial revolution brought about a great distance between the rich and the poor (Eckertová 15). Eckertová further describes the hopeless situation of the common people. As a result of the industrial revolution and the modernization of European society, there was a rapid increase in unemployment and the number of indebted peasants and craftsmen (15). “Czechs came to Texas in the mid 1800s for the same reason as Germans: a search for the freedom and opportunity lacking in their native land” (“The Winedale Story”). Chada refers to the
“internal political crisis in Bohemia which culminated in the abortive Revolution of
1848” (1). The policy of the Austro Hungarian empire led to the suppression of democracy and “feudal obligations and paying manorial dues to the nobility, the state, and the church” (Machann and Mendl 11). The exploitation of the lower strata of
4 society reached such an extent that, according to Machann and Mendl, “[b]y the eighteenth century the church, the state, and the nobility taxed about 70 % of all the peasant earned, raised or grew” (11). What is more, the institution of the so called robota worsened the hard economic conditions of the peasants. They were obliged to devote their labor to the lord and, as Machann and Mendl observe, “[…] these days were taken during the most important periods of the year – during planting and harvesting” (11). Thus the peasants were systematically abused and exploited, which added to their dissatisfaction and to their willingness to leave the country. Machann and
Mendl also mention the humiliating “social obligations” of the peasants for instance, they were forced to express their inferiority in comparison with the nobility by forms of greetings (12). Another reason inciting immigration were the “increasingly overcrowded living conditions” (Machann and Mendl 14). Finally, other elements such as “Czech nationalism, compulsory military service, and religious persecution” significantly influenced the decision to immigrate (Machann and Mendl 15).
At the same time, the experience of other immigrants and numerous advertisements contributed to the increased interest in leaving the country. Konecny and
Machann point out the “correspondence of previous immigrants” (5). For instance,
Reverend Josef Arnošt Bergmann’s letters home “[described] Central Texas as a land of economic opportunity” and thus affected many people’s decision for immigration
(Konecny and Machann 105). The statement of Karel Jonáš x proves the important role of immigrants’ letters: “There can be no question that the emigration from this Empire is, on the whole, free and voluntary, induced undoubtedly in the great majority of cases by the favorable reports written by Austrians residing in the U.S. to the friends at home”
(qtd. in Machann and Mendl 19 20). Another source contributing to immigration were advertisements of various companies that had a financial profit from the immigrants’ arrival, such as Kingsbury, G.H. & S.A. xi (Konecny and Machann 5) or Kareš and
5
Stotzky in Hamburg (Polišenský 27). In short, immigration to the United States became a successful business (Polišenský 27) and many companies involved “advertised Texas to Europeans” (Machann and Mendl 20). One of the examples is G.H. & S.A.’s pamphlet “Texas co cil stěhování” (“Texas as a Destination of Immigration”), which renders an account of the conditions in Texas (Machann and Mendl 20). The Svoboda newspaper also contained advertisements such as that of F. Brodský & Co. that advertises “no interruption by the war” and offers the crossing from Bremen to
Galveston for “mere $ 31.50” (19 January 1899). Simultaneously, these advertisements often were rather deceptive. Texas itself attempted to attract newcomers from Europe.
The Texas Bureau for Immigration formed by the Constitution of 1869 served for the
“purpose of promoting and protecting immigration into the state” (Barbara Rozek). One of the tasks of the bureau was “[writing] material describing Texas as a destination for the immigrant [and] to help bring immigrants into the state” (Rozek). “The immigration flow was steady until curtailed by the 1921 US immigration law, and the massive, organized waves of Czech Moravian migration to Texas ceased completely by the end of World War II” (Dutkova Cope, “Texas Czech Ethnic Identity”). Joseph S. Roucek also refers to the “series of discriminatory immigration laws,” such as the Quota Act of
1924, by which “the Slav was assigned to the category of ‘inferior’ nations and ‘races’”
(29). To sum up, Czech and Moravian people had many reasons for seeking a new place to live where they could find their dreamt of world of democracy and liberty. However, due to the restrictions in the 1920s there were not many newcomers after that time and it was reflected in the decline and decreasing number of Czechs in the Texas immigrant community.
6
1.3 A Profile of the Immigrants and the Characteristic Features of the Czech Migration
Machann and Mendl point out that the majority of Czech immigrants were peasants (12). But at the same time they add that “within this class there were three distinct subclasses” (12). Firstly, there were the so called “sedláci (rolníci), or farmers” who had certain benefits from the reforms introduced after 1848 (12). Secondly, there were “chalupníci or cottagers,” and thirdly, the “nádeníci or day laborers,” who did not gain too much profit from the reforms. The cottagers and day laborers were in a far worse economic condition than the farmers. To put it in the words of Machann and
Mendl, “The cottager owned a small house and, sometimes, a very small plot of land.
The laborer owned nothing but his labor” (12). Furthermore, there were also political reasons why cottagers felt dissatisfaction, and that was the decrease in their influence in the “Moravian Diet (Parliamentary)” (Machann and Mendl 13). The predominantly
Moravian settlement in Texas can be explained by “the relative scarcity of good farmland in Moravia, contrasted with its relative availability in Texas” (Konecny and
Machann 110). Therefore, it was the class of cottagers in particular who immigrated in great numbers to Texas (Machann and Mendl 13). Nonetheless, there was also the class of educated people who left for Texas. For instance, Protestant confessors with a higher degree of education such as Reverend Josef Arnošt Bergmann, who became known as
“the father of Czech immigration to Texas” and various “freethinkers” (Machann and
Mendl 17). But the majority of immigrants came from the lower social class of cottagers
(Machann and Mendl 17), weavers and other villagers (Eckertová 38). A “chain migration”xii was typical for the organized immigration to Texas. This means that the first communities were formed by attracting other families, usually from the same villages (Eckertová 18). Thus the newcomers were concentrated in closely connected communities and as a result they were able to preserve their culture and language for a
7 long time (19). Machann and Mendl also emphasize a “strong sense of continuity and coherence” of the Czech communities (71). In addition, religion was very important for their unusual cohesion and solidarity, the Catholic faith in particular (Eckertová 19).
Moreover, their common geographic origin significantly contributed to their long term isolation and homogeneity (Eckertová 19). Gallup notes the rural character of the Czech settlement in Texas and the resulting protection “from the assimilating forces” (107).
Hannan also underlines the fact that the Moravian majority of immigrants came from the “neighboring ethnographic regions of Lachia and Moravian Wallachia.” He adds that “at least 80 percent of the Texas immigrants” came from Moravia. Next, the
“extended family” was characteristic for the social structure of the immigrant community (Machann and Mendl 72). And above all, a “strong institutional base of support: fraternals, mutual aid societies, vernacular press and radio, and now ethnic heritage societies” have distinguished Czechs in Texas from their fellow countrymen in other states (Gallup 107). Hannan points out the crucial role of the Czech language.
“The dialects spoken in Texas, which differ from standard Czech and represent archaic
Moravian dialects, have contributed significantly towards the preservation of a distinct ethnic identity” (Hannan). However, the immigrants had to overcome many difficulties in their search for the new place for living.
1.4 The Harsh Voyage to America
Apart from various administrative obstacles the immigrants had to overcome
(Polišenský 16 20), there was the voyage across the ocean for them to deal with. The immigrants had to undergo difficult conditions on the ships. They were in constant risk of catching serious infections such as dysentery and typhoid, often called “ship fever”
(Polišenský 23). Furthermore, Polišenský emphasizes that there were other dangers, including ship wreck or fire on board a ship (22). The voyage itself was usually long
8 and extremely exhausting. Machann and Mendl mention the experience of the immigrants of the first group led by Josef Šilar: “We went from Liverpool to New
Orleans in ten weeks and had a very bad crossing for they were very sick and badly taken care of. Because over one half were sick when we got to New Orleans, many had to go to the hospital” (qtd. in Machann and Mendl 32). The experience of Julie Škarpa of Snook, Texas, illustrates the situation:
The trip on the sailboat lasted three months. Terrible storms drove
the ship off course and for an entire week it was continually
crushed by the waves as by a nut cracker. Our poor immigrants
suffered terribly from sickness and every moment fully expected
the boat to be crushed by the waves. Their only comfort was
reading Kralice Bible […]. The food on board was very poor […].
How happy they were when after three months of such suffering
they finally reached Galveston. (qtd. in Machann and Mendl 34)
In conclusion, the voyage and the general conditions accompanying it were hard and many of the immigrants did not survive the crossing. However, not everybody with financial resources could go aboard a ship. There were discriminatory measures excluding some immigrants. For example, Polišenský refers to the restrictions for the ill and handicapped, criminals, widows, single women with children and people above sixty (25).
1.5 The Czech Settlements in Texas
Galveston served as a “port of entry” for the early wave of immigrants from which they went further inland, usually to Cat Springs (Machann and Mendl 29).
Hannan sums up that “[t]he first immigrants settled in four contiguous counties of southeast central Texas: Austin, Fayette, Lavaca, and Washington.” The soil was of
9 special importance for the immigrants (Eckertová 49). They sought fertile land and thus
“the great majority of the approximately 250 communities [settled] within the two comparatively fertile Blackland Prairie soil regions of Texas” (Machann and Mendl 42).
Fayette County in particular became heavily populated by Czech immigrants and is known as the “cradle” of Czech settlement in Texas (Machann and Mendl 46). The way of mapping the land by naming settlements after Czech and Moravian towns, villages and historically significant places reflects the immigrants’ emotional connection with the native land (Eckertová 94). For example, Vsetin, Hostyn, Praha, Bílá Hora,
Frenstat xiii and many other typically Czech names are to be found there. According to
Cindy Harvey Neal, about half of the approximately one hundred settlements with
Czech names still exist. What is more, some of them offer Czech festivals and various celebrations. Among the most popular ones are the Kolache Festival in Caldwell,
Burleson County, the Czech Heritage Festival in Corpus Christi, Nueces County, the
National Polka festival in Ennis, Ellis County, and the West Fest in West, McLennan
County (Neal).
10
2. Language and Assimilation
The Czech language has played an important role in the preservation of Czech culture in Texas. It is said to be “the third most spoken in Texas,” but according to the
1990 census it is estimated that Czech is probably the eighth (Gallup 94). Nonetheless, as far as the Slavic languages are concerned, Czech is, according to Gallup, “the most widely spoken Slavic language, with 20,453 Texans claiming use of the language at home” (94). Hannan points out that “Full scale assimilation began only after the Second
World War.” Therefore this chapter explores the importance of the Czech language for the unusually long preservation of the Czech community and culture in Texas.
2.1 The General Situation and the Main Factors Influencing Texas Czech
“Mother tongue is the natural basis of human association and organization”
(Robert E. Park 5). He adds that “It is significant, also, that when other bonds broke, language and tradition held [and] in America, as in Europe, it is language and tradition rather than political allegiance that unites the foreign population” (5). Gallup calls the
Czech language one of “the most fascinating aspect of Texas Czech culture” (94).
Moreover, it has reflected the state of the community and its assimilation tendencies.
Machann and Mendl also report that “The language was the most important indicator of
Czech ethnic identity” (“Czech Voices” xxii). Eckert notes that “Maintenance of the mother language was the policy of church, school and newspapers until the 1940s”
(“Gravestones and the Linguistic Ethnography”). I will focus on two main periods: from the 1860s to World War II and the contemporary situation as described by Clinton
Machann and James W. Mendl, Eva Eckert and Lida Dutkova Cope. The language
Czech immigrants brought with them was a mixture of Bohemian and Moravian
11 dialects, but Machann and Mendl emphasize that “in Texas, alone among the United
States, the Moravian dialects predominate” (168). Cope notes that “Texas Czech is a reduced immigrant variety of Moravian Czech, still spoken or at least understood by some Texans of this descent” (“The Future of Czech in Texas”). There were several factors affecting the language of the Czech community in Texas according to Machann and Mendl: the development of modern literary Czech during the national revival at home (170), and the influence of German and English as these were languages of their neighbours in Texas (172). Next, the importance of language as an indicative of acculturation is emphasized by Eckertová ( Kameny na prérii 102). She suggests the following division of the development of the language of Czech Texans based on her research of gravestones of the Czech community in Texas (“Gravestones and the
Linguistic Ethnography”). Firstly, the period since 1860 to World War I is featured by the “variation between the standard and dialect” and the ethnic identity of immigrants is referred to as “Czech Texans” ( Kameny na prérii 103). The second period, called
“transitional” by Eckertová, “is defined by writing in Texas Czech vernacular, i.e. colloquial everyday variety of Czech that incorporated certain elements of English” and similarly, their increased assimilation is reflected in their identity “Texas Czechs”
(103). The third period reported by Eckertová including post World War II is characterized by the shift to English and “attrition of Czech in ortography, morphology and semantics” (103). Eckertová calls the assimilated descendants of “Czech Texans”
“Americans” (103). Dutkova Cope points out that “By the early 1950s, once common intergenerational transmission of Czech was becoming rare in Texas” (“Texas Czech
Ethnic Identity”). However, she also mentions “language revival efforts in the early
1980s” xiv (“Texas Czech Ethnic Identity”).
12
2.2 The Characteristic Features of Texas Czech
Dutkova Cope briefly characterizes Texas Czech as an “immigrant variety of
European Czech that has emerged through a century and a half of contact between
American English and Northeastern Moravian dialects in Texas” (“The Language of
Czech Moravians in Texas”). Its basis on the Moravian dialects (the Lachian, the
Valachian and partly the Hanak) makes it distinctive from other varieties of American
Czech (Dutkova Cope, “The Language of Czech Moravians in Texas”). Karel Kučera also points out the difference between Texas Czech and Czech in other parts of the
United States (193). Hannan observes that “The language of some Texas speakers is closer to standard Slovak than to standard Czech; that of others contains certain elements shared with Polish.” Among the “most distinct features of the Lachian and
Valachian dialects” is ranked “the shortening of long vowels and penultimate stress”
(Dutkova Cope, “Texas Czech Ethnic Identity”). She notes “The term ‘Czech’ is used because the morphosyntactic and lexical features of Texas Czech and other varieties of
American Czech are comparable despite their specific regional flavour.” The Texas
Czech is a “mixture of different dialects,” as reported by Dutkova Cope. Moreover, this
“mixture” is viewed as the most interesting feature according to Gallup, who also points out “the survival of old country dialects” in Texas Czech (95). One of the strongest factors influencing Texas Czech was the contact with English that gave the variety specific vocabulary “either through literal translation or ‘czechification’” (Gallup 96,
98). For example, expressions like ‘Šur že jo’ (Sure it is), Co viš? (What you know greeting common in rural Texas), Daj mi pět (Give me five a handshake) braunovy
(brown), tomát, tomatíse (tomato, tomatoes), kar (car), pinoci (peanuts), pikovat (to pick), hauslik (a little house) (Gallup 98) show various “morphosyntactic and lexical features” as referred by Dutkova Cope. Other examples are given by Machann and
Mendl who mention English words with Czech diminutive endings such as ‘boxička’
13
(very small box) or words not existing in Czech such as ‘kolovetra’ (cultivator) or ‘bušl’
(bushel) (173). As it is obvious, many of these words reflected the agricultural base of
the community – Eckert notes other agriculture related expressions like ‘džina’ (cotton
press) or ‘pikovačka’ (the time of picking cotton) (“The Community ‘Translation’ in the
Immigrant Press”). Borrowing of English words is also seen in the content of the most
important Texas Czech newspaper Svoboda which contains borrowed English
expressions in Czech sentences, such as ‘assesmenty’ (assesments) xv or ‘grocerní
obchod’ (grocery). By taking into account the influences of Moravian dialects and
English, Gallup agrees with Mendl that “Texas Czech has become a distinct dialect with
northeast Moravian roots” (98). The fact that Moravian majority of immigrants was
very proud of their language is supported by their indignation at the attack of other
Czech newspaper on the “Moravian double Dutch dialect” xvi used in Svoboda (10
November 1887). Its long term resistance against assimilation was quite unusual.
However, despite its long term resistance to assimilation and decline, the process was
inevitable, which will be shown in the following subchapter focused on language shift
and death.
2.2.1 Language Shift and Language Death
This subchapter concerning language shift and death is based on the articles of
Eva Eckert and Lida Dutkova Cope in which they introduce these important theoretical
concepts in view of the decline of Texas Czech. Because these linguistic terms are
closely connected with the development of Texas Czech in the second half of the
twentieth century I considered useful to include them for better understanding of the
situation. Eckert comments on the decline in use of Czech by saying that
While up to the 1920s the immigrants needed Czech for daily
activities, private and public, and Czech served their needs through
a range of styles, after that the distinction standard vs. vernacular 14
merged and styles available to speakers fused into a vernacular that
covered all the domains and registers. Language shift correlated
with diffusing local social networks in response to the reduced
participation of the Czech population in these networks and to a
weakened concentration of the population in historically Czech
settlements after WW II (“Community ‘Translation’ in the
Immigrant Press”).
The gradual decline of Czech language use was caused by many factors. Two main causes of the decline of the community and language as well seems to be the campaign for americanization (Eckertová 171) and immigration restriction quotas in the
1920s and the resulting “weakening of social networks” (“The Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Milroy and Gordon observe the importance of various networks in bilingual communities: “[they] constituted chiefly of strong ties suport minority languages resisting institutional pressures to language shift; but when these networks weaken, language shift is likely to place” (gtd. in Eckert, “Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). To put it differently, when organizations and institutions begin to fall apart, the solidarity of the whole community declines and as a result, it is more inclined to assimilation and thus to the loss of its language and other cultural heritage. The gradual language shift is connected to the “language death.”
According to Dutkova Cope “the term language death denotes the end result of language shift ‘from a regressive minority language to a dominant majority language’”
(Dressler qtd. in “The Texas Czech”). Furthermore, Dutkova Cope comments on the language attrition and provides the definition of Polinsky that describes this process as
“‘incomplete language competence which may be due to first language loss, incomplete acquisition, and probably some other factors’” (qtd. in “Texas Czech”). Texas Czech underwent a “gradual death” according to Dutkova Cope, and she reports Dorian’s
15 concept of a “sudden tip,” that is one of the factors “in gradual language death” of
Texas Czech defined as follows:
A gradual accretion of negative feeling toward the subordinate
group and its language, often accompanied by legal as well as
social pressure, until a critical moment arrives and the subordinate
group appears abruptly to abandon its original mother tongue and
switch over to exclusive use of the dominant language (“Texas
Czech”).
This explains “a marked decline in natural acquisition of Czech in Texas in the late 1940s and the early 1950s” (Dutkova Cope, “Texas Czech”). Schmidt notes that
“Each death situation is characterized by a complex configuration of socio cultural, psychological, and linguistic factors” (qtd. in Dutkova Cope). Americanization certainly includes both the socio cultural and psychological reasons therefore it will be elaborated more in the next subchapter.
2.2.2 Americanization
“No parish school, no church congregation, no foreign language community can long withstand the force majeure of Americanization,” Tomáš Čapek expresses his view over the Czech communities in the United States (qtd. in Machann and Mendl 205).
This also summarizes the history of Czechs in Texas although their “americanization” took rather a long time which is seen in view of their language maintenance.
Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the movement for americanization as “activities that were designed to prepare foreign born residents of the United States for citizenship.”
The beginning of the movement is set after the World War I when “After the war began
[…] American reactions to European hostilities produced an intense awareness of the aliens and “foreigners” in their midst” (Britannica). It was believed that assimilation of ethnic groups must be achieved by any means (Britannica). However, it was “primarily 16 a program of education propagated through schools, businesses, voluntary associations, libraries and citizen bureaus” (Britannica). Moreover, the instruction was focused on the
English language and American history and the propagation of the loyalty to the USA and patriotism (Eckertová 171). Immigrants with their languages and ethnic organizations were suspicious and strongly recommended to study and speak English
(171). Eckertová mentions the report about the school instruction in Texas that criticized Czechs for their isolation and ethnicity maintenance (171).
The Americanization movement obviously played an important role in the post war assimilation of the community and its language as well. This was also reflected in the state of the written culture of Texas Czechs.
2.3 The Written Cultural Heritage
This chapter deals with the actual use of written Czech language in the community. Language manifested itself through Czech press and other literary pieces produced by Czechs in Texas. The press especially shows the gradual decline of language and assimilation in the community therefore the greater part of this chapter is devoted to Svoboda newspaper, which was the most representative and popular among
Czech readers. It also reflected the stage of the community’s assimilation through its appearance and content. More importantly, the owner and editor of Svoboda Augustin
Haidušek influenced the whole community through his editorials and commentaries.
2.3.1 The Czech Press in Texas
“[T]he press reflects, more or less accurately, the interests and social conditions of its readers at the period of issue” as declared by Park (251). Immigrant press was very popular in ethnic communities because it “provided immigrants with news from the “old country” that the mainstream American press overlooked” is observed in
Harvard Open Collections Program.xvii Čapek writes about the “interesting
17 phenomenon” of Czech editors to print articles concerning Czech and Slavic issues (48).
According to the Harvard Open Collections Program, “one of [its] major purposes and functions was language retention.” In other words, “Each one of the little communities is certain to have some sort of cooperative or mutual aid society, very likely a church, a school, possibly a theater, but almost invariably a press” (Park 7). And that was also the case of Czech immigrant press in Texas. “Czech language journalism was central to
Czech culture in Texas,” Machann and Mendl report (178). On the one hand, it helped to preserve culture and Czech language awareness in the community, but on the other hand, in later periods it significantly contributed to the process of assimilation. The interest of the readers in Czech political and social issues gradually began to decline as a result of “americanisation” (Čapek 48). Park endorses this view in “Foreign language newspapers are a power to be reckoned with in the Americanization” (359). Although the newspapers had been written in Czech for a long time, they more and more tackled
American issues (Machann and Mendl 178). This fact can be seen in Svoboda where issues from the early twentieth century still contain news concerning Czech settlements and other Czech related staff unlike the issues from 1960s that are mostly devoted to common news from America and Texas in general. Similarly, Park also writes about possible influence of immigrant press on assimilation of the community in his studies on “methods of Americanization” (Park vii). Czech language journalism was widespread all over the United States (Machann and Mendl 178). There were many newspapers, and in contrast to the press issued out of Texas such as Northern and
Midwest Czech press , the Texan newspapers had a rather conservative point of view reflected in the opinions of its readers (Machann and Mendl 180). Furthermore, newspapers had such an important role in the life of the community because they often served as a source of the Czech language – the early Czech language schools used them as textbooks, and it also was a “popular leisure time activity” of immigrants (Machann
18 and Mendl 178). For instance, the answer of the editor to one of the reader’s letter points out this educative role of the newspaper: “Many of our natives learned to read from Svoboda , it was their teacher and amusement”xviii (6 March 1952). Eckert also emphasizes the significance of immigrant press by claiming that “Publication of Czech newspapers and journals was a critical component of direct cultural transmission from the homeland” (“The Years of Svoboda ”). Čapek points out the role of the Czech editor and press in general in informing immigrants about practical issues and underlines the significance of newspapers as “advisors” (43). According to Machann and Mendl,
“about thirty Czech language newspapers, journals, and newspaper supplements were published in Texas before World War II” (181). For instance, the first Czech newspaper the Texan was published in La Grange in 1879 (181). Other products of the Czech press included the Slovan (Slav) , the Catholic Nový Domov , Obzor , Bratrské listy (Brethren
Journal), Slovanská jednota , Věstník (Messenger) , Hospodář ( Husbandman), Našinec
(Fellow Countryman) and Svoboda (Freedom) ,xix which was the longest surviving and the most important Czech newspaper in Texas – it was issued until the 1960s (Machann and Mendl 181 86). Eckert also reminds that apart from the Svoboda , those
“comparable to Svoboda ’s impact in readership and endurance were Našinec (1914 the present), Nový Domov (a catholic periodical, 1895 1960s) and Věstník (which represented SPJST [Slovanská podpůrná jednota státu Texas], 1912 the present)
(“Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Eckert notes that “After the
Second World War, Czech speakers relied on the Czech press in order to keep their
Czech language skills alive and maintain their ties to the shrinking Czech speaking community” (“The Years of Svoboda ”). By and large, the Czech press was necessary for the community cohesion (“The Years of Svoboda ”).
The situation of the Czech press in the second half of the twentieth century has been rather pessimistic. Gallup notes that “Though speaking and comprehension ability
19 in Czech are still strong in Texas, reading ability is not […],” which he explains by the
“scarcity of Czech language texts used today by people in their everyday lives” (95).
Indeed, the only papers issued today are Našinec and Hospodář (both published in
Czech) “[whose] readership seems based on habit and nostalgia rather than necessity”
(Gallup 95). The Našinec was founded in 1914 in Hallettsville and was issued until
1981 when Joe Vrabel bought it (101). Many of the articles have been written by its readers and “Vrabel says he stays away from editorials and controversial subjects, which suits Našinec ’s mostly conservative and elderly readership” (101). Unfortunately, according to Gallup, the number of readers has dropped from cca fifteen hundred in
1981 to seven hundred and fifty, and therefore “the paper’s eventual demise is certain”
(102). Gallup concludes that Našinec “is more typically Texas Czech, because of its content and style” (102). He also points out that “Though Czech immigrants to Texas had a very high literacy rate compared to other immigrant groups, the vast majority were farmers who had only a basic education, a fact reflected in the paper’s present day readership” (102). Next, the monthly Hospodář was bought by Jan Vaculik, “a post
1968 émigré from Moravia” (102). The newspaper is also composed of the readers’ contributions, but is “more intellectual” in comparison with Našinec (102). It has about fourteen hundred subscribers, but as Gallup says, “only sixty are in Texas” (102). Other press issued in Texas today may include Věstník of the SPJST, which contains some pages in Czech unlike other publications of the fraternal and mutual aid societies that are written in English (101).
2.3.1.1 The Svoboda Newspaper
The most influential and longest surviving Czech newspaper in Texas was
Svoboda , founded by Augustin Haidušek in La Grange, which existed from 1885 to
1966 (Eckert, “Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Unlike many other pieces of Czech press in Texas, due to Svoboda ’s “interdenominational and liberal” 20 orientation it was not restricted only to a particular group, either religious or political and thus was read by a wide range of readers (“Community ‘Translation’ in the
Immigrant Press”). According to Eckert, the content of Svoboda showed the extent of the community transformation at time. To put it in her words, “A gradual shrinking of newspaper space occupied by Czech texts was accompanied by a loss of readers for whom Czech was a daily necessity and who were able to read the Czech press”
(“Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Therefore it is possible to trace assimilation of the Czech community in Texas. The significant part of each issue were letters of readers, which were “restylized into the literary format according to certain
“rules” specifying which elements of literary Czech can be substituted for dialectal forms, and their spelling in them was corrected” (“Community ‘Translation’ in the
Immigrant Press”). However, Hannan observes that Haidušek “ocassionally published letters and editorial comment in his native Lachian dialect”: “toz tam v tem norde musi byt opravdu spatne, a toz uz “Svobode” nemam za zle, ze na ne casto vyede. Oni teho zasluhuji. Mi je to divne, ze v tom norde nenisu vseci odsudeni na nevkolik roku”
(“Well, things must really be bad up north and you know, I don’t hold it against
Svoboda that you take after them so often. They deserve it. I’m surprised that everyone up north doesn’t get sentenced to a few years” (translation by Hannan). When comparing the older issues of Svoboda, one can see the change in content: while the earlier issues contain editorials of Haidušek, and many letters of readers, its form in the sixties shows change both in content and style. For example, Czech used in these later issues is very poor and impersonal, consists of lots of passives atypical for Czech,
English punctuation and Czech names are not declinated. As for the content, it involves the section “Naše pohřby” (“Our burials”) that give report about deaths in the community. Similarly, few readers’ letters are written by mostly old people. Eckertová mentions the orientation at the past and memories and anticommunistic views reflecting
21 the situation of Czechoslovakia (199). It also contains recipes and “news from the world” and serialised novels. Advertisements are no longer focused on Czech business but are, as Eckert notes, “[…] synchronized with the economic power and political dominance of the state of Texas and eventually of the entire nation” (“Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Its changed format reflected the fact that in later years it was issued “[…] as the supplement of El Campo news […]” (Machann and
Mendl 183) – these issues are much smaller than at the time of Haidušek. Žofie
Hradecká xx is named as its editor in these later issues. In short, “The Svoboda weekly was the most influential Czech newspaper ever published in Texas,” Eckert summarizes
(“Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). On the one hand, Svoboda served as a means of language retention, but on the other hand, it probably contributed to the fastening of assimilation process in the community due to the assimilationist views of
Augustin Haidušek (Machann and Mendl 226 27). “According to its content, the press can hasten or retard [the] assimilation,” as mentioned by Park (359). The content of the
Svoboda had changed in time in view of the degree of assimilation. As for the language maintenance division in time, Eckert indicates three periods: pre World War I, characterized by “the stability of a self centered community that wrote for and about itself;” interwar years that were typical of “negotiation of the identity” when “its editorials reflect an alignment with the American reality” (“The Years of Svoboda ”) and finally, the post World War II period which was reflected in “full scale assimilation” due to the “switch to English as the dominant language of the household” (Hannan). In other words, “As the community transformed itself so did the space occupied by its institutions, texts, and languages” (Eckert, “Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant
Press”). She further follows the assimilation in Svoboda by studying three registers: newspaper editorials, readers’ letters, and advertisements (“Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). According to her, the editorials “provided commentary on events
22 affecting the community” and “were written mostly in Standard Czech” that was
“reminiscent of the literary standard of Prague, but nourished by dialectal features from the speech of Texas immigrants as well” (“Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant
Press”). Secondly, Eckert illustrates the readers’ letters importance for ethnic solidarity.
The letters “were written in the dialect and edited prior to publication” (“Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Eckert concludes the letters were important part of the newspapers. Finally, the advertisements also showed to what extent Czechs adjusted to the American environment by saying that “Advertisements reflected the economic power and local interests of the members […]” (Eckert, “Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Park also endorses this view by claiming that “In many cases the advertisements reveal the organization of the immigrant community more fully than does the rest of the paper” (113). Furthermore, in Park’s view the advertisements even reveal the degree of assimilation of an immigrant group (114).
When comparing the advertisements from the early twentieth century, there is really a difference in the bias – for instance, there are many advertisements that appeal to the
Czech origin of people, such as that of “City Beer” which “is similar to Czech beer
[and] every fellow man should drink it because it is a local product” (19 January 1899).
On the contrary, advertisements in the post war issues are only in English and do not suggest any orientation at the Czech community. To sum up, as Eckert puts it, “ Svoboda represented the official culture of the community and provided a widely distributed channel for writing in the formal literary language,” and thus “Maintenance of both the official and vernacular cultures prolonged the existence of the community when the settlements ceased to function as ethnic units” (“The Years of Svoboda ”). However, it was the founder of Svoboda Augustin Haidušek who led it and expressed his views over needs and obligations of the community therefore he will be more tackled in the following subchapter.
23
2.3.1.2 Augustin Haidušek - a Czech Editor and an “Undisputed Leader of the Community”xxi
The role of Czech editors is pointed out by Čapek (43) who describes how they positively influenced and helped newly arrived immigrants. “Who should advise to our fellowman what to do, where to settle?” (43). xxii In these words Čapek expresses the importance of editors and leading journalists for the community. Augustin Haidušek fits this description and this personality was of high importance for Czechs in Texas. His leading role can be seen in his advice to readers – for instance, he provided them with answers to various law issues ( Svoboda, 9 November 1899). The Svoboda was led by him for the greater part of its existence until the 1920s (Eckert, “The Years of
Svoboda ”). According to her, Haidušek’s life long goal was “striving to become equal”
(“The Years of Svoboda ”). His assimilationist views are obvious in “We are in Texas, so our first responsibility is to get to know Texas so that we become good citizens”
(“The Years of Svoboda ”). Furthermore, Eckert adds that “Haidušek never ceased working to persuade Czechs to learn English and become active in local politics” (“The
Years of Svoboda ”). His wide range of activities and social roles included that of a teacher, editor and judge (Machann). Moreover, he became “one of the first Czech
Americans to practice law in the United States,” according to Machann. He was often criticized by his fellow citizens for the promotion of American values and for “his attempts to draw the community to the outside world” (“The Years of Svoboda ”).
Machann describes that Haidušek became a judge and from this position he was as “ex officio superintendant of public schools” responsible for the enforcement of “the state law that required English as the principal medium of instruction in the classroom.”
Eckert confirms that “[he] introduced English as the official language at schools in 1871 and stressed that knowing English was beneficial to immigrants” (“Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). However, Czechs considered these attempts as damaging for the community and criticized him for being so called odřezanec , that is 24
“someone who was cut off […] from his lifeline” as it is described by Eckert (“The
Years of Svoboda ”). Moreover, she declares Czechs saw his enforcement as an attempt to “deny Czech pupils the right to be educated in their own language” (“The Years of
Svoboda ”). This was deduced from his statements in the Svoboda like this one: “Classes will be taught in English at Ammanasville even if I have to go there myself every day and see to it!” (“The Years of Svoboda ”). But despite this criticism, he was, in words of
Machann, “remembered as a venerable, even heroic, figure.”
2.3.2 Other Written Literary Works
Czech literature in the USA was connected with newspaper publishing because most of the literary pieces were published in newspapers (Machann and Mendl 186).
The popular genres among Czech immigrants were “autobiography, biography, and travel literature” represented by writers such as Josef Buňata, L. W. Dongres, Hugo
Chotek and others (Machann and Mendl 194), occassionaly poetry for example, Marie
Nováková‘s poems (194) and “serialised novels” (186). Among those published in
Svoboda were for instance Czech translation of Armando’s Kletba zlatá čili Americký milionář or short stories of Karel Tůma’s Z českých mlýnů and reworked national folktales. Karel Postl, alias Charles Sealsfield, became a favourite writer of adventurous stories from the “Wild frontier” (Machann and Mendl 197). Čapek indicates the following classification of literary works published in the USA: “historiographic and political, poetry, beletry, religious, social, practical and yearbooks” (67). xxiii
Nonetheless, in Texas there were not many books published apart from mostly religious pieces such as bibles and prayers (Machann and Mendl 187). There was also widespread popularity of oral literature (“folktales, sayings and songs”) among Czechs in Texas which helped to preserve the Czech language, according to the Institute for Texan
Cultures .
25
The present situation of Czech printed books reflects the assimilated state of the language: there are hardly any published texts in Czech apart from several previously mentioned newspapers. The similar situation of the gradual decline in written language use can be seen in the inscriptions on the gravestones.
2.4 Gravestones
This part is based on the research of Eva Eckert and her works “Gravestones and the Linguistic Ethnography of Czech Moravians in Texas” and “From Moravia to
Texas: Immigrant Acculturation at the Cemetery.” Eckert says that “Graveyards represent cultural values and traditions of a community” (“Gravestones and the
Linguistic Ethnography”). The assimilation of the language is seen in the inscriptions at time as well as in the development and decline of other institutions. The cemeteries were an important part of every settlement together with a church and a school
(Eckertová 25). She points out the reflection of the state of the “community networks” in the texts of the tombstones. In other words, the language of the stones showed the degree of assimilation of Czechs in Texas. That is, “Gravestones point to pioneers’ historical identity and ethnicity, and suggest how the immigrants negotiated their identity in emigration: they mark the extent of contacts with the American world, and the speed of immigrant adaptation and abandonment of the communities” (“From
Moravia to Texas”).
In short, although Czechs in Texas resisted assimilation for a long time,
“[l]anguage has been dying […]” (“From Moravia to Texas”). Eckert distinguishes the period before the World War I when “the American lay out was filled with Czech content” and the period after the World War II when English began to prevail. However, she notes that “Already in the interwar years, tombstones began to display anglicizing features, mix in English through borrowings and grammar patterns, and code switch
26 between Czech and English dates and epitaphs in the stone […]” (“From Moravia to
Texas”).
Eckert describes the gravestones of Czech in Texas as “stones on the prairie,” that is rather lonely places in the landscape (Kameny na prérii 37). She summarizes the assimilation of Czechs in graveyards by saying that “in modern sections of the Czech cemeteries photos, personal greetings of the bereaved, various personal identification of the deceased, biblical verses, vernacular terminology, dialectisms, mistakes and misspellings…all that vanished” (“From Moravia to Texas”). Thus one sees the decline in language use in cemeteries of immigrants that reflected the socio political situation of the community.
27
3. The Influence of Institutions on Language Maintenance
This chapter emphasizes the importance of various institutions for the preservation of language among Texas Czechs. There will be tackled schools and universities connected with the Czech language instruction, the institutions such as
Czech clubs and fraternal and educational organizations which directly or indirectly contributed to the promotion of Czech language use in Texas, and religion. Apart from the historical point of view the present state of some of these institutions and their influence will be mentioned. All of these institutions have contributed to the relatively good knowledge of Czech even today.
3.1 Czech in Texas Schools and Universities
Education was of high importance for the community both to maintain their identity and not to be scorned by their American and German fellow citizens (Eckertová
119). Hannan reports that “Illiteracy among Czech and Moravian immigrants was practically unknown.” Apart from its educational function, schools also served as places of community meetings and cultural events (Eckertová 121). There are many references in Svoboda about celebrations at schools – for instance, one of the readers writes about the final exams in their local school and the subsequent feast (27 April 1899). In 1850s there was not yet organized schooling (Eckertová 118). Many schools were founded either by Catholics or Protestants – Machann and Mendl note number of Catholic elementary schools between 1874 and 1904 (113). Eckertová mentions “field schools,” which were set up by immigrant families, thus it was also necessary to provide them with Czech teachers (119). The establishment of schools required certain activity of immigrants – for example, Alois Mořkovský noted in his letter to the newspaper that immigrants themselves had to establish schools and that in Texas it was different than at
28 home where everything was organized by the authorities (28 September 1899). He also mentioned new administrative order by which every county was provided with several acres of land for the support of schools (28 September 1899). Pedagogues that came to
Texas before 1900 knew the latest developments in the language connected with the national revival in Czech lands, but later the teachers were usually born in Texas therefore they used literary Czech in their classes (Machann and Mendl 171). However, there was a lack of qualified teachers (Eckertová 119 20). For instance, there were advertisements that looked for Czech teachers in Svoboda. To introduce some examples of the early Czech teachers, The Handbook of Texas Online makes reference to the
Reverend Arnošt Bergmann who taught at Cat Springs, Josef Mašík, who is referred to as “the first formal Czech teacher in the United States” at Wesley, and also Terezie
Kubálová in Bluff. xxiv There is also mentioned the first Czech English school at the
Praha settlement, which was set up in 1870. The Czech Heritage Society of Texas notes the first Czech Catholic school founded in 1868. Finally, the network of Czech public schools was gradually established and it was supported by the state legislature in 1853
(Machann and Mendl 175). In 1871 another state legislature requiring “all teachers in public schools to pass an examination in English” was introduced (Machann and Mendl
175). Many Czech parents were reluctant to send their children to study in English
(Eckertová 122). This attitude is also expressed in the letter in Svoboda where the reader
František Coufal from Lavaca County refers to the Czech English school which did not employ “good Czech teacher, but an American” because as he wrote, “We were told that only English should be taught in public schools” xxv (17 November 1887). Despite the enforcement of the law by the judge Augustin Haidušek (Machann) , Czech was taught in various religious schools – for instance, The Brethren Hus School used only
Czech as its medium of instruction until 1948 (Machann and Mendl 175). Nonetheless,
Eckert reports that some of her respondents from the third generation of immigrants met
29 with English until they went to school and then taught the language their parents (“The
Years of Svoboda ”). In 1931 public schools in Houston “announced […] that the Czech language had been adopted as a part of the curriculum” and as a consequence it led to the revival of the “Czech national consciousness” (Hudson and Maresh 187).
Furthermore, numerous religious institutions organized Czech language courses, for example Our Lady of the Lake College in San Antonio and St. Mary’s Catholic
Seminary in La Porte (Machann and Mendl 175). Hudson and Maresh mention the offer of Czech language classes organized by schools at Shiner, Hallettsville, Needville,
Temple, Schulenberg, and Caldwell in 1932 (188). According to Kloss, “Only seven settlements offered Czech instruction in 1932” (gtd. in Eckert, “Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). Besides, universities played an important role in the preservation of Czech language in Texas. Machann and Mendl list several universities where Czech language courses were taught: St. Edward’s University in
Austin or Southwestern University in Georgetown (175 76). There was also an increasing demand for the establishment of Czech studies at the University of Texas, and thus, also due to the Wagstaff Bill of 1915, the Czech language was introduced there with its first Czech teacher Karel Knížek (Machann and Mendl 176). Knížek worked as an “instructor in Slavic and Germanic languages from 1915 to 1924”
(Hudson and Maresh 184). Then, after his death, Dr. Eduard Míček became “head of the
Slavic language department” (Hudson and Maresh 189). However, the national campaign for americanization contributed to the decline of enrollment of Czech students during the period from World War I to 1920s as “some students were ashamed of their mother tongue and afraid of being ignored by hundred percent Americans if they acknowledged their roots” (Eckert, Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”).
The letter of the student of Czech Alžběta Straussová at UT Austin describes the instruction and experiences with studying Czech ( Svoboda, 20 March 1952). Although
30 the ability to speak Czech gradually declined – Dutkova Cope reports the beginning of this process in the second generation of immigrants (“The Language of Czech
Moravians in Texas”) Machann and Mendl emphasize that there has been obvious
“resurgence [of] the study of Czech in public schools and universities […]” (235). For instance, they mention the “revitalized” programs of Czech language studies at the
University of Texas at Austin, the University of Houston, and Texas A & M University
(235). The establishment of the Texas Czech Chair in Czech Studies at UT at Austin was initiated by the CEFT.xxvi The targets of the Chair are
The continual offering of first and second year Czech language
courses and advanced language and related courses as long as there
is a reasonable demand; The development and offering of courses
in the history and cultural heritage of the Czechoslovak people in
Europe and in Texas; The development of interdisciplinary
programs and outreach activities associated with the Czech
language, literature, and culture in Europe and in Texas. (qtd. in
Dutkova Cope, “The Future of Czech in Texas”)
However, teaching of Czech in schools in general gradually declined and people also ceased to learn Czech their children. Eckertová mentions the letters of old people in
Svoboda in which they refer to the reluctance of younger generation to teach their children Czech: “[…] Já pravím, že přijdou ty časy, že vás to bude mrzet, že vaše děti neučíte svoji řeč...až někdy uslyšite vaše děti, mamo lebo tatínku, proč jste mne nenaučili moravsky nebo česky mluvit… včil mne to škodí.” (“I say that the times will come when you will regret that you don’t teach your children your language…when you will hear you children to tell you why you didn’t you teach to speak them Moravian or
Czech…now it does damage to me” (200).
31
To sum up, one sees the attempts to preserve Czech heritage in Texas, and its establishment at the universities supports its hopeful prospects for the future. Dutkova
Cope also indicates the possibility of teaching Czech at high schools “as a foreign language” (“The Future of Czech in Texas”). However, one of the important factors serving the promotion of Czech language use and teaching was religion which also played a key role in the life of the community.
3.2 Religion
Religion significantly contributed to the preservation of Czech in the community
(Eckertová 116). Eckertová comments on the connection of faith and language saying that “faith was mediated through language and language lived due to faith” (117). xxvii
She also emphasizes the fact that religion was one of the main reasons why the Czech community preserved its culture and language for such a long time and why acculturation was quite a slow process (Eckertová 117). Gallup also claims that
“Religion is one of the main cultural features that have differentiated Czechs in Texas from Czechs elsewhere in the United States” (102). For instance, masses were performed in Czech (Eckertová 116). Furthermore, the churches offered education and
Czech language courses as well (Eckertová 117). One of the Svoboda readers informs about the establishment of the new parochial school that costed 2,600 dollars (23
December 1899). No matter whether they were of the Catholic or Protestant confession, xxviii the preachers helped to keep Czech in use among immigrants because they often worked as teachers in Czech schools (117). Machann and Mendl give examples of several Catholic seminaries providing Czech language courses: St. Mary’s in La Porte, St Anthony’s and St John’s in San Antonio (111). For instance, Alois J.
Mořkovský of St John’s seminary taught seminarians Czech, and in 1963 delivered a speech in Czech in KFRD Rosenberg radio station (“Father Alois J. Morkovsky”;
32
Machann and Mendl 113). Similarly, the Protestant Brethren Hus School and the
Sunday School Union served to provide education and Czech language classes
(Machann and Mendl 125). There were also numerous elementary schools in Texas founded either by Catholics or Protestants (Machann and Mendl 113, 125). In short,
“many of the reading libraries, as well as choral and dramatic groups…were founded and supported by Czech priests and laymen” (Machann and Mendl 115). Nonetheless, by comparison of the two denominations Machann and Mendl point out the tendency of the Catholics “to keep to themselves” unlike the more open Protestants (115).
According to Machann and Mendl, the Catholic confession prevailed among Czechs in
Texas and they also had “more extensive social organization” (115). For instance, in
Svoboda there is a mention of the celebration in a Catholic church (15 June 1899). And above all, there was “the Anglo Protestant majority” therefore in words of Machann and
Mendl, the “pressure to assimilate or “Americanize” meant pressure to conform to a basically Protestant ethic” (116). In other words, the Protestants had more in common with the American society in contrast to the Catholics who “tended to be non English speaking and “foreign” to the Anglo culture” (Machann and Mendl 116). Gallup notes that
Even today the tie between religion and ethnicity, despite efforts by
some leaders to lead their church beyond its ethnic roots, remains
an intrinsic aspect of many Texas Czechs’ collective identity
(102)…And today, even though the Czech language mass has
virtually disappeared in Texas, the singing of Czech songs and the
incorporation of parish churches into ethnic celebrations maintain
the connection between religion and ethnicity (103).
The Winedale Story comments on the importance of religion by declaring that
“Religious fraternal organizations such as the Czech Catholic Union of Texas
33
(Katolicka Jednota Texaska, or KJT) […] helped nurture Czech community identity and cultural cohesion.” The importance of religion for the community is also reflected in
Svoboda by regular announcements of masses held out in various places for instance,
Reverend Chlumský’s notice on evangelical service in Krásné, Fort Bend County (23
December 1899).
3.3 Czech Clubs and Other Organizations
Although Czechs tried to avoid the pressure of the outer society, their
“networks” began to be “weakened” (Eckert, “Community ‘Translation’ in the
Immigrant Press”). Machann and Mendl underline the importance of various clubs for the community and its ethnic identity (90). Furthermore, the fraternal and mutual aid societies xxix had far reaching influence because they were instrumental in organizing social events in the community (Machann and Mendl 93). There were many organizations concerning culture or education in Texas – Machann and Mendl mention miscellaneous musical, theatrical, and above mentioned fraternal and mutual aid societies. This subchapter deals with several of the most important ones that were, apart from many other activities, focused in some way on the Czech language use and maintenance. These organizations served to “fill social needs as well as to preserve the
Czech language and culture” (Machann and Mendl 90). They were often created at
Texas high schools (90). Its members promoted “the inclusion of the Czech language in the curriculum,” and Machann and Mendl observe their presence at The University of
Texas, Southwestern University, and the Catholic Seminar in La Porte (90). The Čechie at the University of Texas tried to establish the Department of Slavonic Languages and this was achieved in 1915 (Machann and Mendl 90). This organization later became the
Czech Ex Students Association of Texas (CESAT) that provides loans to students of
Czech origin (90). Next, the so called “Czech Pioneer Reading Clubs” significantly
34 contributed to the preservation of the Czech language (Hudson and Maresh 179). In their words, “These early reading clubs aroused educational interest and stimulated a desire for knowledge which brought about the demand for schools” (179). The first such a club was established in 1867 in Wesley, Washington County: Československý
Čtenářský Spolek (The Czechoslovakian Reading Club) (179). Hudson and Maresh also mention another reading club at Ross Prairie founded in 1871 (179). The importance of the reading clubs is expressed in saying that they served as the “forerunner[s] of the early Czech schools in Texas” (179) and that their influence was “far reaching” (181).
For instance, Hudson and Maresh point out the formation of the Czech department in the Houston Public Library (182). The Sokol organization has played an important role in the community and exists even today (Machann and Mendl 91). “They also sponsored Czech language classes” (Machann and Mendl 93). Next, the Slovanská podporující jednota státu Texas (SPJT; the Slavonic Benevolent Order of the State of
Texas) ranks among “the most powerful and influential organizations in the history of the Czechs in Texas,” according to Machann and Mendl (97). To sum up, Machann and
Mendl see these societies “as the culmination of the Texas Czechs’ characteristic enthusiasm for social organization” (104). This enthusiasm is reflected in the saying that
“wherever you find two Czechs you'll find three clubs” (Robert Plocheck). Many of these organizations were religious such as KJT (Katolická jednota státu Texas; Czech
Catholic Union of Texas). The warning of father Beneš in Svoboda before entering the
SPJST – that the membership fees are higher than in the KJT implies that there was some rivalry among the organizations when attracting new members (27 April 1899).
The situation after the World War II is described by Dutkova Cope in her study
“The Future of Czech in Texas” in the chapter called “Organized Efforts at Language
Maintenance in Texas.” She refers to the description of Fishman and Nahirny on the
“state of immigrant ethnic organizations in the U.S. of the 1960s: “[t]he ethnic
35 organization has increasingly replaced the ethnic community in the United States, rather than being either its servant or its reflection” (qtd. in “The Future of Czech in Texas”).
She comments on the “process of ethnic redefinition” of the organizations in view of the
“changing membership policies” which resulted in “opening [them] to non Czechs.” By comparing the organizations’ degree of “ethnicity” she reports the state of Czech organizations in this way: “While many of such organizations used to be “linguistically retentive,” none of those with Texas Czech membership have succeeded in maintaining the use of their ancestral language as part of their activities even though a call for preserving the Czech language may be a part of the organization’s goals.”
In other words, there is a lack of really active ones that would attempt to
“encourage the study of Czech among Texas Czech adults and youth” (Dutkova Cope).
However, she highlights several of the organizations whose aim is the support of Czech language teaching: the Czech Educational Foundation of Texas (CEFT), the Czech Ex
Students Association of Texas (CESAT), the Slavonic Benevolent Order of the State of
Texas (SPJST), xxx and the Czech Heritage Society of Texas (CHST). Now they will be tackled more in detail. The information concerning the present state of these organizations is taken from Dutkova Cope’s “The Texas Czech” and the websites of the organizations.
The CEFT was founded in 1954 in order to “[promote] Czech language and culture in Texas through the support of higher education. Early on, CEFT promoted
Czech language classes and Czech studies programs, and granted scholarships to students in those programs” (according to the CEFT websites). From the 1980s its main goal was the establishment of the Texas Chair in Czech Studies at the University of
Texas at Austin, which was accomplished in 1990. Annother successful project of the
CEFT was the establishment of William J. Hlavinka Fellowshipxxxi at Texas A & M's
College of Liberal Arts. As a result, students from the two Moravian universities,
36
Masaryk University in Brno and Palacký University in Olomouc, can study to get an
M.A. or Ph.D. degree in the Department of English at Texas A&M and “ In return, these advanced students teach Czech language lessons open to both A&M students and members of the general public and perform other services to the Texas Czech community on a regular basis” (the CEFT websites).
The CESAT was formed from the Czech club Čechie at the University of Texas at Austin (Dutkova Cope). The activity of the organization is summed up in “The organization “flourished or at least held its own until 1954 when it became dormant largely due to the accelerated assimilation caused by the apathy toward ethnic matters” at that time” (Dutkova Cope). However, “[i]n 1973, Czech courses were introduced at the University of Houston, and in the same year, Texas students of Czech began to participate in the annual summer programs at Charles University in Prague” (Dutkova
Cope). She emphasizes the support given by the CESAT to students of Czech studies:
[The CESAT] strives to arrange for Czech language courses
wherever possible in the state and helps to coordinate financial
support from Czech American organizations for the teaching of
Czech in Texas […and] together with its suborganization Texaská
Matice vyššího vzdělání (The Texas Council of Higher Education),
now as in the past is responsible for setting up loans of financial
support to qualified students of Czech descent.
The SPJST is one of the “most active fraternal organizations involved in ‘things
Czech’” according to Dutkova Cope. Nonetheless, she also reports the society’s
“balance of Czechness” in order to “be attractive for both Texas Czech and non Czech members.” The activities concerning Czech language focus on “[providing] small grants to universities, colleges, high schools, and to local lodges that plan to offer Czech classes” (Dutkova Cope). But at the same time she adds that “only a few educational
37 institutions and SPJST lodges materialized this opportunity.” The organization issues its own weekly Věstník which “continues to publish up to two pages in the language, including articles, announcements, reports and Czech lessons Učme se česky (‘Let’s learn Czech’)” (Dutkova Cope).
The CHST was established in 1982 “to preserve and promote genealogy, history, heritage, culture and language of the Czechs and Czech Moravians of Texas” (Dutkova
Cope). Its main goal is “genealogy and preservation of the ethnocultural heritage.”
Dutkova Cope points out that the society succeeded in the “passing of the legislation in
1995 designating the last full week in October as Czech Heritage Week in the state of
Texas.” More importantly, one of the chapters initiated the inclusion of Czech lessons during the week (Dutkova Cope). As far as the membership is concerned, she notes that as well as the SPJST, the CHST “seems to struggle with low attendance at regular meetings and the lack of more active involvement among all of its members” (Dutkova
Cope). She gives an opinion of one of the active members: “Those of us who are interested are those that speak the language, and that’s what keeps us interested.”
Similarly, “other Texas Czechs, rather than activists themselves, often translate a person’s involvement in ‘things Czech’ into his or her ability to speak the language.”
Finally, Dutkova Cope mentions two projects. The Texas Czech Heritage and
Cultural Center, Inc. (THCC; Centrum českého kulturního dědictví v Texasu ) and the
Czech Cultural Center (CCC; Kulturní centrum české ) that are, according to Dutkova
Cope, “to be built in La Grange and Houston…are envisioned to serve the needs of both all Texans of Czech descent and other visitors interested in ‘things Czech related.’” She reports that “Among their many ambitious goals [is] to encourage the study and preservation of the Czech language.”
To sum up, one agrees with the summary of Dutkova Cope that “the Texas
Czech cultural heritage is alive and well.” Nontheless, she also implies that the lack of
38 the activity of individuals and points out the observation of Fishman and Nahirny: “the organizational participation does not necessarily lead to personal and creative involvement in the ancestral culture” (qtd. in “The Future of Czech in Texas”).
39
4. Conclusion: Czech in Texas Now and Its Prospects for the Future
Finally, it should be said that although Texas Czech is not as widely used now as it was in the nineteenth century, there is still a distinct trace of Czech heritage today.
The history of Czechs in Texas and their language is in fact a history of assimilation.
The community has been adjusting to the majority through its organizations and institutions. This gradual assimilation is well documented in Czech language use both in the immigrant press such as Svoboda or in the changing membership policies and activities led by the fraternal organizations. However, there are still attempts to preserve
Czech language use among Texans of Czech origin. Gallup contends that “Decreasing
Czech language ability between generations is dramatic” (95). According to his findings, “the majority of Texas Czechs over fifty, both in urban and rural areas, seem to understand and have at least a conversational speaking ability in Czech. Fluent Czech speakers in their forties [are] less common, and thirties or younger rare” (95). Machann and Mendl observe “a rapid decline in Texas Czech Culture” and in the frequency of
Czech language use as well (235). To put it in their words, “Not only was the Czech language heard less frequently on the streets of Czech towns and in Czech homes, but it phased out as the official language of Czech fraternal organizations, the language of the
Brethren Church, and the language of some Texas Czech journals” (235). However, they also mention that in the sixties and seventies “this trend toward the loss of ethnic consciousness was […] reversed” (235). Nonetheless, according to Dutkova Cope’s research on “The Future of Czech in Texas,” this “renewed ethnic pride” does not seem to correspond with the ability of Texans of Czech origin to speak Czech. She writes that
“the present day Texas Czech” is still used, at least “isolated words and phrases.”
40
Dutkova Cope concludes that her informants view learning and speaking Czech as something with a “very little utilitarian value,” but on the other hand, “the resurgence of interest in ‘things Czech’” has appeared. Furthermore, Dutkova Cope observes that in spite of the “stigmatization” of Texas Czech and its perceived low status among Czech
Texans today (they call it “low Czech,” “half and half,” “broken Czech,” or “brogue”), most of her informants expressed “positive language attitudes” towards the variety of
Czech in Texas. Moreover, Texas Czechs have some possibilities to study Czech in courses at the University of Texas at Austin which “offers Czech on a regular basis”
(“The Future of Czech in Texas”). She also notes that “Czech classes at UT Austin have recently begun to enjoy higher enrollment rates than in the recent past” and courses of
Czech for adults are organized by the Austin Community College (“The Future of
Czech in Texas”). Additionally, she mentions the Czech class in Flatonia High School which is “offered by a Texas Czech activist Thadious Polasek […].” Dutkova Cope comments on the different expectations in Czech language instruction of “the older generation,” i.e. the semi speakers of Texas Czech, and young people. The former expect to practice the traditional variety, unlike the young generation which wants to study the “Standard/Common Czech” xxxii as referred to by Dutkova Cope. However, according to her,
prospects for the survival of Texas Czech variety are rather bleak
unless the community members themselves commit the time and
effort to its preservation and work together with local schools in
order to accomplish this goal. As for the Czech language, the
general interest among the young people in leisurely, business, and
education related travel to the Czech Republic, and in learning
Czech, seems to have continuously improved since the mid 1990s.
(“The Future of Czech in Texas”)
41
Thus the language of the Czech community developed and declined along with other parts of the culture and traditional social organization. Nonetheless, Texas Czechs were
“isolated from the assimilating forces that have swept countless other ethnic cultures into the American melting pot” (Gallup 107) and for this reason the language as a central part of the Texas Czech heritage has survived until today.
To sum up, Czechs and Moravians came to Texas in search of a new life. Their attempt to transplant Czech culture into the American environment has proved extraordinarily successful. As can be seen from the history of Czech immigration to
Texas, there was a great deal of obstacles which had to be overcome in order to get and settle there such as the crossing and different climate conditions in Texas. In spite of these obstacles Czechs established coherent communities that were held together by institutions such as schools, clubs and numerous societies, by religion, and above all, by language. Language is the most important item due to which Czechs in Texas have maintained their identity for such a long time. Not only did it provide them with the feeling they are not in a completely foreign country, but it also served as a means of solidarity among its users. On the one hand, it helped them preserve their institutions but on the other hand, it also prevented them from full assimilation into American society, which was sometimes the source of irritation and misunderstanding from the mainstream Americans. However, despite their efforts in Czech language and culture maintenance, the pressure of the society gradually led to the inevitable adjustments which were reflected in every aspect of the Czech community’s life. When taking into account the issue of language, one can observe the influence of English on the Czech that immigrants had brought with them. As far as education is concerned, schools ceased to search for and employ Czech teachers and Czech stopped to be used as a language of instruction. Similarly, Czech fraternal organizations and clubs have been losing their initial vigour and gradually have changed their goals and membership
42 policies in order to become attractive for non Czechs and also stopped using Czech in their activities. Religion also has lost its popularity and begun to lose its role as a uniting force in the Czech community. As for literature and press in general, the once popular Svoboda and other newspapers which flourished in the nineteenth and early twentieth century have declined and their far reaching influence has begun to weaken.
After the death of its founder Augustin Haidušek, Svoboda gradually lost its former strength. As a result, Svoboda as a mirror of the state of the community ceased to be published in the 1960s. Several other surviving newspapers still exist but with considerably narrower constituency. All in all, the original community became assimilated although this assimilation has been unusually slow. After World War II
Texas Czechs no longer have used Czech in public to such an extent as it was matter of course before. However, there are many signs indicating that Czech language and culture in general in Texas have not entirely disappeared. Firstly, when taking into consideration several existing newspapers, one can see at least some interest in Czech related issues among Texans of Czech origin. Furthermore, Czech is taught at universities and various Czech language courses are available in Texas. People speak
Czech at least partly and young descendants of Czech origin seem to be interested in learning Czech. Although there are not many enthusiastic activists today in clubs and organizations, many people in Texas still endorse their Czech ethnic identity either through subscription to bulletins of the numerous organizations connected with Czech heritage or at least through visiting popular festivals concerning Czech music or cuisine.
Although Czechs in Texas no longer form the community in its sense as it was at its peak in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, it is obvious that there is some bond among Texans of Czech origin. Unlike the situation after World War II, there really seems to be a renewal in ethnic matters in the last several decades. Although it probably could not be said that Czech language in Texas would become widely spoken
43 among people, it is still used and this is quite a success that even today, more than a century and a half after the arrival of first Czech and Moravian immigrants, people are interested in the Czech language use and cultural heritage. Indeed, Czech has survived, to some degree, until today in Texas.
44
5. Endnotes
i This quotation is taken from the title of the book by Clinton Machann and James W. Mendl. “Krásná
Amerika = Beautiful America.” ii The original title is Spis o nových zemích a o Novém světě . iii The original title is Kosmografie česká . iv The original title is Kalendář historický . v Eckert notes that “The label Texas Czechs is used in scholarly literature today to encompass both groups” (“From Moravia to Texas”). vi Dutkova Cope observes that “many Texans of [Moravian] descent today prefer the self designation
‘Texas Czechs,’ which allows them to locate their ancestral roots in the present day Czech Republic”
(“Texas Czech Ethnic Identity”). vii I distinguish between ‘Eva Eckertová’ and ‘Eckert’ although she is the same author – it is easier in order to identify the author with more sources – when I refer to Eckertová, it means her book Kameny na prérii written in Czech, otherwise it concerns some of her articles in English issued under the shortened version of the name, that is Eva Eckert. viii There are no references to page numbers because after sending the article through the email the text was tranformed and thus without pagination. ix “The Czech (Bohemian) and Moravian regions of the present day Czech Republic belonged to the
Austro Hungarian Empire from the mid eighteenth century until the birth of the first independent
Czechoslovak Republic in 1918” (Dutkova Cope, “Texas Czech Ethnic Identity”). x Karel Jonáš was the U.S. Consul General in Vienna (Machann and Mendl 19). xi That is the Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railroad (Konecny and Machann 5). xii “The term “[district] chain migration” comes from William P. Hewitt, The Czechs in Texas: A Study of the Immigration and the Development of Czech Ethnicity 1850 1920 (Dutkova Cope, “The Future of
Czech in Texas”). xiii More about the immigration from Moravian towns and villages can be found in Myslivečková, Olga.
“Frenštát tady i za mořem.” Reflex 38 (2007). 27 Jan. 2009
45
xiv “Hannan notes that much talk and energy were devoted to reviving the language, and the death of
Texas Czech involved periods of decline sandwiched between periods of revival” (Eckert, “Community
‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press”). xv “Je to v zájmu vašim abyste měli své assesmenty zaplacené včas” (13 March 1952). xvi The original quotation is “moravsko tatarské nářečí”(10 November 1887). xvii There is no author mentioned in the text. xviii “Mnoho našich rodáků se naučilo číst ze Svobody, mnohým byla učitelem i bavitelem.” (6 March
1952). xix The translations of the newspapers’ titles are taken from Machann and Mendl and Hannan. xx She is also referred to as a Czech announcer of the radio station Kulp in El Campo. Eckertová notes broadcasting in Czech in the 1960 in four Texas counties and mentions the of Alois J. Mořkovský who had his program in Rosenberg Něco pro každého s biskupem Mořkovským until his death in 1990
(Kameny na prérii 200, 252). The influence of media on assimilation is observed by Hannan who observes that “By the time most families owned a television, Czech could no longer compete on an equal footing.” xxi This quote was taken from Eckert’s “The Years of Svoboda in the Texas Czech Community.” xxii “Kdo měl tu našemu člověku poradit co počít, kde se usadit?” (Čapek 43). xxiii “Literární tvorbu lze roztříditi na 1. Dějepisnou a politickou. 2. Básnictví. 3. Zábavnou četbu. 4.
Nábožensky tendenční. 5. Sociální. 6. Společenskou. 7. Praktickou. 8. Kalendářovou. I did not make distinction between 5. and 7. because it is difficult to understand what the author thought by these two categories therefore I summed it up in one” (67). xxiv The name was changed into Hostyn in 1925, according to the Czech Heritage Society of Texas, www.czechs.org. xxv “Školní dozorci nepřijali dobrého českého učitele, ale amerického […] Bylo nám řečeno, že v státních
školách se má pouze angličtina vyučovati” (17 November 1887). xxvi That is the Czech Educational Foundation of Texas. xxvii The original quotation is “Víra byla zprostředkována jazykem a jazyk žil díky víře” (Eckertová 117). xxviii The majority of Texas Czechs have been Catholics (Gallup 102), Hannan estimates 80 %. xxix “Fraternal organizations [provided] its members with life insurance protection, mutual protection societies insures members’ property against damage or loss” (Machann and Mendl 93). 46
xxx That is the Slovanská podporující jednota státu Texas , a fraternal organization. xxxi “The Fellowship was made possible in large part by a major grant from the children of the late William J. Hlavinka, an East Bernard businessman and Texas A&M graduate who was active in his support of both A&M and Czech nationality organizations during his lifetime” (the CEFT website). xxxii “Czech” is used as an umbrella term for the linguistic dichotomy (Standard/Literary/Written Czech vs. Common/Spoken Czech)” (Dutkova Cope, “The Future of Czech in Texas”).
47
6. Appendix
Fig. 1 Machann and Mendl (5)
Fig. 2 Bělič in Machann and Mendl (165)
48
Fig. 3 Machann and Mendl (14)
Fig. 4 Machann and Mendl (44)
49
Fig. 5 Czech gravestone (Eckertová 29)
Fig. 6 Czech gravestone (Eckertová 177)
Fig. 7 Czech gravestone (Eckertová 203)
50
Fig. 8 Example of spoken Czech in Texas (Kučera 205)
51
7. Works Cited
“Americanization.” Encyclopædia Britannica . 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 9
Feb. 2009
Chada, Joseph. The Czechs in the United States . Washington: SVU P, 1981.
Chun, Kevin, M., Pamela Balls Organista, and Gerardo Marín, eds. Acculturation:
Advances in Theory, Measurement, and Applied Research . Washington:
American Psychological Association, 2003.
Czech Educational Foundation of Texas . 25 Sep. 2002. 5 Feb. 2009
Czech Heritage Society of Texas . 26 Jan. 2009
Čapek, Tomáš. Padesát let českého tisku v Americe . New York: František Brodský,
1911.
Dutkova Cope, Lida. “The Language of Czech Moravians in Texas: ‘Do you know
what párknu káru u hauza means?’” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 20.2
(2001): 51 84. Lida Dutkova Cope. “Re: Cesi v Texasu articles attached.” Email
to the author. 29 Aug. 2008.
---. “The Future of Czech in Texas: ‘ How can you learn something if it’s not offered to
you ?’” Kosmas 14.2 (2001): 80 104. “Re: Cesi v Texasu articles attached.”
Email to the author. 29 Aug. 2008.
. “Texas Czech: The Language of Texans Who Say They Speak ‘a Different Type of
Czech.’” Southwest Journal of Linguistics . 20.1 (2001): 29 69. Lida Dutkova
Cope. “Re: Cesi v Texasu articles attached.” Email to the author. 29 Aug. 2008.
52
. “Texas Czech Ethnic Identity: So How Czech Are You, Really?” Slavic and East
European Journal 47.4 (2003): 648 76. Lida Dutkova Cope. “Re: Cesi v
Texasu articles attached.” Email to the author. 29 Aug. 2008.
Eckert, Eva. “The Years of Svoboda in the Texas Czech Community 1880s WW I.”
Kosmas Fall 2002. Eva Eckertová. “Re: Češi v Texasu.” Email to the author. 19
Sep. 2008.
. “Community ‘Translation’ in the Immigrant Press.” Kosmas 21.2 (Spring 2008):
6 19. Eva Eckertová. “Re: Češi v Texasu.” Email to the author. 19 Sep. 2008.
. “Gravestones and the Linguistic Ethnography of Czech Moravians in Texas.”
Association for Gravestone Studies. Markers 18 (2001): 146 87. Eva Eckertová.
“Re: Češi v Texasu.” Email to the author. 19 Sep. 2008.
. “From Moravia to Texas: Immigrant Acculturation at the Cemetery.” Association
for Gravestone Studies. Markers 19 (2002): 174 211. Eva Eckertová. “Re: Češi
v Texasu.“ Email to the author. 19 Sep. 2008.
Eckertová, Eva. Kameny na prérii . Praha: NLN, 2003.
“Immigrant Press.” Open Collections Program: Immigration to the United States, 1839
1930. Harvard University Library. 17 Oct. 2006. 26 Nov. 2008
Gallup, Sean N. Journeys into Czech Moravian Texas . College Station, Texas A&M U,
1998.
Hannan, Kevin. “Ethnic Identity Among the Czechs and Moravians of Texas.” Journal
of American Ethnic History 15.4 (Summer 96): 3 31. EBSCO . Masaryk U, Brno,
CZ. 28 Oct. 2008
Hudson, Estelle, and Henry R. Maresh. Czech Pioneers of the Southwest . Dallas:
Southwest, 1934.
53
Kašpar, Oldřich. Tam za mořem je Amerika . Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1986.
Konecny, Lawrence H., and Clinton Machann. Perilous Voyages: Czech and English
Immigrants to Texas in the 1870s . College Station: Texas A&M U, 2004.
Kučera, Karel. Český jazyk v USA . Praha: Univerzita Karlova, Mezinárodní organizace
novinářů, 1990.
Machann, Clinton, and James W. Mendl. Krásná Amerika: A Study of the Texas Czechs,
1851 1939 . Austin: Eakin P, 1983.
. Czech Voices: Stories from Texas in the Amerikán Národní Kalendář. College
Station: UP, 1998.
Machann, Clinton. “Augustin Haidusek.” The Handbook of Texas Online . Texas State
Historical Association. 19 Jan. 2008. 17 Jan.
2009
Morkovsky, Alois J. “Father Alois J. Morkovsky.” Short Biographies of Czech and
Other Priests in Texas . Hallettsville: 1982. Morkovsky Family websites. 24 Dec.
2008
Myslivečková, Olga. “Frenštát tady i za mořem.” Reflex 38 (2007). 27 Jan. 2009
Neal, Cindy, Harvey. “Guide to the Czech Communities in Texas.” 25 Jan. 2009
Park, Robert Ezra. The Immigrant Press and Its Control . New York: Harper, 1922.
Harvard University Library . Open Collections Program. 20 Jan. 2009
Plocheck, Robert. “Czech Texans.” Texas Almanac 2000 2001. 15 Feb. 2009
54
Polišenský, Josef. Úvod do studia dějin vystěhovalectví do Ameriky I. Praha:
Karolinum, 1992.
Roucek, Joseph S. “The Image of the Slav in U.S. History and Immigration Policy.”
American Journal of Economics and Sociology 28.1 (1969): 29 48. JSTOR .
Masaryk U, Brno, CZ. 19 Jan. 2009
Rozek, Barbara J. “Texas Bureau of Immigration.” The Handbook of Texas Online . 27
Oct. 2008
Svoboda – various issues from 1886 1964. The Archive of Náprstek Museum in Prague.
“The Czech Texans.” The University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures at San
Antonio . March 2000. 24 Oct. 2008
“The Winedale Story: The Czechs.” The Center for American History. U of Texas,
Austin. 2 Oct. 2008
55