This dissertation has been 65-5611 microfilmed exactly as received

BASICS, Walter Vladimir, 1927- ASSIMILATION OF YUGOSLAVS IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO.

The Ohio State University, Ph. D ., 1964 Sociology, race question

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan Copyright by-

Walter Vladimir Babies

1965 ASSIMILATION OF YUGOSLAVS IN

FRANKLIN œUNTï, OHIO

DISSERTATION

Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Walter Vladimir Babies, B.A., M.A.

The Ohio S tate U niversity 1964

Approved by

J j j , ^ Adviser Q Department of Sociology and Anthropology r

ACKNOWLEDGMENIS

The present study went through three stagest the planning stage,

the interview stage, and the stage of analysis and writing.

Professors Brewton Berry, Robert P. Bullook, and Christen T,

Jonassen assisted during the planning stage.

I am indebted to the seventy-five respondents for 'Uieir contri­

bution. Among the respondents were friends without whose assistance the

interviews could not have been completed.

I wish to thank e sp ecially Dr. Thomas G. Eynon who a ssiste d me

during the analysis and writing phase of the work. Dr. Eynon unstint-

ingly gave of his time and for this, I am profoundly grateful.

Finally, my gratitude to Ruth, who encouraged her husband!s

éducation before his first credit-hour of college.

i i VITA

August 19, 1927 Born - Johnstown, Pennsylvania

1956 . . B.A., Kent State University, Kent, Ohio

1956-1957 Graduate Assistant, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio

1957 . . M.A., Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 1957-1960 Assistant, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The % io S tate U niversity, Columbus, Ohio

1960-1962 Assistant Instructor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The %io State University, Colunbus, Ohio

1962-1964 . . . Instructor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field : Sociology

Studies in Sociological Theory. Professors Kurt Wolff and Roscoe 0. Hinkle

Studies in Raoe and Ethnic Relations. Professor Brewton Berry

Studies in Methodology. Professors Raymond F. Sletto and Robert P. Bullock

Studies in Marriage and Family. Professor Merton D. Oyler

Studies in Social Organization. Professors John F. Cuber and R ussell R. Dynes

i i i CONTENTS Page AQQiCMLEDGMENTS...... i l VITA ...... i l l

TABLES...... V

Chapter I . INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF THE YUGOSLAVS...... 1

Yugoslav Diversity Reasons for anigrating History of Immigration to the United States Yugoslavs in the United States

I I . EXAMINATION OF THE ASSIMILATION CONCEPT...... 20 I I I . THE STUDY OF YUGOSLAV ASSIMILATION IN FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO...... 30

IV. FINDINGS...... 39 General Charaeteristios of the Three Ethnlo Categories Assimilation Differences between Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons Findings Relative to General Hypotheses about Assimilation Comparison of Findings with Previous Studies

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND INTERPRETATION...... 58

APPENDIX

A. RELEVANT TABLES...... 68

B. THE INDEX OF ASSIMILATION SCALE...... 121

C. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE...... 125

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 131

Iv TABLES

T atle Page

1. Yugoslavian Emigration and Emigration, 1931*1937 . . • • 14

2. Census of Foreign Born Yugoslavs, 1920-1960 15

3. Foreign Born Yugoslavs by S tates ...... 16

4. Foreign Born Yugoslavs in Urban Places of 10,000 or More in O h io ...... 19

5* Median and Mean Index of Assimilation Scores with Significant t-Test Values for Serbs, Croats, and M aoedons...... 50

6 . Direction of Differences among Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons on the Eight Assimilation Eidex Items ..... 52 7. Mean Assimilation Scores for Selected Ethnic Groups . . . 56

8 . Age of Yugoslavs...... 69 9 . Age on Entry to the United S ta te s ...... 70

10. Year of Arrival in the United S tates...... 71

11. Republic of B irth ...... 72

12. Population of Community of Origin ...... 73

1 3 . Population of Community of O rig in...... 74

14. Relative or Friends in United States before Arrival . . . 74

1 5 . Source of Help during Emigration...... 75

1 6 . Help Given to Other Yugoslavs during Their Emigration . . 75

1 7 . Communicative Ties with Country of Origin ...... 76

1 8 . Marital Status ...... 76

1 9 . Years of Marriage ...... 77 20. Nativity of W ife...... ?8

V TABLES (Contd.)

Table Page 21. Number of Children ...... 78

22. Relatives in the Uni ted States during Time of Interview . 79

23. Present Religious Affiliation ...... 79

24. Occupation in Native Land of Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons . 80

23. Occupation in Native Land of S erbians...... 80

26. Occupation in Native Land of Croatians...... 81

27. Occupation in Native Land of Maoecvnians...... 81 28. Main Ooeupation Since Arrival in the United States .... 82

29 . Present Occupation...... 82

30. Neighborhood Location ...... 83

31. Spoken-Engli sh Language A b i l i t y ...... 83

32. Education in the United States ...... 84

33. Home Ownership...... 84

34. Preferred Folkways ...... 83

33* Organizational Memberships ...... , 83

36. Weekly Income Classified by under and over Sixty Dollars . 86

37 . Weekly Income by Twenty-dollar Intervals ...... 8?

38 . Highest Year of Education ...... 88

39* Discrimination Experienced in the United S ta te s ...... 88

40. Wife's Employment...... 89

41. Group's Preference for Other Groups ...... 89

42. Reasons for Emigration ...... 90

43. Aspects of American Life Liked Best by Yugoslavs...... 90 v i TABLES (Contd.) Table Page 44. Major Problems In Adjusting to American L ife ...... 91

45. Comparison of Living Conditions in Yugoslavia and United States ...... 91

46. Motivation for Movement to Columbus...... 92

47. Plaoe of Residence Prior to Columbus ...... 92 48. Years Lived Elsewhere before Columbus ...... 93

49 . Years Lived in Columbus...... 94

5 0. Inter-group Differences...... 95

51. Index of Assimilation (IJl.) S cores ...... 96 52. Assimilation Indices of Serbian Interviewees ...... 97

53. Assimilation Indices of Croatian Interview ees...... 98

54. Assimilation Indices of Macedonian Interview ees...... 99

35* Median, Quartile, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error for Index of Assimilation Scores Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 100

36. English-proficiency D ifferences...... 100

37. Education Differences ...... 101

33. Naturalization-status Differences ...... 101

39 . Property-ownership Differences...... 102

60. Friendship Differences ...... 102

61. Folkway D ifferences ...... 103

62. Organiz&tion-membership D ifferences ...... 103

Ô3 . Weekly Earning D iffe re n c e s ...... 104

64. I.A. Scores Classified by Urbanity ...... 104 63. Urbanity Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 103

v ii TABLES (Contd.)

Table Page

66. Mutual Aid Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 103 67. Source of Assistance Given to Emigrants by Ethnic C a te g o ry ...... IO6

66. I .A. Scores Classified by Discrimination ...... IO6

69 . Discrimination Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 107

70. I .A. Scores Classified by "Reason" for Emigration .... 107

71. I.A. Scores Classified by "Reason" for Emigration .... 108

72. I .A. Scores Classified by Communicative T ie s ...... 108

73* Communicative Ties Classified by Ethnic Category ...... IO9 74. I.A. Scores Classified by Neighborhood Location ...... 109

73. Neighborhood Location Classified by Ethnic Category . . . 110

76. I.A. Scores Classified by Length of Time In United States 110

77. Length of Time In United States Classified by Ethnic Ca be gory ...... I l l

78 . I.A. Scores Classified by Adverse Comments about the United States ...... I l l

79 . Adverse Comments about the United States Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 112 80. I.A. Scores Classified by Marital Status ...... 112

81. I.A. Scores Classified by Marital Status ...... 113

82 . Marital Status Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 113

83 . I .A. Scores Classified by Children In the Fam ily ...... 114

84. Children In the Family Classified by Ethnic Category . . . 114

83 . I.A. Scores Classified by School-age C hildren ...... 113 86. School-age Children Classified by Ethnic Category .... 113

v l l l TABLES (Contd.) Table Page

87. I.A. Scores Classified by Wife's Country of Origin .... 116

88. Wife's Country of Origin Classified by Ethnic Category . . U6

89 . I.A. Scares Classified by Length of Marriage ...... 117

90 . Length of Marriage Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 117

91 * I .A. Scores Classified by A g e ...... 118

9 2 . Age Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 118

93. I.A. Scores Classified by Transferability of i^atlve Occupational Skills ...... 119

94 . Transferability of Native Occupational Skills Classified by Ethnic Category ...... 119

95. Employment S tatus of Wife C lassified by Ethnic Category . 120

i x CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY OF THE YUGOSLAVS

In 1948 Interest in Yugoslavia was reawakened and accurate information concerning the first satellite to break away from the Soviet o rb it became a m atter of n atio n al urgency.

A 1962 study of Slovenes in America asserts that not only are

Slavs in general "unknown" but th a t they are su b ject to many "misconcep­ tions and misrepresentations."^ Supporting this assertion is Balch's

statement that in 1906, the United States Immigration Commissioner included among the Slavs, Roumanians, Lithuanians, and H ebrew sG ovor-

chin daims that many people have reported the Slav's case badly, includ­ ing the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States

Census Bureau.^ The primordial hone of the Slavs was the region of northeastern

Poland and northwestern Russia. In the sixth and seventh centuries the

Slavs moved west, south, and southwest and before the end of the seventh

Giles E. Gobetz, "Adjustment and Assimilation of Slovenian Refugees" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 1962), p. 136.

^Emily Greene Baloh, "The Newer Slavic Immigration since 1880," Tmmicrr.Uon and Americanization: Selected Readings, ed. Philip Davis (Boston-New York; Ginn and Co., 1920), p. I65. 3 Gerald Gilbert Govorchin, American from Yugoslavia (Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press, 1961). An exoellent critique of this problem will be found in various sections of Govorchin*s comprehen­ sive study of the Yugoslav in the United States. See especially Chap. iv , p . 62, and "notes" to Chaps, i and x, pp. 283 and 28?. centtiry, they were in possession of most of central and southeastern

Europe. Migrations divided the Slavs into three distinct branches :

(1) the Eastern Slavs or the Russians; (2) the Western Slavs or present- day Poles and Czechs, and (3) the Southern Slavs, or present-day Bulgars and Yugoslavs.4

The Croatians and Serbians appeared in the Balkans as early as 536, the Slovenes followed later, so that by the eighth century, the

Slavs were in possession of the Balkan Peninsula.

In the ninth century, Serbia was converted to Eastern Orthodox Qiristianity by the Greeks and Bulgars and subjugated by them as a result until the twelfth oentury. Serbia's hour of pride came during the short reign of Stevan Duaten between 1331 and 1355 • His conquests led to his proclamation as Tsar of the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgars, and Albanians. The economic and cultural progress of Serbia at this period was above the average European level. Many monasteries of Serbian-Byzantine archi­ tectural style bear witness to this highly developed culture of the

Serbs. Dus ban's code of laws, formulated between the years 13^9 and 135^, shows the advanced social structure of the Serbian state. Unfortunately, at his death, the empire crumbled and foreign conquest followed. For more than four centuries after Dushan's death Serbia was under Turkish

4 The descriptive account of the Yugoslavs in the present chapter is taken from the following primary sources: Charles A. Beard and George Radin, The Balkan Pivot: Yugoslavia (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929 ); John Buchan. Yugoslavia (Boston-New York; Houghton, M ifflin Company, 1923); Robert F. Byrnes (ed.). East-Central Europe uyier the Conmunits; Yugoslavia (New York; Frederick A. Praeger, 1957): Gerald Gilbert Govorchin, Americans from Yugoslavia (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, I 96 I ) ; Robert J. Kerner (ed.). The United Nations Series: Yugoslavia (Berkeley-Los Angeles : University of California Press. 1949): The Encyclopedia Americana. Vols. IV, VIII, XVIII, XIX, XXIV, XXV, and XXIX, 1958 . 3 control until I 878 idien it gained full independence and declared itself a kingdon. The "kingdom," however, v&s dominated from 1881 to World War I by Austria-Hungary. Finally, in 1918, Serbia merged with other South

Slavs and created the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Slovenia, in the northwestern sector of Yugoslavia, has never been an independent state. After migrating frcna their original home in northeastern Europe, the Slovenes settled on their present territory in the period of the sixth to eighth centuries. As early as the ninth century Slovenia was under German domination idiidi lasted through the subsequent centuries, the peasant population keeping alive its national language and customs in spite of Germanizetion. In 12?8, Slovenia fell under the control of Austria and remained until 1848 idien the Slovenes, divided among several Austrian provinces, began a successful struggle for political and national unification culminating in 1918 with the newly-created state of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, a»l Slovenes.

The Croatians settled in northwestern and western sectors of

Yugoslavia during the sixth to eighth centuries. In the ninth oentury the first Croatian dukedom was established in Dalmatia and Croatia was ruled thereafter by various dynasties: by the Arpads, the Angevins, the

Polish dynasty of the Jagellos and finally, in 1526, by Ferdinand of

Habsburg ; and the Habsburgs ruled until the end of World War I. Dalmatia, part of present-day Croatia and the home of mai^

Croats, had few years of independent rule since the twelfth century, when Hungariaii control began lasting until the fifteenth century, at which time the Venetians took control of coastal and island areas and the

Turks the interior lands. In 1797, Napoleon "gave" Dalmatia to the 4 Austrlans but in 1805 he returned it to Italy. The Congress of Vienna, in 1814, decreed the Croatian Dalmatians belonged to the Austrians and there they remained until the creation of the Kingdom in 1918.

Macedonia has never had a separate existence as a political or administrative unit in modern times. The present republic of Macedonia is surrounded by countries Wiioh have laid daim to it: Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia, its present sister-republio; only Albania has never claimed it. The historical boundaries of MacedoiJLa have never been precisely defined ; the territory generally considered to have been Macedonia is approximately 23,000 square miles. Alexander the Great of Macedonia conquered all of Greece and most of the known civilized world. After his death in 323 B.C., the immense Macedonian Empire was d iv id ed . In 395 A.D.

Rome lo s t i t s possession of Maoedonia and i t became a p a rt of the

Byzantine Eànpire (except fo r in te rv a ls when i t f e l l under the co n tro l of the Bulgars and the Serbs) until the Ottoman Turks conquered it in the 14th and 15th centuries. Since that time the masses of people who had settled in what is now Yugoslavian Macedonia were predominantly Slavic and have remained the basic element in the population. Traditionally, there has been antagonism between Slavs and Greeks, and a running dispute between Serbs and Bulgarians over the Macedonian Slavs. Turkish, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek nationalists have claimed from time to time the

Macedonian Slavs, and the Macedonian Yugoslavs have been ruled and influenced by all four over the years.

Montenegro, a Serbian branch of the South Slav people, was a province of Serbia until the collapse of the Serbian state in 1389.

Following a oentury of independence, it was subjugated by the Ottoman

Turks until it regained independence at the end of the eighteenth century. 5 It remained an independent state until 1918, when it joined the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

Bosnia-Hercegovina is situated in the center of Yugoslavia. Its people are Serbs and Croats. The South Slavs, oocu^ring the Balkans in the seventh oentury, also populated the areas of Bosnia and Hercegovina at that time. Bosnia, part of the Croat kingdom in the tenth oentury, was conquered by the Hungarians in the twelfth oentury and remained under the Magyars until the fourteenth oentury. The province of Hercegovina was part of Serbia until 1325 when it was wrested fl*om Serbia by Bosnia.

The Bosnians expanded their territory by defeating the Croatians in the later part of the fourteenth oentury. The Turks dominated the country

Arom 1463 for four hundred years, until the latter part of the nineteenth

century, when Bosnia-Hercegovina was occupied by Austria-Hungary. On

December 1, 1918, it was incorporated into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.

The Kingdom of Serbs. Croats, and Slovenes created in 1918 had as its head the regent of Serbia, later King Alexander I. Democratic

government was rendered difficult by the diversity of the country and its

population. The peoples comprising the Kingdom had never before been

united, and their historical backgrounds were diverse. They were split

into three different religions. Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Moslem.

They spoke different dialects, and included large national minorities of

Albanians, Germans, and Hungarians. There were differences among them in

attitudes, culture, econmnio development, and legal and administrative

system s. 6

This diversity contributed to the most serious of all the prob­ lems that plagued the new state—nationalism. Among the Southern Slavs

there were two different (and often competing) kinds of nationalism:

(1) "Yugoslav" (South Slav) nationalism, which thought In terms of the

unity and common Interests of all the South Slav peoples and (2) the

"local" nationalism of the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, and

Macedonians.^ In 1929 , following years of bitter strife between the two

dominant groups the Serbs and Croats, King Alexander I proclaimed him­

self dictator. After his assassination In 1934, a regency was set up

under Prince Paul, a first cousin of the dead king. The regency was

overthrown In 1941 and young Peter, son of Alexander, was proclaimed

king. The new government fell shortly thereafter following the German

Invasion of the country, forcing the members of government Into exile In

London. The Nazis divided Yugoslavia Into German, Italian, and Bulgarian occupation zones, and established puppet regimes In Croatia and Serbia.

During World War I I , there ware two major re sista n c e movements

in Yugoslavia: The first was led by General Draza Mlhajlovlc, whose

allegiance was to the government In exile,and the second by Joseph Broz

(Tito), of the Comnunist-dominated resistanoe. The two resistance move­

ments (Mlhajlovlc*s Chetnlks and Tito's Partisans) fought each other In

civil war as well as the occupying forces. Toward the end of World

War II, the allies extended their political and military support to Tito,

For an excellent brief description of the trials of the new country see Thomas T. Hammond's "A Brief History," East-Central Europe under the Communists: Yugoslavia, ed. Robert F. Byrnes (New York: Frederick A Praeger, 1957), p p .8-13. 7 and Mihajlovio was repudiated by his government in exile. The Russians took Belgrade on October 20, 1944, and Tito Immediately installed his regime as government de facto of Yugoslavia. Tito abolished the monarchy and set up the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia in 1945. Mihajlovio was captured by Tito's forces, tried by a Conmunist-court, and sentenced to death in 1946. Tito remained unopposed.

Under the constitution of 1946, the Federal Peoples Republic of Yugoslavia was divided into six Peoples Republics: Serbia, Croatia,

Macedonia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Slovenia, and Montenegro. In 1946, follow­ ing the split with the Cominform, Yugoslavia reoriented itself toward the

Western countries and away from the Soviet Union. With the death of

Stalin in 1953, tensions between Yugoslavia and Russia began easing but

Yugoslavia remains an autonomous communist state.

Today, Yugoslavia is bordered on the north by Austria and Hungary, on the e a st by Rumania and B ulgaria, on the south by Greece, on the southwest by Albania, and on the west by the Adriatic Sea, Trieste, and I ta ly .

Yugoslav Diversity

Five categories of Yugoslavs are customarily distinguished, each associated with one of the republics: Serbs (Serbia); Croats (Croatia);

Maoedons (Macedonia); Slovenes (Slovenia); Montenegrins (Montenegro).

There is a sixth republic, Bosnia-Hercegovina, but no groups in Yugo- glavia call themselves Bosnians or Hercegovinians. Other categories accounted for about twelve per cent of the population in 1953, a decrease from seventeen per cent present before World War II. The most important among these minorities are the Moslem Albanians in Kosmet and Maoedonia, 8 and the Hungarians in Vojvodina. All other categories total less than one-twentieth of the population. The various ethnic categories speak the same language, which is for oonvenienoe sake officially known as Serbo-Croatian. The different dialects are insignificant so that peasants ffom all parts of the country can converse although speaking their own dialects. It is expected that, as national unity increases the native dialects will disappear and the

Serbo-Croatian dialect will become the national language of all Yugoslavs.

The majority of the Serbs and Montenegrins adhere to the Serbian

(Eastern) Orthodox Church, while almost a ll Croats and Slovenes are Roman Catholic. The Christian inhabitants of Bosnia-Heroegovina are identified as either Serbs (Orthodox) or Croats (Catholic); the Moslems in Bosnia-

Hercegovina, although not Christian like the Serbs and Croats, speak the

Serbo-Croatian language and apparently prefer to be known simply as

"Yugoslavs."? The Macedonians are either Serbian (Eastern) Orthodox or Bulgarian (Eastern) Orthodox in religion. Since the people of Yugoslavia were converted to Christianity during the eighth and ninth centuries, the ancestors of the Serbs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians received Christian­ ity from the East, from Buzantium, whereas the Croats and Slovenes were converted by missionaries from the West, from Italy and Germany.

The schism of 10j4 between the Roman and Eastern churches split the South Slavs into two main religions. Western Catholic and Eastern

Orthodox, resulting in centuries of competition and conflict. This religious split was intensified because of the political division between

^Byrnes, op. cit.. p. 81. 9 those who lived for several centuries under the Turks and those who either escaped this rule completely or bore it only a comparatively short time. While the Slovenes and the Croats participated in the culture of

Catholic Europe, the Serbs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians felt the influ­ ence of Byzantine civilization and five centuries of Turkish regime. The lasting effects of the contrasting influences on Catholic and Orthodox

Yugoslavs are seen today in religion, architecture, music, alphabets, and hostility.

The Yugoslav census of 1953 lists 25 per cent of the population as religionless, 46 per cent as Orthodox, 36 per cent Catholic, 11 per cent Moslems, and 7 per cent Protestants, Jews, and minor denominations.

The World Almana^ for 19&4 lists Serbian-Orthodox 42 per cent. Catholic

32 per cent, Moslems as 12 per cent; and the remaining 14 per cent as religionless and/or minor denominations.

Reasons for emigrating

Although there are numerous causes for emigration, many writers agree that the majority of the South Slavs emigrated to improve their m aterial statusEconomic hardship was the "push" to mass emigration and the "p u ll" was employment.

During the period from 18?5 to 1910 about three and a half million people le ft the Austro-Hungarian empire (of which Yugoslavia was

0 See the following references giving "economic" as the cause for emigration: National Conference of Social Work, Proceedings of the 48th Annual Session (Chioago: University of CMcago Press, 1921), p. 46Ô, and United States Immigration Commission, Reports of the Lomigration Commis­ sion, Vol. IV, Emigration Conditions in Europe. Senate Doc. ?48, 6lst Cong., 3rd Sess., 1911. 10 g a part) and about three million entered the United States. Exactly how many of the three million immigrants who entered the United States were

South Slavs it is impossible to say, since the United States government did not begin to keep records of immigrants according to races or nationalities until 1899. Stressing the economic factor, the Immigration

Commission pointed out, "In practically every instance the Commission's query as to the cause of emigration was met by the answer 'to earn greater wages in America.'"^®

The economic picture at the time of mass emigration was indeed

poor. Agriculture methods in Yugoslavia were primitive and the yield

small. The cattle were half-starved and the forests, a potential source

of economic strength, damaged. Trade was insignificant, partly because

of political frontiers but mainly the result of the similarity of

products. As one w rite r commented, " It was indeed one of the d if f ic u ltie s

before Yugoslavia that her component parts had little motive for trading with each other, and this complicated their relations.

During the 1880's and again at the turn of the oentury, vineyards

in Yugoslavia were destroyed by the phylloxera d isea se. As the economy worsened, the government tightened its hold on the peasant; taxes were

increased, resulting in widespread borrowing and loss of property. There were laws forbidding the pasturing of goats, a major source of food for

9 Govorchin, op. c it.. p. 10.

^^Smltcration Conditions in Europe, op. c it., p. 361.

^Buchan, o p . c i t .. p . 269. 11 the peasants Finally, the disappearance by 1900 of the all-important

"zadruge," or cooperative farm-household which was the backbone of the agricultural eoonony, and the economic chaos was complete.

The economic picture had not improved significantly even by World

War I. Industry remained small-scale and retarded. Domestic capital was lacking and foreign investors showed little interest. Under such condi­ tions the lot of the industrial worker was poor, and he fared no better than the worker on the farm. While the total country was underpopulated, the rural areas were overpopulated. Thus, unable to earn a living either in the factory or on the farm, there was a mass exodus from the misery at home and Yugoslavs emigrated, chiefly to the United States.

History «f «ration to the United States In the years between 1820 to 1930, a total of 4,132,351 natives of Austria-Hungary (a classification in lAiich Yugoslavia was included) emigrated to the United States; 3,172,461 between 1820-1910 and 959,890 in the decade between the years 1910 to 19 3 0 It is difficult to estimate how many were South Slavs since the United States government did not begin to keep records of immigrants according to nationality until

1899 . During the decade of 1901 to I9 IO, 268,000 came from the province of Croatia and 134,000 from SloveniaEmigration from Croatia must

12 Govorchin, cp. cit.. p. 14. 13 United States Immigration Commission, Reports of the Immigra­ tion Commission, Vol. I, A ttract of the Reports of Tpmigration Com­ mission. Senate Doc. ?47, 6lst Cong., 3rd Sess., I 9 II, pp. 371-372; and United States Department of Labor: Bureau of ùuoigration, Annu&i Report 9f ÇpfFissioner General of Immigration. 1930, p. 202.

^^Abstract of the Reports of the on. cit.. pp. 371- 372. 12 have been fairly large during the latter part of nineteenth oentury sinoe the Croat government attempted to regulate the exodus.

Immigration legislation during the 1920's is reflected in the

Yugoslav figures of the period: from 1901 to 1910, over 400,000 arriving in the United States; from 1911 to 1920, 200,000 (World War I years); between 1920 to 1930, only 50,000 (apparently the effect of restrictive legislation).^5

In Dalmatia, unlike the province of Croatia, emigration was never large, probably because the Dalmatians, being sailors, could find employ­ ment on the seas away from depressed economic conditions a t home.

Because of unique circumstances, the Dalmatians found it easy to work their passage and desert on arrival to a desired foreign port. Such trickle-emigration was the established pattern in this province and con­ tinued even through the earliest years of the twentieth oentury, com­ pounding the problems of accurate Yugoslav immigration statistics.

Serbian immigration did not really begin until 1892, when several hundred came with a group of Dalmatians and settled in California, one of their most important settlements being already there in the San Francisco

Bay area. From that date the Serb immigration increased, reaching its highest pre-war points in 1907 and 1914, corresponding to the general pre-war immigration peaks of southern and eastern Europe. During the war years until 1920, immigration from Europe was insignificant; the post-war

European wave beginning in 1920.

Govorchin, o p . c i t .. p . 51<

p . 46. 13 Gilbert Govorchin pictures the Yugoslav immigrant up to 1921 as follow s:

The years 1913 and 1921 were those of the heaviest South Slav Immigration in the prewar and postwar periods and prob­ ably furnish as good a picture of the type of immigrant that was being admitted into the country as any that could be selected. Statistics clearly show that both in 1913 and in 1921 the majority of the immigrants were males in the age group from I6 to 44, with only a small minority in the lower and upper age brackets. There were very few who belonged to the professional or skilled classes, most of them falling in the u n sk illed la b o re r category. Although a la rg e number received financial assistance from relatives or friends, the majority paid for their own passage, leaving themselves usually less than fifty dollars to begin life in the new country. The literacy of the immigrants in the two periods, as already seen, varied considerably. In 1913 the number of illiterates admitted was comparatively high; by 1921 the figure had dwindled down to an insignificant proportion, due, in no small measure, to the litera^ law in effect. Thus, the average South Slav immigrant has been a poor, illiterate peasant, without profes­ sion or skill, paying a fare idxidi left him with nothing more than pocket money as he s e t fo o t on American s o il to jo in h is relatives or Ariends.17

Between the years 1920 and 1930, only 50,000 Yugoslavs entered the United States, a most likely function of the restrictive legislation passed during this period. Another reason for the decline during the

1930 's was the d ep ressio n . During the depression period the number of

Yugoslav immigrants entering the United States dropped to a new low, as shown in Table 1.

Interestingly, more Yugoslavs left the United States than entered during the 1931-1939 period. It can be seen from the table that 5.535 entered the country but 6,896 left; thus, 1,361 more Yugoslavs left than entered during the depression years.

p . 57. 14

TABLE 1

Yugoslavian Immigration and Emigration, 1931-1957

Year Immigration Emigration D ifference

1931 1166 1428 262 1932 534 1973 1439 1933 229 1089 860 1934 236 502 266 1935 404 551 147 1936 577 403 174 1937 641 334 307 1938 1021 298 723 1939 927 318 609 1940-1945 1309 249 1060 1946 676 93 583 1947 1117 88 1029 1948 1190 192 998 1949 1384 82 1302 1950 9154 74 9080 1951 8254 64 819 O 1952 17223 77 17146 1953 1272 158 1 1 1 4 1954 1432 168 1264 1955 2567 240 2327 1956 8723 147 8576 1957 9842 135 9707 T otal 79678 8663 71015

Source] Information from Immigration and Naturalisation Service furnished Govorchin, o p . d t . . pp. 59-60.

During World War II (1940-1945) 1,309 entered the country, 249 left; 1,060 more entering than leaving during these years.

Fran 19^6 through the year 1957» 62,834 Yugoslavs entered the country while 1,518 le ft; leaving a balance of 61,316 immigrants for the period.

In addition to the 79,678 immigrants from 1940 to 1957, there have been other "nonquota" immigrants such as displaced persons and refugees for whom figures are not available. 15 The recent Yugoslav immigrant as compared to the immigrant prior to 1921 is described by Govorchin:

The recent immigrants, it is thus apparent, are quite different from their ancestors of the days of mass immigra­ tion. They are not illiterate and unskilled peasants and laborers, but a very select group, highly intelligent and well-trained, predominantly professional and semi-profes­ sional people, farmers, and farm managers, proprietors, clerical and sales workers, operatives, craftsmen, foremen, and managers.18

Yugoslavs in the United S tates It is very difficult to estimate the number of "foreign born"

Yugoslavs in the United States since reports differ. Table 2 shows that according to the United States Bureau of the Census in I960, there were

165,798 foreign born Yugoslavs in the United States.

TABLE 2

Census of Foreign Born Yugoslavs, 1920-1960

Census Year Foreign Born Yugoslavs

i960 ...... 165,798 1950 ...... 143,956 1940 ...... 161,093 1930 ...... 2 1 1 ,4 1 6 1920 ...... 169,437 1910 not available

Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States. Colonial Times to 1957. Washington, D. C., I 96 O.

1 8 Govorchin, o p . cit.. p. 61. 16

The state with the largest nmber of Yugoslavs is Ohio, with

28 , 870 . Distribution of the 165,798 foreign born Yugoslavs as revealed by the I 96 O Census i s shown in Ta He 3*

TABLE 3

Foreign Bom Yugoslavs by S tates

Alabama ...... Montana ...... Alaska ...... 139 Nebraska ...... 577 Arizona ...... Nevada...... Arkansas ...... New Hampshire ...... California ...... 18,210 New J e r s e y ...... C o lo r a d o ...... New Mexico ...... Connecticut...... • • 1,159 New York ...... Delaware ...... 90 North Carolina .... Dist. of Columbia • • . . 223 North Dakota ...... 71 Florida ...... 1,520 O h i o ...... Georgia ...... 98 Oklahoma ...... 138 Hawaii ...... Oregon ...... • . 998 Idaho ...... Pennsylvania ...... Illin o is ...... 24,570 Rhode Islan d ...... • 55 Indiana ...... • . 5.531 South Carolina ...... 56 I o w a ...... 867 South Dakota ...... 69 Kansas ...... 1,252 Tennessee ...... 68 Kentucky ...... , . . 148 Texas ...... Louisiana ...... , . . 358 U t a h ...... 305 Maine ...... Vermont ...... 41 M a ry la n d ...... V irginia ...... 251 Massachusetts . . . ., . . 625 Washington ...... 2,775 Michigan ...... 11,633 West Virginia ...... 1,017 Minnesota ...... Wisconsin ...... 9 ,3 6 4 Mississippi ...... 145 Vfyœning ...... 428 Missouri ...... ■ • • 2,578 Total 165,798

Source : %^e World Almanac. 1964, p . 259 .

It can be seen from this table that Yugoslavs are heavily concen­

trated in the I'lidwest and Northeast, probably because of occupational

opportunities in those regions. The southern part of the United States

has been avoided by Yugoslavs as well as other immigrants. According to 17 the table, there are six states with a population of more than ten thousand foreign born Yugoslavs : Ohio, followed by Illinois, Pennsyl­ vania, California, New York, Michigan.

The Chicago area, heavily populated by Croatian Yugoslavs, has more Yugoslavs than any other city in the United States. Cleveland,

second only to Chicago in Yugoslav population, has the largest Slovene

colony in the country The number of Yugoslav communities in the

United States, including large and small colonies alike, are many; one reliable estimate being 1,077.^^ Omitting the small colonies, the more

populous Yugoslav settlements in the United States are to be found in

the following locations 1. New York City and surrounding sections, particularly Hoboken, New J e rse y . 2. Buffalo and vicinity and upstate New York. 3. The hard-coal districts of eastern Pennsylvania and western portions of New York. 4. The steel and coal districts of western Pennsylvania, including Johnstown, McKeesport, and Pittsburgh, and adjacent regions of West Virginia (Wheeling) as well as Ohio (Youngs­ town) . A large group of Yugoslavs is located in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, idilch, like Qiicago, is an important Croatian cen ter. 5. Wheeling, Benwood, and the coal-mine and lumber sections o f West V irg in ia . 6. Cleveland and Akron, Ohio. 7. Detroit and other automobile production towns in Michigan. 8. Calumet and the copper-mining and agricultural communi­ ties of northern Ifl-chigan. 9. The industrial section of northern Illinois and Indiana, including Chicago, J o lie t, La S a lle , E ast Chicago, and Gary, In d ian a. 10. Milwaukee and environs, extending to Sheboygan, Wisconsin.

^^The World Almanac. 1964, p. 257. 20 Govorchin, op. c it.. p. 74. 18

11. St. Louis County in the iron-mining areas of northern M innesota. 12. East St. Louis, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri. 13. Kansas City and Pittsburgh, Kansas. 14. Denver, Pueblo, Lead ville, and the mine districts of Colorado. 15. The mining d i s t r i c t s of Wyoming, Montana, and Utah, including Rock Springs, Butte, Helena, and Salt Lake City. 16. S e a ttle and Tacoma, Washington. 17. Portland, Oregon. 18. San Francisco, Oakland, Fresno, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Merced, Modesto, Monterey, Los Angeles (including San Pedro), San Diego, and the entire coast of California. 19 . The copper-mining areas of Arizona, such as Bisbee and Globe. 20. Galveston, Texas. 21. New Orleans, Olga, and ünpire, Louisiana; Biloxi, M ississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and most of the Delta region.

Yugoslavs in Ohio Distribution of Yugoslavs in Ohio is revealed in Table 4. The number of fo reig n born Yugoslavs is based upon c la s s ific a tio n by those

Yugoslavs idio reported they spoke either Serbo-Croatian or Slovenian. 19 TABLE 4

Foreign Born Yugoslavs in (hrban Places of 10,000 or More in Ohio

Akron ...... Lorain ...... 497 A lliance ...... Lyndhurst ...... 28 Ashtabula ...... M ansfield ...... 68 Barberton ...... Maple H gts...... 124 B e d fo rd ...... M a s s U o n ...... 120 Campbell ...... Mayfield Hgts ...... 42 Canton ...... N iles ...... a? Cincinnati ...... North Olmsted ...... 26 Cleveland ...... Parma ...... 193 Cleveland Hgts. . . . . 60 Parma Hgts...... 19 Columbus ...... 224 Rocky River ...... 23 Cuyahoga F a lls . . . . . 69 S a n d u s k y ...... 4 Dayvon ...... 144 Shaker H gts ...... 30 E ast Cleveland . . . South Euclid ...... 56 E ly ria ...... Springfield ...... 10 Euclid ...... 1.547 S tu b e n v iU e ...... 148 G arfield H gts. . . . S tru th ers ...... 146 G irard ...... Toledo . , ...... 75 Hamilton ...... University Hgts...... K ettering ...... Warren ...... 159 Lakewood ...... Youngstown ...... 870

Source: U. S., Bureau of the Census, Eighteenth Census of the United States; I960. Popu la tio n I , 37. CHAPTER I I

EXAMINATION OF THE ASSIMILATION CONŒPT

Robert E, Park's view of ethnic and race relations sees a cycle of contact, competition, conflict, accommodation, and ASSIMILATION. Regarding this process. Park wrote:

An accommodation of a conflict may take place with rapid­ ity . The more intimate and subtle changes involved in assimila­ tion are more gradual. The unity thus achieved is not neces­ sarily or even normally like-mindedness; it is rather a unity of experience and of orientation, out of which may develop a community of purpose and action.'

"... The unity thus achieved is not necessarily or even normally like-mindedness" so wrote Robert E. Park in espousing his theory of assimilation. This aspect of Park's definition is helpful in clearing away the many m isconceptions re la tin g to the in siste n c e th a t a ssim ilatio n need involve "like-mindedness" to the ultimate degree. The Dictionary of SooiQlogy emphasizes this point:

Social assimilation is the process by which different cultures, or individuals or groups representing different c u ltu re s, are merged in to a homogeneous u n it. . . . S ocial annAptlation does not require the complete identification of all the units, but such modifications as eliminate the characteristics of foreign origin, and enable them all to fit smoothly into the typical structure and functioning of the new cultural unit. . . . In essence, assimilation is the

Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, An Introduc^on to the Science of SodolofY (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1924), pp. 736-37.

20 21

substitution of one nationality pattern for another. Ordinarily, the modifications must be made by the weaker or numerically inferior group,2

After examining the concept of assimilation at length, Gobetz, in h is 1962 study of Slovenes, concluded that the essence of assimilation was "reciprocal identification." He considered all other aspects of assimilation relevant only to the extent to lAich they help to develop reciprooal identification:

It has been demonstrated in the course of this study that the final test of assimilation is the development of habitual, unreserved reciprocal identification between minority and majority group members. . . . Redprodty of identifications is, of course, to be understood in the sense spedfied, i.e., it is usually in the direction of incorporation into the dominant group.3

There are two important parts to Gobetz's interpretation : The axiom of "redprocal identifioation" and his assertion that the direc­ tion of assimilation is toward the dcmdnant group. The latter statement is in agreement with our Dictionary of Sociology definition which states,

". . .in essence, assimilation is the substitution of one nationality pattern for another. Ordinarily, the modification must be made by the weaker or numerically inferior group." To what are the different nationalities in the United States expected to conform? The question occurs to us since the Dictionary of Sodology. supported by Gobetz's exploration of the literature dealing with assimilation, obviously implies a distinctive culture that makes up the stronger, numerically superior or

"majority group" in our sodety. Granting we have a "majority," we

^D ictionary of Sodology. ed. Henry P ra tt F a irc h ild (Ames, Iowa : L ittlefield, Adams and Co., 1955), pp. 276- 77.

^Gobetz, OP. d t .. p. 184. 2 2 logically therefore have its complement, the "minority, " or weaker,

numerically inferior category. A minority, according to the Dictionary

of Sociology is~

a sub-group within a larger group (ordinarily a society), bound together by some special ties of its own, usually race or nationality, but sometimes religion or other cultural affiliations. Even in the common types of democracy, minor­ ity groups are precluded from expressing themselves in pro­ portion to their numerical strength through the operation of the principle of majority rule.^

Granting that there are some who deny we have a distinctively

native or majoi-ity culture, Jessie Bernard points out that the minority

cultures did not change the basic pattern of our institutions; their

contributions were assimilated, not transformed into an Irish, Jewish,

Polish, French, or Italian culture .5 Thus, she does not deny the truth

that many cultures have contributed to the American culture but she

insists that we have a distinctive majority culture. Therefore, it

logically follows that the many minorities in the United States in essence

make "modifications" necessary for their assimilation into the majority culture. Bernard's defense of this argument, briefly quoted, is as

follow s ;

. . . As a matter of fact, Aether one likes it or not, the American culture is a distinctive entity. It was created originally by English-speaking men and women -»ho brought their own legal, religious, and political patterns with them; and it has been molded by a distinctive set of historical forces. . . . the culture which finally prevailed remains essentially a mcdifi- cation of an Anglo-Saxon culture. That is, it retains the common law, the jury system, traditional rights guaranteed by

4 Dictionary of Sociology, op. c it.. p. 134. ^Jessie Bernard, American Gommnpity Behavior (rev. ed.; New York; Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, 19o2), pp. 240-41. 23 great English documents and institutions from Magna Charta down, a parliamentary form of government, and a traditional veneration for, and for a long time a colonial attitude toward, the literature of England. On this base, the American frontier operated to produce a characteristic American culture

Proceeding from the "concept" of assimilation to the "process" of assimilation, we are confronted with the problem of abstracting and investigating characteristics related to the assimilation process. In this regard, there are studies of particular concern which Identify specific characteristics involved in the process of "becoming assimi­ lated." As in most instances of conceptualization in sociology, there is the problem of describing the essence of an idea and its translation into researchable propositions. This translation has, in most instances, been accanplished by a shift from concept as content to concept as process. Thus, we discuss assimilation not as being assimilated but as hftnoming asslmllatmH. in much the same way as sodolgists deal with other concepts such as bureaucratization, urbanization, stratification and socialization.

The preceding discussion may be summed into the following series of interrelated and mutually complementary propositions concerning assimilation:

1. When two distinct groups make contact other forms of inter­ action precede the process of assimilation . . . competition, conflict, and accommodation. The injurious and temporary nature of these processes culminates in the attempt to effect a lasting solution—assimilation. 24

2. The process of assimilation is more desirable than the processes and/or solutions it seeks to displace. 3. Assimilation is an attempt to get rid of temporary processes preceding it; it is not an attempt to do injury to or get rid of out­ group members (as in the case of c o n flic t).

4. The type of interaction engendered by preceding processes

(nature of contact, competition, conflict, and accommodation) will affect the process of assimilation. 5. Assimilation, unlike the processes preceding it, is an intimate, subtle, and gradual social process.

6. Assimilation involves a change in values and goals (a re­ education) of two groups so that they are no longer incompatible.

7. The cultural distinctiveness of the group promotes inter­ action among its members since the distinctiveness provides ready clues to them for mutual recognition and identifioation.

8. It is expected that both groups involved will tend to have positive images of themselves and thus evaluate themselves and others from the viewpoint of their world.

9. The two culturally distinct groups will tend to see each other as group categories rather than as individuals thus promoting grcqp.consciousness, stereotypes, and misunderstanding.

10. A ssim ilation involves the notion th a t the groups grow more sim ila r.

11. Modifications must be made by the weaker or numerically inferior (minority) group if unity—assimilation—is to take place. This does not imply that the minority will have no effect on the majority during the process. 25 12. A minority presupposes its complement, the majority group.

13. Minority groups are precluded from expressing themselves in proportion to their numerical strength through the operation of the principles of majority rule.

14. Complete loss of identification of minority traits is not to be anticipated but a relative loss will take place, thus making possible agreement on broad goals and action.

1 5 . Assimilation is analogous to the reaching of an equilibrium—

the maintenance of a balance. 16. The assimilation process will be resisted to some extent by

one or both groups involved. 17. There will be variations in the facility with which some

persons or groups give up their group identification and/or find accept­

ance by the reciprocating group. 18 . Similarity to the host society promotes assimilation.

19 . The host society will tend to categorize some minority groups

as less assimilable than others. 20. Members of a minority who do not participate in the com­

munity at large cannot become fully assimilated. This is so because

assimilation cannot mean separation from or indifference toward the host

so c ie ty . 21. Assimilation is the social process by idiich an out-group

member comes to accept the host society.

22. An eth n ic community p e rs is ts as long as the in h a b ita n ts are

excluded and exclude themselves from the world at large. 26

23. The persistence of an ethnic cramunlty In the land of the host sodety necessitates the value of mutual-ald among Its members.

24. The ethnic community exists because It performs manifest and latent functions for Its members that are not performed by the sodety at large.

25. Members of an eth n ic community do not look a t th e ir com­ munity from the viewpoint of the outside world, but tend to look at the outside world from the viewpoint of their own community.

26. Those whose I n te re s t focuses on th e ir eth n ic community rather than in the larger sodety will be less assimilated than those whose o rie n ta tio n Is In the h o st s o d e ty .

27. Identification with an ethnic group tends to draw an Indi­ vidual to the ethnic settlement, and living In the ethnic settlement tends to Isolate him from the sodety at large.

28. An ethnic colony Is, In effect, a sodety within a sodety; sodally and culturally It Is a relatively closed community.

29 . Redprocal Identification of an Individual with an ethnic group tends to restrain his partidpatlon In the greater community and encourage partidpatlon and Identification with an ethnic minority.

30. Whatever Inhibits or restricts an Individual from partld- patlon In the larger sodety will affect his assimilation adversely.

31. An individual may renounce his ethnic affiliation and

Identify himself with the majority but the dominant sodety may refuse to admit him as a member.

32. Since opportunities will not be as available as In the larger sodety, later generations of ethnics will tend to cease looking 27 for o u tle ts In the eth n ic community and come to asp ire and id e n tify w ith the larger community.

33. Differential treatment accorded the minority by the host society w ill be dependent upon the degree of cultural "visibility"— race, nationality, religion, language or other cultural affiliations.

34. Final assimilation of a minority member involves the acquisition of a new identity and confirmation of majority members.

35. Assimilation propositions suggest three important condi­ tions of assimilation: (1) rejection by or loss of identity with one's

own society and culture; (2) acceptance of the new culture ; (3) con­

firmation by the host society.

Basic to the concept of assimilation as a working tool is the

"blending of the minority into the m ajority," as viewed, for example,

by Brewton Berry and his students. Two of Berry's students, Krueger^ and DeOroot^ used, as their point of theoretical penetration. Berry's

conception of assimilation: "The process whereby groups with different

cultures come to have a common culture. Krueger abstracted from

assimilation studies various factors used by investigators in their

attempts to determine the degree to >diich the immigrant had been

7 Nancy M. Krueger, "A ssim ilation and Adjustment of Post-war Immi­ grants in Franklin County, Ohio" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Depart­ ment of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 1955).

Dudley Edward DeGroot, "The Assimilation of Post-war Immigrants in Atlanta, Georgia" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, 1957).

^Brewton Barry, Race Relations (New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1951 ), p . 217. 28 assimilated. Her exploration revealed the following primary indices

1. Proficiency in spoken English 2. Education received since immigration 3. Naturalization status 4. Property ownership in the United States 5 . Income 6. Group memberships and the composition of these groups 7. Nativity of friends 8. Degree of Americanization in folkways Using the eight indices, Krueger constructed an assimilation scale based upon the assumption that degrees of assimilation could be plotted on a continuum from no assimilation to complete assimilation.

Each respondent in her Columbus study was assigned a score fo r eadi of the eight items, the Index of Assimilation being the sum of the item scores, higher or lower scores indicating more or less assimilation.

DeGroot, in his Atlanta study, employed the same scale.

Relating the degree of assimilation, as measured by the Index of

Assimilation to various social characteristics, their joint findings included the following:

Both found that as the age of the immigrant increased, his assim­ ilation score decreased; the unmarried immigrants had the highest assim­ ilation scores, the married next highest, and the previously married the lowest. Above-average education is generally associated with higher assimilation. Immigrants whose vocational skills were easily transfer­ able to new jobs were more highly assimilated than either the unskilled, or those who could not readily employ their skills. The number of adverse comments about the United States was inversely related to assimilation.

^ % r u 6 g e r , o p . cit.. p. 6. 29

Unlike Krueger's study, DeGroot did not find length of residence but did find the presence of children in the family to be significantly related to a high degree of assimilation. The findings of the Atlanta study supported some of the conclu­ sions of the earlier Krueger study; namely, that the characteristics

•»dxich facilitated assimilation were being young, single or married, having an easily transferred occupational skill, and at least a high sdiool education. The variables which i m p e d e d assimilation were advanced age, lack of children in the family, grade school education or less, and having only unskilled vocational qualifications.

Thus, it can be seen that the attempt to integrate assimilation literature has been resolved around the "operational" rather than the

"essential" dimension of the concept, and a synthesis of theoretical and experimental propositions has brought into focus a number of hypotheses whidi explicate a problem for study, as noted in the next chapter. CHAPTER I I I

THE STUDY OF YUGOSLAV ASSIMILATION

IN franklin county , (HIO

Although assimilation has been the subject of much concern in the literature, as noted in Chapter II, no one has studied it with regard to the Yugoslav. A study of Yugoslav assimilation is of particular interest for the following reasons:

1. There is a need in the field of Minority Relations for a study of the Yugoslav immigrant before he disappears from the American scene. This is especially true in the case of those immigrants who entered shortly after the turn of the century.

2. The study cf the American Yugcslav has implications for rural- urban processes. The average South Slav immigrant idio entered during the heavy wave of immigration before the restrictive legislation of the 1920 's was a poor, illiterate, unskilled peasant to whom the "zadrugh," the cooperative farm-household, was the backbone of his economy. It has been and still is essentially an agrarian country in which industrial develop­ ment has barely begun, thus assimilation, in this case, also might imply urbanization.

3. The study of the Yugoslav affords us the opportunity to examine some of the assunptions underlying the Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952 , which maintained the controversial aspects of immigration policy for the preceding three decades. The country-by-country

30 31 limitations of the National Origins Quota System suggests that some Immigrant groups are more readily assimilated than others, 82 per cent of

the total quota being allotted to northern and western European countries.

The findings of this study should help to affirm or negate the assumption.

4. There Is a renewed Interest In Yugoslavia since Its split

with the Comlnform and Its reorientation toward the United States. The

country's successful su rv iv al as an Independent Communist s ta te fo re­

shadowed the crack In the apparently so lid Communist fro n t and co n trib ­

uted to the Slno-Sovlet split, therefore we are Interested In these people for International political reasons.

5. Finally, although to many Western observers there appears to

be a national unity among Yugoslavs, the history of the country suggests to others a struggle between "Yugoslav" nationalism and the "local"

nationalism of distinct ethnic categories ; therefore It Is of Interest

to examine assimilation In Its differential Impact upon subcategories of

a presumed nationality. It could be argued that differential assimilation

of the subcategories demonstrates that the Yugoslavs are more unlike than alike. Variations In assimilation could be a test for nationality.

However, th is I s not the purpose of the study.

The specific purpose of this study Is to examine the relationship

between assimilation and social characteristics among the Yugoslavs In

Franklin County, Ohio.

The study concerns three Yugoslav ethnic categories : Groatlans,

Serbians, and 14acedonians, since the Croats and Serbs are dominant In

Yugoslavia and In the United S tates but the Macédons are the la rg e s t of

the three In Franklin County. Traditionally, the Yugoslavs Identify

themselves and are classified.by others In subcategories for reasons of 32 geographical location, different dialects, old political subdivisions, and age-old tribal affiliations vdiich gave rise to in-group out-group identifications. As a result, Yugoslavs everywhere, like the Yugoslavs in Franklin County, identify themselves as belonging to one of the major ethnic categories of Yugoslavia: Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Monte­ negrin, or l*Iacedonian. Objectively, it is difficult for the Yugoslav and observer alike to defend their assertion of "regional" nationalism. The axiom ^riaich states that if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences, is nowhere more forcefully illustrated than in the Yugoslav's insistence that he belongs, first and foremost, to a distinct ethnic category. In view of the preceding discussion, our first question is, therefore: Are there differences in amount of assimilation among these ethnic categories, thus creating reality from the situational definition of regional nationalism?

Our second major area of interest is to examine the relationship between assimilation and the following social characteristics among the

Yugoslavs in Franklin County, Ohio: (l) urbanity, (2) mutual aid,

(3) discrimination, (4) reasons for emigration, (5) ties with country of origin, (6) neighborhood location. Specific hypotheses relating to the

six social characteristics are these:

1. Urbanity; Proposition number 18 in Chapter II states that

"Similarity to the host society promotes assimilation." Thus, it is

expected that regardless of ethnic category, those Yugoslavs coming from a more urban area will reveal more assim ilation than those immigrants

coming from a le s s urban a re a . 33 2. Mutual Aid: The persistence of an ethnic community in the land of the host culture necessitates mutual-aid among its members, thus we hypothesize that the traditional practice of mutual aid will be wide­ spread within the three categories cf Yugoslavs studied. 3. msrrirnination, It is expected that those who respond that they have been discriminated against will be less well ass|i^;t;ift^(^ than others. In this area, we expect to find that which is generally true cf discrimination, i.e., if the Yugoslav is identified by the majority members as " d iffe re n t," d if f e r e n tia l treatm ent w ill r e s u lt. 4. Reasons fnn Emigration: On the basis of Eisenstadt's work^ the expectation should be that the "reasons" ethnics give for emigrating will be related to how well or how poorly they assimilate; "reasons" being classified as "survival" (because of the stress upon the problem of maintaining survival), "socio-economic" (emphasis upon economic and social mobility aspiration), and "political" (emphasis on political or ideological incompatibility). In DeGroot‘s study, groups differing with respect to their motivation for emigration had significant differences in degree of assimilation: Survivals were least assimilated, Politicals next, idiile the Soeio-eccncxnics were very well assimilated. Not wishing

to superimpose these categorical labels beforehand, we wish to hypothe­

size that t^eff w ^l be no relationship between "reasons given for

assimilation and how well or how pocrLv the immigrants have assimilated.

The historical evidence suggests the Yugoslav will give "survival," in

the economic sense, as the primary reason for emigrating.

^S. N. Eisenstadt, The Absorption cf Immigrants (London; Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1954), pp. 22-23. 34

5 . H e s w ith CoMntry_ofL Q ritdn ; P roposition number 26 in Chapter II states that, "Those ■vrtiose interest focuses on their country of origin will be less assimilated than those idiose orientation is toward the host society." Thus, we hypothesize that those who have relatives abroad with whom they maintain communicative tje& will be less assimilated than those Wio do not. 6. Neighborhood location: Ethnic communities are the fact of

urban life and we expect the Yugoslav to be no exception, thus Yugoslavs living in neighborhoods of relatively numerous Yugoslavs WJl be less

..«im ii.ted than those living in neighborhoods with few or no Yugoslavs. This hypothesis seems to follow from proposition number 27 in Chapter II:

"Living in the ethnic settlement tends to isolate the immigrant from the

society at large." We would naturally expect the best assimilated to be

living in the areas of "no immigrants." The next set of categories are suggested hy both Krueger and

DeGroot and will be used as the basis for a selective comparison between

our findings and theirs.

7. Length of Time in the United States; Unlike Krueger's con­

clusion, DeGroot did not find length of residence to be significantly

related to higher assimilation, therefore we hypothesize that t^era wil^

be no relationship between assimilation and length of time in the United

States, in view of the fact that the Krueger and DeGroot findings differ.

8. Adverse Comments about United States; Regarding this cate­

gory, we are reminded of the instructor vho began his class with the

remark; "Are you a lesser American for criticizing your society?" We

suppose there are many idio would answer in the affirmative and thus, for 35 this reason and the fact that the Krueger and DeGroot studies noted a relationship, we hypothesize that adverse ooanments are inversely related ta ftss^mnatlon.

F a m i l y Status; On the basis of both DeGroot and Krueger, we hypothesize that ( 9 ) the unmarried imm^prant he most assimilated;

the single next, and the "previously married” least.assimilated. We also expect, on the basis of both findings, that (10)those with children

iyi tha will be more assimilated than childless couiges and it is

expected th a t (11 ) those w ith schoo3,-ap;a c h i l d r e n w ill be most assim­

ilated. since the presence of school aged children in the home should

encourage the use of the host language.

In addition, we expect to find that (12) those with wives of the

same oountrv of origin will be less well assimilated than those having

wives of another oountrv of origin; in this regard, (13) those having

wives >diose iJ^oe of birth was the United States will be best assim­

ilated, (14) We hypothesize no relationship between length of marriage

and assim ilation.

15. Age ; We expect an inverse relationship between age and

asalm tlatlon. Chapter I seems to bear this out, especially in view of

the fact that the older immigrant was uneducated, unskilled and rural—

all three traits, apparently, hindering assimilation.

16. Occupation ; Immlcrrawts \diose vocational skills were trans­

ferab le to .jobs in th e United S tates w ill be more highly assim ilated than

those lacking skills, or those whn«A pot, rm ad llv hfl amnjlovad

here. We expect to find, as is the custom with minority groups, many

u n sk ille d . 36

îto-iflAbod The sequence of research procedure was as follows: (1) prepara­

tion of the schedule to gather data relevant to the hypotheses;

(2) selection of respondents; (3) administration of the schedule; and

(4) appropriate techniques of analysis.

Préparation of the schedule .—The interview schedule incorporated

four sets of questions. The first dealt with the personal background data of the respondent. The second concerned scale items designated to measure his degree of assimilation.^ The third focused on the social

characteristics thought related to assimilation, and the fourth centered

on open-ended questions relating to attitudes toward Yugoslav and American

culture. The format was arranged on the basis of experience gained

during a pre-test in Franklin and Summit Counties in Ohio.

Selection of respondents.—Several sources were utilized to

secure the names and addresses of all Serbs, Croatians, and Macedonians:

The sources for this master lis t were church membership lists, Icxlge

membership lists, "professional" ethnics who were widely acquainted with

other ethnics, and from respondents during the pre-test in Franklin

County, who gave the names of other immigrants. This master list which

resulted from the major sources was continually re ekeeked. The checking

procedure resulting in information concerning Yugoslavs which enabled me to feel fairly certain that all Yugoslavs meeting the criteria for study

were on the lis t. One hundred and twenty-seven candidates met the

criteria that they be male, at least sixteen years of age, belong to

one of the three categories, and be born in Yugoslavia. The children

2 See Appendix B. 37 of the immigrants, wives, and others were not interviewed except in instances where it was necessary for supporting data.

Of our total universe, 28 were Serbs, 39 Groats, and 60 Macédons.

We randomly selected 25 from each category, a total sample of 75 males or

59^ of the universe. Two Serbs, three Croatians, and eight Macedons were not available at the time of interviewing and were replaced, from the master list, by random selection.

Administration of the schedule.—The schedule was administered

through personal interviews in the respondent's home. This afforded the

interviewer the opportunity of checking responses with and to meet other

members of the household, thus gaining additional supporting data. In

addition, personal interviews were necessary because many of the respondents did not speak English and even among those who did, sane

matters were more willingly expressed and better rapport established in

the native tongue. Additionally, pseudo-partidpant in-group membership

seems desirable in order to secure more adequate response and the home

environment afforded this initial entree. Each respondent was simply called upon in person; anonymity was stressed and assured. Call-backs

took the form of telephonies, door-notes, and/or mail requests for time

and date arrangement of home interviews. The time an interview took

varied from 25 minutes to 4 hours. Sometimes we changed the sequence of the interview schedule, sometimes we rephrased the questions, and with

recaptive respondents, encouraged them to give additional information. 38

Analysis of the data.—The procedural steps involved in the analysis of the completed schedules were as follows : The seventy-five schedules were separated into the three ethnic

subcategories—Serbs, Croats, and Macedons, twenty-five in each category.

All responses for seventy-five cases were recorded on master

tally sheets marked by numbers corresponding to item numbers on the

original schedule.

Frequency and percentage tables were constructed on the basis of

hypotheses and appropriate schedule items. Categories were established on the basis of inspection and/or

calculation of central tendency of frequency tables. This was followed

by chi square a n a ly sis of the re s u ltin g contingency ta b le s which stemmed

from the categories established. Chi square was deemed suitable because of the qualitative nature of the data. CHAPIER IV

FINDINGS

This chapter is divided into four partss (l) general character­ istics of the three ethnic categories: (2) assimilation differences between Serbs, Croats, and Macedons; (3) findings relative to general hypotheses about assimilation, and (4) comparison of findings with previous studies employing the Index of Assimilation.

characteristics of the three ethnic categories

The age distribution of the Yugoslavian sample in Franklin County is seventeen to eighty-six years of age. Median and mean ages for each ethnic category is as follows:

Ethnic Category Median Age Mean Age

Serbs 66.81 61.22 Croats 69.64 67.36 Maoedons 46.60 49.18

A ll 65.66 59.35

The Croats have the highest median and mean age, the Maoedons the lowest. Table 8 (Appendix A) indicates that the three immigrant cate­ gories belong to the early immigrant population of the United States, as contrasted to other ethnic categories immigrating later.

Fifty-seven, or 76/6, of the Yugoslavs entered the United States between the ages 1-25: 8 ^ of the Croats, 84$6 of the Macedons, but only 56$ of the Serbs. The largest percentage of Serbs entered between the

39 40 ages 16-30 (68^); not more than 2 Serbs entered during any one of the other five-year intervals listed. Table 9 (Appendix A) also indicates th a t 56$ of the Macedons entered the United States at age 15 or younger.

Table 10 shows that no Yugoslav in the sample arrived prior to

1900 . However, by 1915, 52$ of the Serbs, 80$ of the Croats but only

32$ of the Kacédons had arrived. This is in line with the national picture that the Croats immigrated early and the Macedons immigrated later. Between I 9 OI to 1915, & total of 4l or 55$ of our immigrant sample had arrived.

Forty-four per cent of the Serbs were born in the Republic of

Bosnia-Heregovina, 84$ of the Croats in the Croatian Republic; many of the Croats (40$) were born on the island of Pag, bordering the Dalma­ tian province, where another 36$ of them had been born and resided. AH of the Macedons were born in Macedonia. The Republic of Bosnia-Heregovina, the birthplace of many Serbs, had been a province of Serbia, and the dominant population today is Serbian, although it is now considered a separate republic.

Table 12 indicates that over 6l$ of our sample came from villages with a population 400 and under. Of the remainder, however, approx­ imately one-fourth came from areas of more than 1000 population. Between the two figures, 400-1000, are only 10 respondents, or slightly more than

10$ (13.33$ ). Median population of village size for all three categories is

344. The Croats, on the average (median) came frcan larger villages (459

population); the Serbs came from smaller (338) and the Macedons frmn the

smallest (266). Of the total, approximately three-fourths came from 41 villages with population under 1000, Sixty-four per cent of the Macedons but only 28$ of the Croats came from villages under 300. Ninety-three per cent of the immigrants had relatives or friends in the United States before their emigration: 65$ reporting "relatives" and 28$ reporting "friends." The Groats had relatives (48$) and friends

(52$) in the United States in contrast to both the Serbs and Macedons who reported many relatives (75$ of them so reporting) but only 16$ indicated "friends" prior to arrival (Table 14).

The main source of help given to the sample respondents during em igration seemed to be re la tiv e s , 6?$ so re p o rtin g . Other souroes included friends, church, and lodge ; l6$ reported "no-help." Eighty- four per cent of the Serbs, 76$ of the Croats and 68$ of the Macedons had help from relatives and friends; about 25$ of the Macedons reported no help from anyone (Table 15). When asked, "Have you helped others come to the United States?"

72$ of the total sample reported that they did not. Of the three ethnic

categories, 40$ of the Croats aided other Croats, mainly through the Croatian F rate rn al Lodge (Table l6 ) .

Fifty-nine per cent of the respondents indicated that they kept

in touch with relatives and/or friends in Yugoslavia whereas 41$ said

they did not. Fifty-two per cent of the Macedons did not keep in touch with friends and relatives abroad in contrast to 36$ of the Serbs and

Croats (Table 17). Almost all of the Yugoslavs, however, said that they were kept informed of the homeland through news from others.

Twelve per cent of the Yugoslav sample were single. Eighty-four

per cent of the Macedons, 64$ of the Croats, and 52$ of the Serbs were married with spouses living. None of the Macedonians were widowed 42 whereas 28^ of the Serbs and the Croats were, again indicating the others were older than the Macedons (Table 18).

Regarding length of marriage, only respondents with spouses living at time of interview are included in Table 19. The median years of marriage for Croats was 36, for Serbs 29, and for Macedons, 24 years.

Median and mean length of marriage for a ll Yugoslavs in the sample was

30 and 17 years respectively. Since only those with living spouses were included, it is to be noted that about half of the Serbs and Croats are included in this tabulation, but almost three-fourths of the Macedons.

Ten of the 13 Croats included in Table 19 were married from 31 to 50 years but only four of the 18 Macedons included were m arried from 31 to

50 y e a rs.

Eighty per cent of the respondents' wives were born in Yugo­

slavia. Fourteen per oent of the Serbs and 19$ of the Macedons had wives born in the United States. Two Croatians had Italian wives, one had a

Polish and one a Hungarian wife (Table 20).

Table 21 reveals that twenty Serbs, twenty-one Croats, and nine­

teen Macedons had children. The Serbs and Croats had on the average

(mean and median) th ree child ren , but the Macedons had two. T hirty-

seven per oent of the Croats, 25$ of the Serbs, but only 5$ of the Macedons bad 4 or more ch ild re n .

As indicated in Table 21, sixty-three per cent of the respondents

had relatives living in the United States at time of interview; Seventy-

two per cent of the Maoedons, 60$ of the Serbs, and 56$ of the Croats.

The Croats, unlike the others, were all Catholic (Table 23). Of

the Serbs, 80$ were Serbian (Eastern) Orthodox. The Macedons were most

religiously mixed: Forty-eight per cent claiming Greek (Eastern) 4)

Orthodox, 28^ reporting no religion, 12$ Bulgarian (Eastern) Orthodox, and 4$ Moslem. Eighty-five per cent of the Yugoslav sample were either

Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox and 11$ declared no religion (Table 23).

Regarding occupation in native land, more than half of the

Yugoslavs (Tables 24-27) iiKlioate that they were either too young at time of emigration or, if of age, were unemployed in their native land. The largest number of the unemployed were Serbs (44$ of their number), followed by 24$ of the Croats and only 12$ of the Maoedons. Of the "too young" category, fourteen or more half half of the Macedons (56$) were included. Of the employed Serbs, the largest number had been engaged in farming (28$ of them) ; however, most employed Croats had been engaged in fishing (32$) and unlike the 44$ of unemployed Serbs, approximately only one-fourth of the Croats had been unemployed in Yugoslavia. The largest number of Macedons, 56$, as already noted, were in the too-young category.

Forty-three per cent of all Yugoslavs sampled had been, for most of their time in the United States, "unskilled" occupjaticnally. The largest number of these were Croats, 68$ of them, followed by Serbs (36$) and then by the Macedons (24$). An unusually larg e 48$ of Macedons had been engaged in sales since arrival in the United States, most of this number being bartenders; almost a fourth of the Serbs (24$) and 8$ of the Macedons had been proprietors but none of the Croats had been pro­ prietors or in sales. Each of the three ethnic categories had only one professional in their ranks (Table 28).

At the time of interview, almost half of the Yugoslavs sampled

(49$) were retired. The Croats led, with 8(^ of their number, the

Serbs, 52$ and only l6$ of the Maoedons. Most of those employed. excLvtdlng sales and proprietors, were employed in Steel Foundaries, as their retired oountrymen before them. An tmusoally large wmber of the

Maoedons, 28^, were proprietors of liquor-beer taverns. We were told ^ inform ants th a t many, but th ere was no way of a sc e rta in in g how many, were joint-ow ners. Only one person, a Maoedon, was unemployed a t time of interview (Table 29). Almost three-fourths of the total lived near other Yugoslavs : a high 92$ of the Groats, followed dLosely by 84$ of the Maoedons.

However, more Serbs lived near "few" or "no" Yugoslavs (5&$) than near numerous other Yugoslavs (Table 30).

English-speaking ability was designated as good, fair, or poor.

Twenty-eight per oent rated poor, 36$ fair, and another 36$ good ; thus

72$ of the total spoke either fair or good Engli^. Of the three ethnic categories, the Maoedons evidence the best speaking ability, 88$ of them ware judged either fair or good in English-speaking ability (Table 31).

Most of the Yugoslav sample, 77$, reported no education obtained in the United States. Of these, almost all the Croats, 96$, reported none, 76$ of the Serbs, and 60$ of the Maoedons. Almost a third of the

Macedons (28$), however, reported "some" education in the United S ta te s

(Table 32).

Eighty per oent of the sam^e were home owners. AH of the

Croats except one owned, 76$ of the Serbs, and 68$ of the Maoedons. Only one, a Serb, reported owning native but no United States property

(Table 33).

More than half of the Yugoslavs, 57$, preferred native folkways.

Folkways included such things as foods, holidays, norms regulating family interaction and recreational preferences. Of the Croats, 88$ preferred native, 12$ both native and United States, and none reported a preferenoe for United States folkways, lAereas almost a third of the Serbs stated that they had a preferenoe for United States folkways. Of the Maoedons, over half (32$) preferred native, a third both native and United States, but only 16$ a preferenoe for United States folkways (Table 34).

Most of the sample belonged to Yugoslav organizations exclusively rather than to American or both Yugoslav and American. Seventy-seven per

cent of all ethnic Interviewed belonged to Yugoslav organizations, 16$ to both Yugoslav and American, and only 7$ to American organizations.

Almost a ll Croats (96$) reported they belonged exclusively to Yugoslav orgpmlzatlons (?6$ of the Serbs and 60$ of the Maoedons). Almost a th ird , 28$, of the Maoedons belonged to both Yugoslav and American organizations. Yugoslav organizations consisted of churches with a predominant foreign element, local chapters of national ethnic fraternal lodges, and In the case of the Maoedons, a political-fraternal organization (Table 35).

In view of the fact that many were retired, it Is not surprising to note that 45$ of our respondents reported earnings of less than sixty dollars per week. Approximately three-fourths of the Croats earned under

sixty, due we assume to the fact that 80$ of them are retired. The reverse Is true for the Macedons, 80$ of them earned more than sixty dollars per week. Of the Serbs, 60$ earned over the sixty weekly amount

(Tables 32 and 33)*

Table 33 gives a breakdown of weekly earnings: thirty-six per cent reporting an income of more than $100.00 per week; fifty-two per

cent of the Macedons earned this amount, 44$ of the Serbs, but o n l y 12$ 46 of the Croats* Total median income was $74.25 weekly: $101.27 for the

Macedons, $85*50 fo r Serbs, and $51*27 fo r the C roatians.

Approximately a fourth of the respondents reported no éducation

(9 Croats, 8 Serbs, and 2 Macedons). Another fourth of our total sample reported four years of education. Median and mean education was follow s:

Median Mean Sthnlfi g>^g9ry Education Education Serbs 4.67 4.84 Croats 4.37 4.00 Maoedons 4.05 5.36

A ll 4.22 4.77 There were only two individuals who had gone beyond the 12th grade, one an Orthodox priest, and the other a city administrative official (Table 38).

Eighty-seven per cent of our sample reported that they did not experience discrimination and 13$ replied that they had: of the "yes" category, 12$ of the Serbs, 12$ of the Groats, and 16$ of the Maoedons

(Table 39).

None of the Croatian wives were employed, but six, or 24$, of the

Serbian wives and eight, or 32$, of the Macedonians were employed. Of the fourteen (19$) employed wives, two of the six Serbian wives and six of the eight Macedonian wives were employed in family enterprises, thus only six of the original fourteen were, in essence, not self-employed (Table 40).

The three ethnic categories were asked, "Which Yugoslav group would you prefer to live neart" One-half (52$) had a distinct preferenoe for their own grovqp. Of this nmber, almost three-fourths (72$) of the 47

Croatians voloed such a preferenoe. Forty-one per oent of all the sample replied "no differenoe." Included in this percentage were 56^ of the

Serbs, almost half the Maoedons (48$) but only 20$ of the Croatians (Table 41).

Almost half (49$) gave eoonomio reasons for emigrating, and approximately one-fourth stated that they emigrated because their parents did. Seventeen per oent of the responses were Massified as "political." Political reasons in<0.uded such speoifio reasons as "to get away from wars," "freedom," "I didn't like the government," and as mentioned by some, the very word " p o litic a l" (Table 42).

More than half of the Yugoslav sample (56$) gave "eoonotsio security" as the aspect of American life most liked fay them. The largest number so replying was 68$ of the Croatians, followed fay 56$ of the

Maoedons and 44$ of the Serbs. Other responses were politioal freedom; good for rfiildren; everything, and nothing in particular. A relatively high percentage of the Serbs are indoded in three of the "other cate­ g o ries (56$)—political freedom, good for children, and nothing in particular—their responses being almost evenly divided among the categories (Table 43).

In response to their major problems in adjusting to American life, the largest percentage (41$) reported "no particular problem," followed fay "language" as the second major problem mentioned. Of the

35$ mentioning language, over half (52$) of the Serbs listed it as their major problem in adjusting to American life . Twenty per cent of the

Croats and 32$ of the Macedons also mentioned language. The other problems listed were “economic" by 12$ of our total and "missed relatives and friends" fay the remaining 8$ of the Yugoslavs (Table 44). 48

The respondents were asked (Table 45) to compare living conditions in Yugoslavia with the United States. Sixty-four per cent stated that conditions were better in this country, 15^ were unsure, and 13$ reported that they were too young at the time they lived in Yugoslavia to make a fair comparison.

The immigrants had moved to Columbus for various reasons: Over half of the Croats (52$) reported that friends in Columbus had influenced their decision to come ; almost 20$ moved here because their parents did, and almost a third reported that relatives in Columbus had influenced their decision to oome. Another reason was eiqployment, and in two other cases, the children had moved here and the parents followed to be with them (Table 46).

Tables 4? and 46 indicate that approximately half of the immi­ grants (53$) had liv ed elsewhere before they came to Columbus. Ten per cent, however, had resided elseidxere for less than one year; five per cent for more than 40 years, and the majority, 53$, for a period of 1 to 10 years.

The percentage of those in each of the ethnic categories who had lived elsewhere was 48$ of the Serbs, 48$ of the Croats, and 64$ of the

Macedons. Forty-seven per cent had not liv ed in another c ity prior to

Columbus: approximately half of the Serbs (52$), half of the Groats, 52$, and 36$ of the Macedons. The d ties where the immigrants had lived prior to Columbus were mostly centers of the steel industry, such as Gary,

Pittsburgh, Lorain or Canton—a ll cities lAose economy had drawn immigrants in earlier years. Median and mean years liv ed in Columbus follow :

Ethnic Category Median Years

Serbs 41.75 30.70 Groats 4?.52 34.30 Maoedons 19*87 21.30 All 38.00 31*70

When asked, "How does your group differ from other Yugoslav groupsT" 36^ re|01.ed "religion." Of these, 52$ of the Croatians gave this reason, approximately a third of the Serbians, and 20$ of the Maoedons* Other Inter-ethnlc differences given were different provinces

(21$); poUtloal differences (l6$); dialect (12$), and the subjective statement that "we just believe we're different" made by 8$. Approx­ im ately a fourth of a l l Yugoslavs sampled reported "no d ifferen ce." Many of the respondents gave more than on dlstlnguishlng oharaoterlsties (Table 50)*

Asslmnatlon differences between §gg]?gi ftrgatfli ftBd MRwdma A primary objective in reporting upon the level of assimilation for Serbs, Croats, and Macedons Is to answer the question: Are there differences between these ethnic categories in amount of assimilationt

Table 51 Indicates the frequency distribution of the lA Scale Scores for the three ethnic categories, where I t can be seen that Serbs' scores ranged from 12 to 22; Croats from 12 to 21, and Macedons from 12 to 23*

The significance of differenoe between these three groups may be seen in

Table 5* 50

TABLE 5

Median and Mean Index of Assimilation Scores with Significant t-Test Values for Serbs, Groats, and Maoedons

Ethnic Category Median Mean t P

Serbs 16.33 16.56 4.3 7.01 Croats 13.15 13.44 4.6 7.01 Macedons 16.87 16.97 A ll 15.00 15.56

Source: Table 51, Appendix A.

We note therefore that the Croats are less assimilated than either the Serbs or the Maoedons, and that there is no significant differenoe between the Index of Assimilation Scores of Serbs and Maoedons. Tables $6 through 63 reveal the following:

There was no sig n ifica n t differenoe among the three ethnic cate­

gories regarding English profidenoy.

There was a significant difference among Serbs, Croats, and Maoe­ dons regarding education obtained in the United States. Ninety-six per

cent of the Croats reported no education obtained in the United States.

All of the respondents said that they had been naturalized. We

suspected the truth of their 100^ assertion but it was difficult to ascertain because of the tendency of immigrants generally to respond "yes"

almost reflexively to the question of naturalization, thus closing the door to further probing of the subject.

Ninety-two per cent of the Croats replied that their friends were mostly Yugoslav in contrast to 32^ of the Serbs and 40^ of the Maoedons. 51 There «as a sig n ifica n t difference in reference to "folkways" among the three categories. Eighty-eight per cent of the Croats had a preference for their own folkways but only of the Serbs and $2$ of the Macedons so rep lied .

Ninety-six per cent of the Croats indicated they belonged to

Yugoslav rather than to American or mixed Yugoslav and American organiza­ tions as compared to of the Serbs and 60^ of the Maoedons.

As expected with an older Immigrant group, many of idiom are retired, only 5^^ of a ll Yugoslavs sampled reported weekly earnings over

$60.00. Of these, the highest percentage is found among the Macedons,

80^ of them reporting earnings over $60.00 per week while only 2 ^ of the Croats and 6 ^ of the Serbs earned more than this amount.

Table 6 is a summary of the direction of differences in assimila­ tion among the three ethnic categories. Of the six significant x^ probabilities, the Croats are in the direction of least assimilation on five of them. Thus it appears that five of the eight items in the Index of Assimilation discriminate differences in assimilation in the direction predicted by the total score on the eight-item Index of Assimilation.

Of the three items not in the e3q>eoted direction. Naturalization status indicated that all respondents were citizens, therefore chi square could not be computed; the English proficiency item was not s t a t is t ic a lly

significant, but indicated a tendency in the expected direction, so the

Property Ownership item i s the only true reversal of expectations. The reason for this is not readily apparent. 52

TABLE 6

Direction of Differences eaong Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons on the Eight Assimilation Index Items

Direction of Assimilation Chi Square Most Least Probability

1. English Proficiency Maoedons Serbs .30

2. Education Obtained in U. S. Maoedons Croats .01

3. Naturalization Status ** *

4 . Property Ownership Croats Maoedons .05

5 . Nativity of Rriends Serbs Croats .001 6 . Folkways Serbs Croats .001

7. Organizational Memberships Maoedons Croats .01 8. Weekly Earnings Maoedons Croats .001

Source: Tables 5^ to 63, Appendix A. *AU respondents claimed citizenship. ftndtBgi rglaUM,..te,.CTBMral towtteaa gboBt iBfilBllBttgn It mas hypothesized that those Yugoslavs coming ffom a more urban area w iU reveal more assim ilation than those coming from a le s s

urban area. Sinoe most of the immigrants mere from rural areas, the area of origin mas translated, statistically and by inspection, into degrees of urbanity. Table 64 reveals no significant difference between

population size (urbanity) and Index of Assimilation Scores.

To test the hypothesis that the traditional practice of mutual

aid m ill be midespread me asked whether or not the immigrant had received

or given assistance to/from otWr Yugoslavs ; eighty-four per cent replied 53 "yes," thua the hypotheala Is substantiated. However, replies were almost equally distributed among the three ethnic oategories resulting in no sign ifioan t d ifferences among Serbs, Groats, and Maoedons. Additional insight into this question is revealed by Table 6?: Sixty-seven per oent received assistance from relatives rather than from other sources and only 16^ of a ll Yugoslavs sampled replied that they had received no assistance.

It was not possible to test the relationship between discrimina­ tion and assimilation. We had expeoted that those who responded that they were discrim inated against would be le s s w ell assim ilated than others, but due to the faot that 8?^ reported that they had not been discriminated against, it was not possible to test this hypothesis statistioally.

Analysis of "reasons" for emigraticm reveals that 49^ mentioned

"eoonosdc" as the main reason for emigrating. "Other" reasons include these: parents emigrated (24^); politioal (17^); relatives in United

States (6$); adventure (1^); friends in United States (l^); and family- persuasion in Yugoslavia (l{(). Of these, "parents emigrated" (and therefore the Yugoslavs studied did) was the largest single other reason given, 2^ as opposed to 49$ giving "eoonoaic."

A te s t for significance between "economic" and "other" revealed a sig n ifica n t differenoe as shown in Table 70. Those who gave economic as the reason scored lower on the lA than those giving other reasons.

Testing between "economic" and the next largest category, "parents emi­ grated, " reveals that those who emigrated because their parents did have higher assimilation scores, suggesting that they emigrated at a younger age. Thus, our hypothesis as stated, "There w ill be no relationship 54 between reasons given for emigration and how well or how poorly the immigrants have assimilated," is rejected. I t was expected that those who ecwmunicated with r e la tiv es abroad would be le s s w ell assim ilated than those who did n ot. Table 72 reveals that this is not so, 59^ replied that they maintained contacts abroad, and there was no differenoe in assimilation between those who did and those who did not. Table 74 substantiates idiat is generally believed in the litera­ ture concerning ethnic groups: namely, that those living in ghettos w ill be less assimilated than immigrants living elsewhere. Our hypothesis was that Yugoslavs living in neighborhoods of relatively numerous Yugo­ slavs w ill be less assimilated than those living in neighborhoods with few or no Yugoslavs. Seventy-five per cent replied that they lived near other Yugoslavs, and the majority of these had low I.A. scores.

We hypothesised that there w ill be no relationship between assimilation and length of time in the United States. Table ?6 substan­ tiates this expectation, but an Interesting direction appears In that low assimilation Is related to longer time in the United States.

We found, contrary to our expectation, that there was no associ­ ation between adverse comments about the United States and assimilation.

We had expected an Inverse relationship, i.e ., more adverse comments

related to lower I .A. scores.

We had e3q>eoted to find the "married" immigrant most assimilated,

the "single" next, and the "previously married" the least assimilated.

We found no relationship among marital status and assimilation.

It was expected that those with children In the family would be

more assimilated than childless couples. Since eighty-one per cent of 55 our total population had ohlldrer in the family, a statistioal test could not he used.

Table 85 rejects the hypothesis that those with school-age children wiU be more assimilated than those without school-age children.

Regarding I.A scores and wife's country of origin, the expecta­ tion was that those having wives of the same country of origin w ill be less well assimilated than those having wives of another country of origin, and that those having wives lAose place of birth was the United

States would be most assim ilated . The assim ilation scores are in the direction of the expectation, although an insufficient number of people in the appropriate oategories prevent us froa using a statistical test.

The hypothesis that there would be no relationship between length of marriage and assimilation is tested in Table 89. Our finding indi­

cates an association between assimilation and length of marriage—the longer the marriage, the less the assimilation—perhaps reflecting age of the respondent, thus supporting the notion that the older immigrants are expected to be less well assimilated. However, in testing for the expected inverse relationship between age and assimilation, although our finding was in the d irection o f iriiat we expected, the s t a t is t ic a l te s t was not

significant (Pi.10).

I t was not possib le to te s t the hypothesis that those whose voca­

tional skills were transferable to jobs in the United States will be more

highly assimilated than other occupational categories since the major

part of our population was largely unskilled or too young on entry to the

United States (79^). 56

Ccapariaon of findings ulth woYlwn mtydiem Table ? is a cmparlson of our findings vith previous studies

(Krueger and DeGroot) employing the Index of A ssim ilation Scale.

TABLE 7

Mean Assimilation Scores for Selected Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Group Mean Number latvians-Llthuanlans-Bstonlans^ 19.00 30

Greek^ 17.65 32

Latvians-li. thuanians-E stonians^ 17.57 26 Hungarian s-Rumanlans-Austrlan Yugoslavian' 17.15 33

Maoedonlan^ 16.96 25 German^ 16.63 24

Serbian^ 16.56 25 Hungarlan-Okralnlan-Yugoslavian Cse choslovakian^ 16.05 17

German^ 15.36 25 Polish^ 14.54 26

Croatian^ 13.44 25

^Krueger. DeGroot. ^Babies.

Krueger. In addition to the ethnic categories In Table 7, also

had a miscellaneous category oontalnlng 12 Italians, 4 Greeks, 8 Poles,

6 Russians, 3 Dutch, 2 Danes, 2 Swiss, and 1 Chinese. However, the

category was not statistically analysed. For statistical purposes, she

categorised the immigrants Into what she assumed to be homogeneous 57 nationality or nativity groups. The Germans she handled separately, there being Zk in this category. The 22 Latvians, 3 Estonians, and 5

Lithuanians were handled as one, with a total of 30, her rationale being that a ll these countries are adjoining and currently are part of Russia.

One Austrian, one Yugoslavian, l6 Hungarians, and 13 Rumanians were also analysed together to form a study group of 33.

DeGroot accepted the same assimption as Krueger in his a n alysis, i.e ., that there was justification for combining the separate ethnic categories. On a n ation ality b asis, h is sample was in it ia lly divided into the following groups:

Greek - 32 Rumanian - 5 Polish - 26 Yugoslavian - 3 German - 2k Hungarian - 3 Latvian - 12 Czechoslovakian - 2 Estonian - 8 Netherlands - 1 lithuanien - 6

For purposes of statistioal analysis, these nationality groups were combined in to fiv e ethnic oategories. The Greek and Polish groups were considered separate groups. The one individual from the Netherlands was combined with the Germans to form a category of 23. The Latvians,

Estonians, and Lithuanians were combined to form what he called a B altic group to ta lin g 26. This combination, he f e l t , was a legitim ate one, on the basis of the linguistic and cultural similarities, and the geographic propinquity of the three countries. The fifth ethnic group was a combina­ tion of immigrants from, as he termed i t , the USSR; the Czechs, Magyars, and Yugoslavs. He felt that this combination was justified on the same basis as that used for the Baltic group. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND INTERPRETATION

The history of the Yugoslavs is one of "diversity, " the country has seldom been united, and even the major attempt to wield its people into one, which began in 1918 with the formation of The Kingdom of Serbs,

Croats, and Slovenes, was an adcnowledged fa ilu r e . As recently as World War II occupying forces were successful in reviving age-old ethnic hatreds. The country had been split into two dominant religions. Eastern

Orthodox and Roman C atholic. Its people spoke d ifferen t d ia le c ts . There were large national minorities of Albanians, Germans, and Hungarians.

There were differences among the people in attitudes, culture, economic development, and legal and administrative systems. Up until Tito's time,

certainly the Yugoslavs could not be looked upon as an example of homo­ geneity. Even under Tito's rule differences still exist, but Yugoslavia today bas more ^osely approached the threshold of unity than at any

stage of its growth.

The most revealing difference, in our attempt to understand the

Yugoslav, is the two competing kinds of nationalism: Yugoslav nationalism, i.e ., the unity of all the people, and the "regional" nationalism of

ethnic categories such as Serbs, Groats, Slovenes, Montenegrins, and

Macedonians. This fierce regional nationalism, added to the differences mentioned previously, help us to achieve the perspective necessary to understand the Franklin County Yugoslav. Long after we have shown the

58 59 three ethnic categories to have much in common, we are sure they w ill in s is t that they are f ir s t of a l l , Serbs, Croats, or Macedons, then

Yugoslavs. When asked their nationality, all the respondents replied in lo c a l-n a tio n a listic terms, and they also hoped for a like-response from the interviewer.

In addition to the theme of "diversity" in Qiapter I, the economic reason for emigration was also established. The exodus to the United

States was the result of econondc factors: the tightening of governmental controls through tax increases idiich resulted in widespread borrowing and sale of property; laws forbidding the pasturing of goats so necessary for peasant survival; and finally by 1900 the disaf^aranoe of the "zadruge," the cooperative family-households which were the badcbone of an agricu l­ tural economy oompleted the economic chaos.

The extended influence of the "zadruge" i s observed today in the ghetto life of the Yugoslav immigrant and his affiliation and participa­ tion in ethnic organisations; even in I96I the older Franklin County

Yugoslav looks toward the ethnic community for the performance of many m anifest and la te n t functions not performed for him by the larger so cie ty .

It is worth noting that immigration statistics are difficult to obtain, sinoe the United States government did not begin to keep records of immigrants according to n ation ality u n til 1899« However, i t was possible to record that 1913 and 1921 were the years of most Yugoslav immigration, declining after 1921 because of restrictive immigration legislation in the United States during the early 1920's and a later depression. 60

Chapter II is a olarification of the eonoept of assimilation and related terms such as "majority" and "minority." We then proceeded from the "concept" of assimilation to the "process" of assimilation—from the problems of describing the essence of the idea of assimilation to its translation into researchable propositions. Following th is presentation, we examined the uses of the concept, as in the Krueger and DeGroot studies, since they were particularly relevant for our purposes. The conclusion of Chapter II emphasises that the problems inherent in assimilation literature have been resolved by the "operational" rather than by the "essential" dimension of the concept.

Our synthesis of theoretioal and experimental propositions has brought into focus a number of hypotheses idilch explicate the problem for study.

Chapter l U notes that although assim ilation has been the subject of much concern in the literature, no one has studied it with regard to the Yugoslav. There are many reasons why Yugoslavs should be studied.

However, the sp e c ific purpose of th is study was to examine the rela tio n ­ ship between assimilation and social characteristics among the Yugoslavs in Franklin County, Ohio. Our in it ia l point of penetration was the question of differential assimilation of the three ethnic oategories.

Specific areas of interest were an examination of the relationship between assimilation and urbanity, mutual aid, discrimination, reasons for emigration, ties with country of origin, and neighborhood location among the Franklin County Yugoslavs. Seventeen hypotheses concerning these characteristics were developed as a synthesis of the history of the three ethnic categories, assimilation propositions, and selected findings of Krueger and DeGroot. The hypotheses were tested through the use of an interview schedule. The procedure was as follows: Preparation 61 of the eohoduLe; astabllehlng the r e lie bdLlity end v a lid ity of the eesimiletion eoele; selection of the respondents; edadnistretion of the schedule, end analysis of the data. Our findings, which are detailed in Œapter IV, are in four parts i the first part is a composite picture of Franklin County Yugoslavs ; the second, assimilation differences between Serbs, Croats, and Macedons ; the third part of the Findings section concerned the findings relative to the general hypotheses about assimilation; and the last section of the chapter d ealt with a comparison of our findings with the previous Krueger and DeGroot studies which also e^qdoyed the Index of A ssim ilation Soale.

The male Yugoslav in Franklin County, Ohio, i s over 60 years of age, the age factor being indicative of the faot that 55^ immigrated between 1901 and 1915* Their median age was 66 and mean, 59 years of age. Seventy-five per oent were under twenty-five when they emigrated. Median population of areas of origin was seventy-five per cent came tram villages with a population under 1000. Prior to emigration, over

90^ had relatives or friends in the United States. During the time of interview, eighty-eight per oent had either been married or were married when interviewed, and almost 20^ were widowed. Most respondents' wives, 80)6, were also born in Yugoslavia.

Median number of children was 2.56 and mean was 2.87. Religiously, the Croats were a ll Roman Catholic; 80)6 of the Serbs were Serbian (Eastern) Orthodox; the Macedons were the most r elig io u sly mixed, almost a third claimed no religion and the rest reported Serbian,

Bulgarian, or Greek (Eastern) Orthodox. 62

Over h a lf of our raepondente were either too young a t time of emigration to have been employed in their homeland or had been unem­ ployed ; the rest had been engaged in native farming except for 32^ of the Croats, whose oooiqmtlon had been fish in g . Thus, they largely entered unskilled, or their skills were not transferable to the IMited

States. At time of interview, almost 50^ were retired. Most of those employed or formerly enqf^oyed were unskilled S teel Foundry workers. That ethnic t ie s were maintained i s evidenced by the faot that

60j( s till keep in touch with relatives and/or Ariends abroad, and almost three-fourths of the total live near other Yugoslavs rather than near few or no Yugoslavs. Seventy-seven per cent of our sample belonged to

Yugoslav organizations exclusively, l6^ to both American and Yugoslav organizations, while only 7^ to American organizations exclusively.

Almost 60^ of the respondents still preferred their native folkways: the rest preferring a mixture of native and United States (2?$) or exclusively

United States folkways (16$).

Almost 80$ of our sample had received no education in the United

S tates. However, almost a third of the Macedons had received some

United States education. Median education for all was 4.22 years and mean 4.7?. Their English-speaking ability was classified as 28$ poor,

36$ fair, and 36$ good.

Almost h alf o f the immigrants gave "economic" reasons for emigrating and a fourth reported that they had no choice, i.e ., they emigrated with parents as diildren. Responses given to question of major adjustment to American life were, in order of frequenqr: "No particular problem"; "language"; "economic"; and "missed relatives and/or friends."

In comparing Yugoslav-American liv in g conditions, only 5$ stated that 63 conditions vsre bettor In Tugoslavia, 15$ were unsure, 13$ said they ware too young to have experienced Yugoslavian conditions and the r e st, 65$, stated conditions were much better in the United States.

Total median income for a l l Yugoslavs sampled was $7^.25 par week. Regarding wives employment, 19$ of respondents' wives were employed but more than half of these were engaged in family-owned businesses.

Over half of the immigrants had lived elsewhere prior to Columbus.

Cities lived elsewhere were mainly oenters for the steel industry. The reasons they gave for moving to Columbus, in order of frequenqr of response, ware "friends here," "relatives here," "parents decided for me," "employment opportunity," and "to be with our children who had moved here before us." Median and mean years lived in Columbus were 38 and 32 years, respectively.

In order of frequency of response, the three ethnic oategories listed these as characteristics that differentiated one Yugoslav group from anothert religion, province of origin, political differences, dialect, and the subjective fact that each group "thinks it's different."

In our comparison of Serbs. Croats, and Maoedons. we found Croats less assimilated than either Serbs or Maoedons: however, there is no difference between Serbs and Maoedons on the Index of Assimilation. Of the six signifioant chi square probabilities, the Croats are in the direction of least assimilation on five of them: education obtained in the Ibiited States; nativity of friends; folkways ; organizational member­ ships, and weekly earnings. Thus it appears that five of the eight items in the Index of Assimilation discrisdnate differences in assisdlation in the direction predicted by the total score on the eight-item Index of

Assimilation. Of the three items not in the expected direction. 64

Naturalization Status indicated that a ll respondents were citizens, therefore no statistical test was applied. English Proficiency indicated was not statistioally significant, but was in the expected direction, thus Property Ownership is the only true reversal of expectations. The reason for this is not readily apparent. ^ The third part of the findings covering relationships between assimilation and other variables for a ll Yugoslavs is summarized:

Population size of village of origin of the Yugoslav immigrants is not related to degree of assimilation.

The practice of mutual aid was widespread.

Host Yugoslavs reported that they had not been discriminated against since living in the United States.

Those who gave econoadc reasons for emigrating were less assimi­ lated than those who gave other reasons.

Between those who maintained communicative ties with relatives or friends abroad and those who did not, we found no differenoe in assimilation. Those who liv ed near other Yugoslavs were le s s assim ilated than

those who did not.

All of those with United States wives were among the highest on assimilation scores.

Those married fewer years were more assim ilated, thus i t appears

that the younger immigrants are better assimilated than the older.

There was no relationship between length of time in the United

States and assimilation. This is in agreement with DeGroot's finding but

contradicts (as did DeGroot's) the Krueger fin d in gs. Krueger found

length of residence to be significantly related to more assimilation. 65 Contrary to Krueger, DeGroot, and our expectation, there was no association between adverse comments and assimilation. Perhaps this is because of our cla ssify in g and/or labeling remarks as "adverse" comments. Hindsight seems to warrant the conclusion that quite likely

some of the comments so labeled by us might well have been looked upon by others as merely the usual American-like comments on the American scene.

We found no significant association between marital status and assim ilation . Both Krueger and DeGroot, on the other hand, found the

"married" most assimilated, "single" next, and the "previously married" least assimilated.

The presence or absence of school "rage children in the family was

not related to degree of assimilation.

On the basis of the Krueger and DeGroot stu d ies, we expected an inverse relationship between age and assimilation. Our finding was in

the direction of expectation but not of statistical significance.

Regarding our la s t Krueger and DeGroot hypothesis, we expected to

find that those whose native vocational s k ills were transferable to jobs

in the United States would be more assimilated than other occupational

categories. Since the major part of our population (80^) was largely

unskilled or too young on entry to the United States, this hypothesis

was not tested. We expected to find most of our immigrants unskilled and

such was the case. We didn't expect to find the other native-occupational categories of Krueger and DeGroot which enabled them to te s t one category

against another, since our Yugoslav sample immigprated prior to 1921.

The last section of the Findings chapter dealt with a comparison of our findings with the previous Krueger and DeGroot studies which also 66 employed the Index of A ssim ilation Scale. Both Krueger and DeChroot, we noted, categorized d ifferen t immigrant groups in to homogeneous n ation ality or nativity groups, then analyzed the categories statistically. Their rationale for such groupings consisted of the following: geographic propinquity of the countries; cultural similarities; linguistic similar­ ities; the fact of political domination; and, in some instances, both assumed the rationale to be self-evident. Our study of the Yugoslav sug­ gests that such categorization is questionable, that there are too many differences beWeen Serbs, Croats, and Macédons to treat a ll three as one homogeneous group. This i s esp ecia lly so in the case of the Croat.

In fact, as regards assimilation, the Croats are like Poles in DeGroot*s study, lAich suggests that perhaps the criterion of religion is more important than the criteria utilized by DeGroot and Krueger,

The findings of our study questions the assumptions and policies of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The policy involves a country-by- country limitation on immigration, allcting 82$ of the total quota to northern and western European countries. The assumption, of course, is that some nationals are more readily assimilated than others, i.e ., they are more like the majority. Our conclusion, on the basis of what we have learned from our study and the Krueger and DeGroot studies, is that a quota established on the basis of ethnic categories within countries would be a more meaningful criterion than sisq)ly a country-by-country limita­ tion. For example, we can argue and quite Icgically that rather than establishing a set quota for Yugoslavia, the landgration law assign different quotas to the different ethnic categories within Yugoslavia. Additionally, criteria should be utilized in a flexible way. For example, certainly account should be taken of the fact, if DeGroot's finding is 6? substantiated, that the Greeks be given a higher quota sinoe they are better assisdlated (considering all three studies) than all but the

Baltics of Krueger's study. A comparison of the findings of all three studies suggests that both the assumptions and policies of the Immigra­ tion and Nationality Act are questionable.

Finally, it is hoped that this study will contribute something to future examination of assimilation in its differential impact upon suboategories of a presumed nationality. APPENDIX A

RELEVANT TABLES

68 TABLE 8

Frequisnoy and Paroantaga D istribution of Yugoslavs by Age

Sarbs Croats Maoadons A ll Aga f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant

17-23 1 4.00 1 1.33

24-30 3 12.00 3 4.00

31-37 3 12.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 7 9.33

38-44 1 4.00 5 20.00 6 8.00

45-51 1 4.00 5 20.00 6 8.00

52-58 5 20.00 5 6.67

59-65 2 8.00 3 12.00 4 16.00 9 12.00

66-72 8 32.00 11 44.00 3 12.00 22 29.33

73-79 4 16.00 5 20.00 1 4.00 10 13.33

80-86 2 8.00 3 12.00 1 4.00 6 8.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 99.99 Madian 66.81 69.64 46.60 65.66

Mean 61.22 67.38 49.18 59.35

69 70

TABLE 9

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Age on Entry to the United States

Age Serbs Croats Maoedons AH on Sntey f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent 1-5 1 4.00 3 12.00 4 5.33 6-10 1 4.00 1 4.00 4 16.00 6 8.00

11-15 2 8.00 7 28.00 9 12.00 16-20 7 28.00 14 56.00 4 16.00 25 33.33

21-25 5 20.00 5 20.00 3 12.00 13 17.33 26-30 5 20.00 2 8.00 1 4.00 8 10.67

31-35 2 8.00 1 4.00 2 8.00 6 6.67

36-40 2 8.00 1 4.00 3 4.00

41-45 1 4.00 1 1.33

46-50 1 4.00 1 1.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 99.99 71

TABLE 10

Frequency end Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Year of Arrival in the United States

Year of Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Arrival f Per Cent f Pw Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

1901-1905 1 4.00 4 16.00 2 8.00 7 9.33 1906-1910 4 16.00 8 32.00 2 8.00 14 18.67

1910-1915 8 32.00 8 32.00 4 16.00 20 26.67 1916-1920 2 8.00 2 2.67

1921-1925 2 8.00 3 12.00 4 16.00 9 12.00 1926-1930 2 8.00 4 16.00 6 8.00

1931-1935 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00 1936-1940

1941-1945

1946-1950 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00

1951-1955 3 12.00 3 4.00 1956-1960 2 8.00 1 4.00 5 20.00 8 10.67

Total 24 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.01 72

table 11

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Republic of Birth

Republic Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll of B irth f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Serbia 6 24.00 6 8.00

Croatia ? 28.00 21 84.00 28 37.33

Macedonia 1 4.00 25 100.00 26 34.67

Bosnia-Heregovina 11 44.00 2 8.00 13 17-33 Slovenia 2 8.00 2 2,67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 73

I4BLE 12

Frequency end Peroentage DLetrlbution of Tiigoslavs by Population of Conunity of Origin

A ll Population Serbs Croats Maoedons f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

100-150 4 16.00 1 4.00 5 6.67

151-200 5 20.00 4 16.00 9 12.00

201-250 1 4.00 6 24.00 7 9.33

251-300 2 8.00 6 24.00 5 20.00 13 17.33

301-350 2 8.00 1 4.00 1 4.00 4 5.33

351-400 2 8.00 3 12.00 3 12.00 8 10.6? 401-450 1 4.00 1 1.33

451-500 1 4.00 3 12.00 1 4.00 5 6.67

501-1000 1 4.00 2 8.00 1 4.00 4 5.33

Over 1000 8 32.00 8 32.00 3 12.00 19 25.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 99.99 Median 338.00 458.83 265.50 344.25 74

table 13

Frequency end Peroentege Distribution of Yugoslavs by Population of Community of Origin

Population f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent 100-250 9 36.00 1 4.00 11 44.00 21 28.00

251-350 4 16.00 7 28.00 6 24.00 17 22.67

351-1000 4 16.00 9 36.00 5 20.00 18 24.00

Over 1000 8 32.00 8 32.00 3 12.00 19 25.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 Median 338.00 458.83 265.50 344.25

TATg-E l4

Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Relatives or Friends before Arrival in United States

In U. S. Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll before f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

R elatives 19 76.00 12 48.00 18 72.00 49 65.33

Friends 4 16.00 13 52.00 4 16.00 21 28.00

Nobody 2 8.00 3 12.00 5 6.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 75 TABLE 15

Frsquenoy and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Souroe of Help during Emigration

Souroe of Serbs Groats Maoedons A ll Help f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent R elatives 18 72.00 16 64.00 16 64.00 50 66.67

Friends 3 12.00 3 12.00 1 4.00 7 9.33 Church 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00

National Lodge 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00 No Help 2 8.00 4 16.00 6 24.00 12 16.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TABLE 16

Frequen<7 and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by "Have You Helped Others Came to the %iited States ?"

Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Response f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Yes 6 24.00 10 40.00 5 20.00 21 28.00

No 19 76.00 15 60.00 20 80.00 54 72.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 76

làBLE 17

Frequanogr and Peroantaga Diatrlbutlon of Yugoslavs by Commun!oativa Tias with Country of Origin

Sarbs Croats Maoadons A ll Rasponsa f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant Kaap in Touch 16 64.00 16 64.00 12 48.00 44 58.67 Do Not Kaap in Touoh 9 36.00 9 36.00 13 52.00 31 41.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TAE££ 18 Fraquancy and Pareantaga D istribution of Yugoslavs by Marital Status

Sarbs Croats Maoadons A ll Marital Status f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant Marriad 13 52.00 13 52.00 18 72.00 44 58.67 Widowed 7 28.00 7 28.00 14 18.67 Ramarriad 3 12.00 3 12.00 6 8.00 Divorced 1 4.00 1 1.33 Separated 1 4.00 1 1.33 Singla 3 12.00 2 8.00 4 16.00 9 12.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 77

table 19

Years of Marriage^

Years of Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Marriage f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Par Cent

1-10 2 15.38 2 11.11 4 9.09

11-20 2 15.38 1 7.69 5 27.78 8 18.18

21-30 3 23.08 2 15.38 6 33.33 11 25.00

31-40 3 23.08 6 46.15 3 16.67 12 27.27

41-50 2 15.38 4 30.77 1 5.55 7 15.91

51-60 1 7.69 1 2.27

61-70 1 5.55 1 2.27

Total 13 99.99 13 99.99 18 19.99 44 99.99

Madian 28.83 36.33 23.83 29.59

Mean 16.54 20.00 13.33 16.91

1 Only respondents with living spouses at time of interview ware Indvded. 78 TABLE 20 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Nativity of Wife

S#rbf Croats Maoedons Wife f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Yugoslavia 19 86.36 19 82.61 15 71.43 53 80.30 United States 3 13.64 4 19.05 7 10.61 Other 4 17.39 2 9.52 6 9.09 Total 22 100.00 23 100.00 21 100.00 66 100.00

TABLE 21 Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Nimber of Children'!

Number of Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Children f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent 1 k 20.00 1 4.76 3 15.79 8 13.33 2 3 15.00 7 33.33 11 57.89 21 35.00 3 8 40.00 5 23.81 4 21.05 17 28.33 k 2 10.00 2 9.52 1 5.26 5 8.33 5 5 23.81 5 8.33 6 1 5.00 1 7.76 2 3.33 7 2 10.00 2 3.33

Total 20 100.00 21 99.99 19 99.99 60 99.98

Median 2.67 3.00 2.09 2.56 Mean 3.10 3.28 2.16 2.87

childless married couples excluded from table: 2 Serbian, 2 Croatian, and 2 Macedonian. 79

TABLE 22 Freqxwnoy and Peroentage D letrlbutlon of Yugoslavs tgr Relatives in the United States

Relatives in Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll United States f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Oent f Per Cent Yes 13 60.00 14 56.00 18 72.00 47 62.67 No 10 40.00 11 44.00 7 28.00 28 37.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TABLE 23

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Present Religious Affiliation

Religion Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Protestant 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00 Catholic 1 4.00 25 100.00 26 34.67 Serbian (East­ ern) Orthodox 20 80.00 20 26.67 Greek (East­ ern) Orthodox 2 8.00 12 48.00 14 18.67 Bulgarian (Eastern) 3 12.00 3 4.00 Orthodox 1 4.00 1 1.33 Moslem None 1 4.00 7 28.00 8 10.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.01 80

TABLE 24

Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Occupation in Native Land

Native Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Occupation f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Farming 7 20.00 5 20.00 4 16.00 16 21.33 Fishing 8 32.00 8 10.67 Other^ 5 20.00 2 8.00 4 16.00 11 14.67 Too Young (NA) 2 8.00 4 16.00 14 56.00 20 26.67

Unemployed 11 44.00 6 24.00 3 12.00 20 26.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

Includes Tailor (l); Soldier (2); Butcher (1): Produce Packer (1); Dairy Farmer (l); Road-oonstruotlon laborer (1); Chareoal-Mfg. Laborer (2); Priest (1); and Taxi Driver (l).

TABLE 25 Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Serbians by Occupation in Native Land

Serbs Native Occupation f Per Cent Farming 7 28.00 Army 2 8.00 Tailor 1 4.00 Butcher 1 4.00 Produce Packer 1 4.00 Too Young (NA) 2 8.00 Unemployed 11 44.00

Total 25 100.00 81 TABLE 26 Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Qroatians by Occupation in Native Land Croatians Native Occupation f Per Cent Farming 5 20.00 Fishing 8 32.00 Dairy Farming 1 4.00 Road Construction 1 4.00 Too Young (NA) 4 16.00 Unemployed 6 24.00 Total 25 100.00

TABLE 27 Frequency and Percentage D istribution of Macedonians by Occupation in Native Land

Native Occupation Macedonians f Per Cent Farming 4 16.00

Charcoal Manufacturing 2 8.00

P riest 1 4.00

Taxi Driver 1 4.00 Too Young (NA) 14 56.00

Unemployed 3 12.00

Total 25 100.00 82

TABLE 28

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Main Occupation Sinoe Arrival in United States

Maoedons A ll Occupation Serbs Croats f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Unskilled 9 36.00 17 68.00 6 24.00 32 42.67 Skilled or Semi-skilled 6 24.00 7 28.00 4 16.00 17 22.6? Proprietors 6 24.00 2 8.00 8 10.67 Sales 3 12.00 12 48.00 15 20.00 Professional 1 4.00 1 4.00 1 4.00 3 4.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.01

TABLE 29

Frequenqr and Peroentage D istribution of Yugoslavs by Present Occupation

Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Occupation f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Unskilled 2 8.00 4 16.00 4 16.00 10 13.33 Skilled or Semi-skilled 5 20.00 4 16.00 9 12.00 Proprietors 1 4.00 7 28.00 8 10.67 Sales 3 12.00 4 16.00 7 9.33 Professional 1 4.00 1 4.00 1 4.00 3 4.00 Retired^ 13 52.00 20 80.00 4 16.00 37 49.33 Unemployed 1 4.00 1 1.33 Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 99.99 ^Includes 3 partially disabled Croatians. 83

TABLE 30

Frequancy and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Neighborhood Location

Neighborhood Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Location f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Near Other Yugoslavs 11 44.00 23 92.00 21 84.00 55 73.33 Near Few or No Yugoslavs 14 56,00 2 8.00 4 16.00 20 26.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TABLE 31

Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Spoken-English Language A b ility

English- Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Language A b ility f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Poor 9 36.00 8 32.00 4 16.00 21 28.00 Fair 6 24.00 11 44.00 10 40.00 27 36.00

Good 10 40.00 6 24.00 11 44.00 27 36.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 84

TABLE 32

Frequency and Peroentage Distrlbation of Yugoslavs by Education in the United States

Bduoation in Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll United States f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent None 19 76.00 24 96.00 15 60.00 58 77.33 Intend to Undertake 4 16.00 3 12.00 7 9.33

Sone Education 2 8.00 1 4.00 7 28.00 10 13.33

Total 25 100.00 24 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TABLE 33

Frequency and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Home Ownership

Home Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Ownership f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Native—No U.S. 1 4.00 1 1.33 No U.S. or Native 5 20.00 1 4.00 8 32.00 14 18.67 United States 19 76.00 24 96.00 17 68.00 60 80.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 85

TABLE 34

Frequanqr &nd Peroentage Diatrlbutlon of Yugoslavs by Preferred Folkways

Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Folkways f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Prefer Native 8 32.00 22 88.00 13 52.00 43 57.33

Equal 9 36.00 3 12.00 8 32.00 20 26.67 Prefer United States 8 32.00 4 16.00 12 16.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TABLE 35

Frequenqy and Peroentage D istribution of Yugoslavs by Organization Memberships

Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Memberships f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Mostly Foreign 19 76.00 24 96.00 15 60.00 58 77.33

Equal 4 16.00 1 4.00 7 28.00 12 16.00 Mostly Amerloan 2 8.00 3 12.00 5 6.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 86

TABLE 36

Freqiwnoy and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Weekly Inoome

Weekly Serbs Croats M 76Û 9îa J l l Income f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Under $60.00 10 40.00 19 76.00 5 20.00 34 45.33 Over $60.00 15 60.00 6 24.00 20 80.00 41 54.6?

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 87

TÀBLE 37

Frequency and Faroantage Diatrlbutlon of Yugoslavs by H ighest Yaar o f Education

Highest Sarbs Croats Maoadons i l l Yaar f Par Cant f Par Cent f Par Cant f Par Cent 0 8 32.00 9 36.00 2 8.00 19 25.33 1

2 2 8.00 2 2.67

3 1 4.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 5 6.67

4 3 12.00 3 12.00 10 40.00 16 21.33

5 3 12.00 1 4.00 1 4.00 5 6.67 6 1 4.00 4 16.00 1 4.00 6 8.00

7 1 4.00 4 16.00 3 6.67

8 3 12.00 2 8.00 5 6.67

9 2 8.00 2 2.67

10 1 4.00 1 1.33 11

12 1 4.00 1 4.00 5 20.00 7 9.33

13 1 4.00 1 1.33 14 1 4.00 1 1.33

T otal 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

Madian 4.6? 4.37 4.05 4.22

Maan 4.84 4.00 5.36 4.77 88

TABLE 38

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Weekly InoooM

Weekly Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Income f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

$1-20 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00

21-40 2 8.00 5 20.00 2 8.00 9 12.00

41-60 7 28.00 14 56.00 1 4.00 22 29.33

61-80 2 8.00 1 4.00 5 20.00 8 10.67 81-100 2 8.00 2 8.00 2 8.00 6 8.00

Over 101 11 44.00 3 12.00 13 52,00 27 36.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

Median 8 5 .5 0 51.27 101.27 74.25

TABLE 39 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Experienced Discrimination

Ejqwrlenoed Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Discrimination f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Yes 3 12.00 3 12.00 4 I6.OO 10 13.33

No 22 88.00 22 88.00 21 84.00 65 86.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 89 TABLE 40

Frequanoy and Peroentage Diatrlbutlon of Yugoslavs by W ife's Bhployment

W ife's Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Employment f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Yes'* 6 24.00 8 32.00 14 18.67

No 19 76.00 25 100.00 17 68.00 61 81.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

^Two Serbs, 6 Maoedons employed in fam ily business.

TABLE 41

Frequenoy and Peroentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by "Whloh Yugoslav Group Would You Prefer to Live Nearff*

Group Serbs Croats Maoedons A ll Preference f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Own Group 10 40.00 18 72.00 11 44.00 39 52.00

No Différence 14 56.00 5 20.00 12 48.00 31 41.33

Other Responses 1 4.00 2 8.00 2 8.00 5 6.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 90

TABLE 42

Frequency and Paroantaga Distribution of Yugoslavs by Raasons for Emigration

Serbs Croats Nacédons A ll Raasons f Par Cant f Par Cent f Par Cent f Par Cent Eoonosdc 12 48.00 16 64.00 9 36.00 36 49.33

P o litic a l 6 24.00 2 8.00 5 20.00 13 17.33 Parants Bsigratad 6 24.00 3 12.00 9 36.00 18 24.00 Ralativas in United States 2 8.00 2 8.00 4 5.33

Other 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 99.99

TABLE 43

Fraquanoy and Paroantage D istribution of Yugoslavs by "WWt Aspects o f American Idfa Do You Lika Bastt"

Lika about Serbs Croats Maoadons A ll United States f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cent f Per Cant

Economic Opportunity 11 44.00 17 68.00 14 56.00 42 56.00 P o litic a l FVaadom 5 20.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 9 12.00 Good for Children 5 20.00 3 12.00 4 16.00 12 16.00 Everything 2 8.00 2 8.00 2 8.00 6 8.00 Nothing Particular 5 20.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 9 12.00

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 91 TABLE #

Frequenqr and Peroentags Distribution of Yugoslavs by Major Problsms In Adjusting to American L ife

Serbs Croats Mscodons f & V U L L V m e f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Language 13 52.00 5 20.00 8 32.00 26 34.67

Economic 4 16.00 3 12.00 5 20.00 12 16.00 Missed R elatives- Frlends 3 12.00 3 12.00 6 8.00 No Particular Problem 5 20.00 14 56.00 12 48.00 31 41.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

TABLE 45 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Comparison of Living Conditions In Yugoslavia and United States

Serbs Croats Mb cédons A ll Conditions f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Better In United States 15 60.00 17 68.00 16 64.00 48 64.00 Better In Yugoslavia 4 16.00 4 5.33 Unsure 2 8.00 7 28.00 2 8.00 11 14.67

No Difference 2 8.00 2 2.67 Too Young to Judge 2 8.00 1 4.00 7 28.00 10 13.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 92

table 46

Frequanoy and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by M otivation for Movement to Columbus

Serbs Croats Macédons A ll noULv»wXOa f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent Relatives Here 8 32.00 8 32.00 7 28.00 23 30.67

Friends Here 8 32.00 13 52.00 8 32.00 29 38.67 Employment 2 8.00 2 8.00 4 16.00 8 10.67

Children Here 2 8.00 2 2.67

Parents Decided 5 20.00 2 8.00 6 24.00 13 17.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.01

TABLE 47

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Yugoslavs by "Have You Lived Elsewhere In the United States?"

liv ed Serbs Croats Ma cédons A ll Elsewhere f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Yes 12 48.00 12 48.00 16 64.00 40 53.33

No 13 52.00 13 52.00 9 36.00 35 46.67

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00 93

lÀBLE 48

FrequanoQT Paroantage Olatrlbution of TugoslaTs by Years lived EleeWiere before Colmbus

Years lived Serbs Croats Maoadons i l l Elseidwre f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

Less Than 1 Year 2 16.67 2 12.50 4 10.00 1-10 5 41.6? 10 83.34 6 37.50 21 52.50

11-20 1 8.33 1 8.33 5 31.25 7 17.50

21-30 1 8.33 2 12.50 3 7.50 31-40 2 16.67 1 8.33 3 7.50

Over 40 Years 1 8.33 1 6.25 2 5.00

Total 12 100.00 12 100.00 16 100.00 40 100.00 94

TABLE 49

Frequsney and Paroentaga Distribution of Yugoslavs by Yaars Lived in Columbus

Yaars in Sarbs Croats Maoadons A ll Columbus f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cant f Par Cent

1-5 5 20.00 1 4.00 5 20.00 11 14.67

6-10 2 8.00 1 4.00 1 4.00 4 5.33 11-15 2 8.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 6 8.00

16-20 1 4.00 4 16.00 5 6.67

21-25 1 4.00 3 12.00 4 5.33

26-30 4 16.00 4 5.33

31-35 1 4.00 1 4.00 2 2.67

36-40 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 4.00

41-45 2 8.00 3 12.00 1 4.00 6 8.00

46-50 5 20.00 8 32.00 1 4.00 14 18.67

51-55 6 24.00 4 16.00 2 8.00 12 16.00

56-60 4 16.00 4 5.33

Total 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 100.00

Median 41.75 47.52 19.87 38.00 Maan 30.70 34.30 21.30 31.70 95

TABLE 50

Frequsnqy and Paroantag* Distribution of Yugoslavs by "How Does Your Group D iffar ffom Other Yugoslav Groupst"

wp Differenoes^ f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

R eligion 9 36.00 13 52.00 5 20.00 27 36.00 D ialect 3 12.00 6 24.00 9 12.00 D ifferent Provinces 5 20.00 7 28.00 4 16.00 16 21.33 P o lltio a l Diffaranees 6 24.00 3 12.00 3 12.00 12 16.00

"We Believe 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 12.00 6 8.00 Wa're D ifferent" No Difference 7 28.00 4 16.00 8 32.00 19 25.33

1 Many raspondants gava mora than one distinguishing character- i s t i c . 96

TABLE 51

Frequency and Paroantage Distribution of Yugoslavs by Index of Assimilation (IJl.) Soores

Serbs Croats Maoadons A ll I. A. Scores f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent f Per Cent

12 5 20.00 6 24.00 4 16.00 15 20.00

13 10 40.00 2 8.00 12 16.00

14 3 12.00 4 16.00 1 4.00 8 10.67

15 2 8.00 2 8.00 1 4.00 5 6.67

16 3 12.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 7 9.33

17 2 8.00 1 4.00 4 16.00 7 9.33

18 3 12.00 1 4.00 4 5.33

19 2 8.00 1 4.00 3 4.00

20 3 12.00 3 4.00

21 2 8.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 6 8.00

22 3 12.00 1 4.00 4 5.33 23 1 4.00 1 1.33

T otal 25 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 75 99.99

Median 16.33 13.15 16.87 15.00 Mean 16.56 13.44 16.96 15.56 TABLE 52 Assisllation Indlo*8 of Serbian Interviewees

Tears English Prop­ Group Total Case Age in Eduoa- Natural­ erty Friends- Ameri- Member- Salary Index Pro- tion isa tio n N atlvity oanims U. S. fioien cv Owned shins Scores 19 52 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 10 20 17 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 12 22 78 54 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 12 7 33 54 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 25 78 51 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 21 81 48 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 14 18 59 51 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 14 if 80 54 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 14 24 54 10 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 15 6 68 48 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 16 14 69 30 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 16 2 73 45 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 3 15 16 72 45 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 16 10 68 51 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 17 9 57 36 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 17 12 52 35 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 18 23 76 57 2 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 18 17 63 42 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 3 18 8 70 40 3 1 3 3 2 3 1 3 19 15 66 50 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 19 1 68 40 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 21 3 56 51 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 21 11 34 10 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 22 13 66 50 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 22 5 34 11 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 22

Median 16*33: Mean I 6 .5 6 .

*Higher soores indioate higher assimilation. TABLE 53 Assimilation üxlices of Croatian Interviewees

Years English Prop­ Total Case in Pro— Educa­ Natural­ erty Friends- Salary Index Age tion ization N ativity 0. S. fieienojr Owned Scores •i * 64 67 49 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 70 73 58 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 66 80 61 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 68 67 50 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 54 82 59 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 57 79 53 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 73 35 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 13 67 65 49 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 65 66 53 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 63 75 49 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 61 71 51 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 59 73 47 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 58 70 51 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 56 70 56 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 53 67 49 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 51 6? 49 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 71 77 54 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 14 60 72 56 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 14 55 81 59 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 14 52 70 55 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 14 72 69 52 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 15 62 61 40 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 15 74 40 13 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 16 69 59 40 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 17 75 51 41 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 21

Median 13.15; Mean 1 3 . # . *Higher soores indioate higher assimilation, vO OD TABUS 5 4 AssijpdJLatlon Indices of Macedonian Interview ees

Years EncpLish Prop­ Grovqa Total Case Age in ftfO- Educa­ Natural­ erty Friends- Ameri­ Member­ Salary Index tio n ization N ativity canisms Ü. S. fid e n o y Owned ships Scores 37 70 52 1* 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 36 67 49 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 12 33 87 61 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 12 26 42 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 12 31 25 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 13 27 65 48 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 13 42 26 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 14 45 60 47 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 15 30 63 49 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 16 49 50 38 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 16 46 40 28 2 1 3 3 1 2 1 3 16 35 48 15 2 1 3 2 2 2 3 17 39 61 39 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 17 50 46 16 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 17 47 24 5 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 17 34 35 4 3 3 2 2 1 3 18 40 44 29 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 19 43 40 36 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 20 38 48 30 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 20 28 43 37 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 20 29 66 53 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 21 48 46 26 3 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 21 32 33 31 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 21 41 36 27 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 22 44 73 61 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 23

Median 16.87; Mean I 6 . 9 6 . Higher soores indicate higher assimilation. 100

TABLE 55

Median, Quartila, Mean, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error for Index of Assimilation Scores Classified by Ethnic Category

Standard Standard Ethnic Category Mmber Median Quartile Mean Deviation Error

Serbs 25 16.33 2.97 16.56 3.04 .62

Croats 25 13.15 .83 13.44 1.76 .36 Maoadons 25 16.87 3.16 16.96 3.33 .68

TABLE 56

Index of Assimilation Item #1: English Profioienoy D ifferenoes among Serbs, Croats, and Maoadons

Good and/or Ethnic Category Fair Poor Total

Serbs 16 9 25

Croats 17 8 25

Maoadons 21 4 25

Total 54 21 75

Chi square: 2.78; P: .30. 101

TABLE 57

Index of AssiBllatlon Item #2: United States Education D ifferen ces among Serbs. Croats, and Maoedons

Some and/or Ethnic Category Intend to None Total Undertake

Serbs 6 19 25

Croats 1 24 25

Macédons 10 15 25

Total 17 58 75

Chi squares 9.77; P: .01.

TABLE 58

Index of Assimilation Item #3: Naturalisation Status Differences among Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons

Ethnic Category Citizen Not Citizen Total

Serbs 25 25

Croats 25 25

Maoedons 25 25

Total 75 75 102

TABLE 59

Index of Aesimilation Item #4: Property Ownership D ifferenoes among Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons

Ü. S. Native and/or No Ethnio Category Property Property Owned Total Owned

Serbs 19 6 25 Croats 24 1 25

Maoedons 17 8 25

Total 60 15 75

Chi square: 6.50; P: .05.

TABLE 60

Index of Assimilation Item #5: Friendship Differenoes among Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons

Ethnic Category Total ÏMOÛ.V I>«05l.T

Serbs 17 8 25

Croats 2 23 25

Maoedons 15 10 26

Total 34 41 75

Chi square: 21.41; P: .001. 103

TABLE 61

Index of Assiailatlon Item #6: Folkwey Differences among Serbs. Croats, and Maoedons

Prefer Prefer U. S. Total Ethnio Category or Both Native

Serbs 17 8 25

Croats 3 22 25

Maoedons 12 13 25

Total 32 43 75

Chi square: 16.47; P: .001.

TABLE 62

Index of Assimilation Item #7: Organization Membership Differenoes among Serbs, Croats, and Maoedons

Mostly U. S. Mostly Total Ethnio Category or Both Yugoslav

Serbs 6 19 25

Croats 1 24 25

Maoedons 10 15 25

Total 17 58 75

Chi square: 9.29; P: .01. 104

TABLE 63

Index of Assimilation Item #8: Weekly Earning Differenoes among Serbs, Croats. and Maoedons

Ethnio Category Over $60.00 Under $60.00 Total

Serbs 16 9 25

Croats 6 19 25

Maoedons 20 5 25

Total 42 33 75

Chi square: 16.68; P: .001.

IAB[£ 64

I.A. Soares Classified by Urbanity

IJL. Soores Total Urbanity High Modi van Low (18-23) (14-17) (12-13) 100-250 5 8 8 21

251-350 7 4 6 17 351-1000 4 8 6 18

Over 1000 5 7 7 19 Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square: 6.37; P< .20. 105

TABLE 65

Urbanity Classified by Ethnic Categwy

Population of Native Community Ethnic Category 100- 251- 351- Over Total 250 350_ 1000 1000

Serbs 9 4 if 8 25

Croats 1 7 9 8 25

Maoedons 11 6 5 3 25

Total 21 17 18 19 75

TABLE 66

Mutual Aid C lassified by Ethnic Category

Mutual Aid Given Ethnio Category Yes No Total

Serbs 23 2 25

Croats 21 if 25

Maoedons 19 6 25

Total 63 12 75

Chi square: 2.57: P: .30. 106

TÀBLB 6?

Source of Assletanoe Given to Emigrante by Ethnic Category

Assistanoe Given immigrant a Ethnic Category Relatives Friends Church1 Lodge None Total Serbs 18 3 1 1 2 25 Croats 16 3 0 2 4 25

Maoedons 16 1 2 0 6 25

Total 50 7 3 3 12 75

TABLE 66 IJl. Scores Classified by Discrimination

1*A. Scores Discriminated Agpinst High Medium Low Total (16- 2 3 ) (14-17) (12-13)

Yes 1 2 7 10

No 20 25 20 65

Total 2 1 27 27 75 107

table 69

DisorlBlnatlon Classified \> j Ethnic Category

Ethnio Category Tes No Total

Serbs 3 33 25

Croats 3 22 25 Maoedons 4 21 25

Total 10 65 75

TABLE 70

I > . Scores Classified ty "Reason" for Baigration

IJL. Soores Bl(h Medina Low Total (18-Î3) (14-17) (12-13) Eoononio 3 17 17 37 Other 18 10 10 38

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square: 14.34; P: .001. 108

TABLE 71

I .A, Soores Classified by "Reason” for Baigration

I.A. Soores Reason High Medium Low Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

Eoonondo 3 17 17 37 Parents Emigrated 15 3 0 18

Total 18 20 17 55

Chi square: 32.06; P: .001.

TABLE 72

I.A . Soores C lassified by Comnunioative Ties — = CnMmuniVM I «A, Soores Ties High Medium Low Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

Yes 10 17 17 44

No 11 10 10 31

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square: 1.48; P: .50. 109

table 73 Comunlcatlve Ties Classified by Ethnio Category

Comnunioative Ties Ethnio Category Yes No Total

Serbs 16 9 25

Croats 16 9 25

Maoedons 12 13 25

Total 44 31 75

TABLE 74

IJi, Soores C lassified by Neighborhood

IJi. 1Soores Neighborhood ^ g h Medlm Low (18-23) (14-17) (12-13) Total Home Near Yngoslavs 9 23 24 56 Home Near Few to No Yugo­ slavs 12 4 3 19

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square: 15.71; P» .001 n o

TABLE 75 Ethnic Category d a self led hy Neighborhood Location

Neighborhood Location Home Near Few Ethnio Category Home Near or No Total Yugoslavs Yugoslavs

Serbs n 14 25

Croats 23 2 25

Maoedons 21 4 25

Total 55 20 75

TABLE 76

I.A. Scores Classified by Length of Time in United States

I .A. Scores Length of Time in United States High Medium Low Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-131

1-37 years n 9 5 25

38-50 years 6 10 9 25

51-61 years 4 8 13 25

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square : 7.50; P: .20. I l l

TABLE 77

Length of Tine in the United Stetee Qassified Iqr Ethnic Category

[tn ex iime m V # w # Ethnio Category 38-50 1-37 51-61 Total Years Years Years

Serbs 8 9 8 25

Croats 2 10 13 25

Maoedons 15 6 4 25

Total 25 25 25 75

TABLE 78 I .A. Scores Classified by Adverse Comments about the United States

I»i. Scores Adverse Comments High Medium Low Total (18-23). (14-17) (12-13) Some 5 5 8 18 None 16 22 19 57

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi squares .97; P: .70. 112

table 79

Adverse Comments about the United States Classified by Ethnic Category

Ethnic Category g — Some None Total

Serbs 12 13 25

Croats 4 21 25

Maoedons 2 23 25

Total 18 57 75

TABLE 80

I.A. Scores Classified hy Marital Status

IJi . Scores Marital Status High Medium Low (18-23) (14-17) (12-13) Total

Married 16 15 13 44 Previously Married' 4 9 9 22

Total 20 24 22 66

Chi square : 2.36; P: .50.

^Previously married includes widowed, remarried, divorced, and separated. u n

TABLE 8 1

I.A. Scores Classified ty Marital Status

IJI. Scores Marital Status High Medium Low Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

Married 16 15 13 44 Single and Pre­ viously Married' 5 12 14 31

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square: 4.00; P: .20.

^Previously married Includes widowed, remarried, dlvoroed, and separated.

TABLE 82

Marital Status Classified by Ethnic Category

Ethnic Marital Status Category Married Single Widowed Remarried Divorced Separated Total

Serbs 13 3 7 1 1 25 Croats 13 2 7 3 25 Maoedons 18 4 3 25

T o t a l 4 4 1 4 75 114

TABLE 83

I .A. Scores CSLsssifled by Children in the Family

I . A. Scores Children in Family High Medium Low Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

Yes 18 23 20 6 l

No 3 4 7 14

Total 21 27 27 75

TABLE 84

Children in the Family Classified by Ethnio Category

Children in the Family Ethnic Category Yes No^ Total

Serbs 20 5 25

Croats 21 4 25 Maoedons 20 5 25

Total 61 14 75

^IndLudes single Serbs (3 ), Croats (2 ), and Maoedons (4 ). 115

TABLE 85

I .A. Scores CLassifled by School-age Children

I J l. Scores Medium Low Ohildp.J (% ) (14-17) (12-13) Total

Yes 8 7 4 19 Nc 13 20 23 56

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi squaret 3*^: P: .20, ^Ages 5 through 18.

TABLE 86 School-age Children Classified by Ethnic Category

Ethnic Category School-age Children^ Yes No Total

Serbs 6 16 22

Croats 3 20 23 Ha cédons 10 11 21

Total 19 47 66

1 Ages 5-18; single respondents excluded. 116

TABLE 87

I.A . Seor«8 Cltsslfiad by Wife's Country of Origin

W ife's Country IJL. Scores of Origin High Medium Low Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

Yugoslavia 12 21 20 53

United States 7 7

Other^ 1 3 2 6

Total 20 24 22 66

^"Other" includes Italy (2 Croats); Turkey (1 Maoedon); Germam r (1 Maoedon); Poland (1 Croat); and Hungary (1 Croat,

TABLE 88

W ife's Country of Origin C lassified by Ethnic Category

W ife's Country of Origin Ethnic Category Yugo­ United Other^ Total slavia States

Serbs 19 3 22

Croats 19 4 23

Maoedons 15 4 2 21

Total 53 7 6 66

Includes Italy (2 Croats); Turkey (1 Maoedon); Germany (1 Maoedon); Poland (1 Croat), and Hungary (1 Croat). 117 table 89

I.A . Scores Classified \sj Length of Marriage^

Years of — I .A. Scores High Medium Low Marriage Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

1-27 13 5 1 19

28-63 3 10 12 25

Total 16 15 13 44

Chi square! 18.25; P: .01.

^Remarried excluded.

TABLE 90

Length of Marriage C lassified by Ethnic Category

Years of Marriage Ethnic Category 1-18 19-27 28-37 38-63 Total

Serbs 4 2 3 4 13

Croats 1 1 5 6 13

Maoedons 5 6 2 5 18

Total 10 9 10 15 44 118

lÀBLB 91 I A. Scores Classified by Age

IJ. . Scores Age High Medium Law Total (18-23) (14-17) (12-13)

17-50 10 6 5 21

51-70 9 14 12 35

71-86 2 7 10 19

Total 21 27 27 75

Chi square: 7.86; Pi .10.

TABLE 92

Age Classified by Ethnic Category

Age Ethnic Category 17-30 31-44 45-58 59-72 73-86 Total

Sorbs 1 3 5 10 6 25

Croats — 2 1 14 8 25

Maoedons 3 8 5 7 2 25

Total 4 13 11 31 16 75 119

table 93 I.A. Seoras dasslfiad by %anafarability of Native Oeoupational Skills

Native l A . Scores Oeoupational High Medium Low Total S k ill (18-23) (14-17) (12-13) Native Skills Transferable 2 2 1 5 Native Skills Not Transfer­ able 5 6 11

Unskilled 9 14 16 39

Total 11 21 23 55^

^Twenty (NA (too young on entry to U. S.).

TABLE 94

Transferability of Native Occupational Skills Classified by Ethnic Category

Native Occupational Skills Ethnic Category Trans­ NA ferable Total Serbs 3 20 2 25

Croats 9 12 4 25

Maoedons 2 2 7 14 25

Total 5 11 39 20 75 120

TABLE 93

Employment St&tue of Wife d a e s lfie d by Ethnic Category

W ife's Employment Status Ethnic Category Self-employed Employed in Husband's Unemployed Total Business

Serbs 4 2 7 13 Croats -- 13 13 Maoedons 2 6 10 18

Total 6 8 30 APPENDIX B

THE INDEX OF ASSIMILATION SCALE

121 Since one per pose of this study is a comparison with Krueger and DeGroot studies» incorporated within the schedule was a scale using the eight in d ices which both used to measure assim ilation . Bach respondent was assigned a score on each of the eight items, the index of assimila­ tion for each (IJl.) thus being the sum of the item scores.

The reliability of the Index of Assimilation Scale used in this study was determined by the Split-Half Coefficient of Correlation between odds and evens on the eight-item scale for each of the three ethnic

categories.

SttolQ L Snaetnnain Pi»«|iph^

Serbs .... .695 82 Maoedons . . .744 83 Croats . . . .875 93 Computing Fishers' 2 Transformation,^ it was determined that there were no significant differences between the correlations for the three ethnic categories. Therefore, we concluded that the scale is reliable (using split-half technique) for the three categories.

The validity of the Index of Assimilation was not established in

this study, since the validity had been established in the prior studies

by Krueger and DeGroot. In addition, as Krueger indicates,^ the assim ila­

tion items have often been used and reported in the literature of

assimilation as valid indices of assimilation.

M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic S ta tis tic a l Methods (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959), P» 145.

4fancy M. Krueger, "Assimilation and Adjustment of Post-war Immigrants in Franklin County, Ohio" (unpublished Ph.D. d issertation , Ohio State U niversity, 1955)» p. 6 .

122 123

THE INDEX OF ASSIMILATION

1. English proficiency at time of interview: good (3) fa ir (2) poor or none ( 1 ) ...... • What language is presently used? Yugoslav English Other

with wife ...... with children ...... ______with best friends ...... a t work ...... trtxen angry or s a d ...... reading ......

2. Education obtained in the United States: some (3) plan to (2) none (l) ...... number of years completed in Ü. S. ___ citizenship class ___ other (specify) _ .. degree or certificate received . ______

education in Yugoslavia: number of years completed ______give highest type of school attended ______if degree or certificate received, specify kind ______

3. Naturalization underway or intent to naturalize: citizen or plan to be (3) unsure (2) not c itiz e n , no plans (1) 4. Property ownership in U. S. compared with native land ownership: own U. S. property (3) no U. S., no native (2) own native, no U. S. (1)

5< Nativity of friends: predominantly U. S. (3) fairly equal (2) predominantly foreign (1)

6. Americanians (folkways): prefer U. S. (3) fairly equal (2) prefer native (l) ....

American Both

way name is spelled . . . way name i s pronounced foods you enjoy most . . food seasonings . . . beverages ...... celebrations or holidays jokes you like ...... 124

way family should treat each other id eas of good manners ...... sports and games you lik e

7. Participation in groups or organizations: Amerioan (3) equal (2) foreign (1) OrgyAgftttgn gold, Qfftw Xwg98l*ya ^yrt.çans §aml (name) (designate) (mostly) (mostly) (name)

8 . Present earnings : over $60 (3) $60 (2) under $60 (1) .... ___ average weekly: under $20 21-40 41-60__ 61-80 _ 81-100 100+ TOTAL appendix c

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

125 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR STUDY OF YUGOSLAVS

Schedule Number _____ Are you Croatian ___ Macedonian ___ Serbian

Name (or number) ______Age______

In which part of Yugoslavia were you born?

Slovenia Croatia Bosnia-Heregovina ____ Montenegro ____

Macedonia Serbia Unsure ____ Other

What was the population of the community in Yugoslavia in which you spent

most ot your life? _____ Did you have relatives or friends before your arrival in the U. S.?

relative s friend s ____

Who helped you come to America? (Name specific organization and/or

relationsh ip to person who helped.) ______

How did they help? ______

Have you helped others to come to United States? Yes Nc ____

If yes, specific relationship to persons you helped ______

______How did you help?

Have they helped others? Yes No_

If yes, name specific relationship to persons they helped

______How did they help? ______

How do you keep in touch with your Ariends and relatives in Yugoslavia?

letters news from others send (receive) gifts ____ other ______I don't keep in touch ______Marital Status: married single divorced widowed ____ separated remarried status unknown Years of marriage 1 2 6 127

Native country of uife: Yugoslavia ____ U.S._____ Other______

Children: Number of children ______

Number s till living ______Age and sex of children: Age. Sex

Number of American born children ___ Number n aturalized

Number in prooess of naturalization. What members of your family are in the U.S.? Which came with you? Whidx are abroad? Which are in household mith you at present?

àicfiââ ÏB. Bg^afhaM Wife ______Husband's parent(s) ______Vdfe's parent(s) ___ . . ______Child(ren)______Husband's brother(s) ______sister(s) . ______Wife's brother(s) ______sister(s) ______Others ______

Religious affiliation before (after) emigration? Catholic.

(______) Orthodox Other

Occupation in native land (usual one)

List main occupation since arrival in U. S.

Present iob

If in business for self, state type of business. 128

Is present hone in neighborhood of r e la tiv e ly numerous Yugoslavs?

mostly Yugoslavs relatively fev none

others (designate)

In which section of Columbus do you presently live (designate}T

ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AT TIME OF INTERVIEW:

good (3) fair (2) poor or none ( l ) ...... What language is presently used? yugn^^isv Epgii«h Other

with w i f e ...... ______with children ...... ______with best friends ...... ______at work ______when angry or sad .. _____ r e a d in g ...... ______

EDUCATION OBTAINED IN THE UNITED STATES:

some (3) plan to (2) none (1)

number of years oompleted in U. S. citizenship class _____ other (specify) degree or certificate received

education in Yugoslavia: number of years completed give highest type of school attended if degree or oertifioate received, specify kind,

NATURALEATION UNDERWAY OR INTENT TO NATURALIZE: citizen or plan to be (3) unsure (2) not citizen, no plans (1)

PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN U. S. COMPARED WITH NATIVE LAND OWNERSHIP: own U. S. property (3) no U. S ., no native (2) own native, no U. S. (1)

NATIVITY OF FRIENDS: predominantly U. S. (3) fairly equal (2) predominantly foreign (l) 129

AMERICANISMS (folkwmye): prefer U. 8. (3) fairly equal (2) predominantly foreign (l) Am#El9*n S s ^ way name is spelled . . way name i s pronounced food 8-beverage s enjoyed jokes you like . . way family should treat each other •••••••••• ideas of good manners . . . sports and games you like .

PARTICIPATION IN GROUPS OR ORGANIZATIONSs Amerioan (3) equal (2) mostly foreign ( l) Organisation Hold O ffice Yugoslavs Americans Equal Other (name) (designate) (mostly) (mostly) (name)

PRESENT EARNINGS; over $60.00 (3) $60.00 (2) under $60.00 (l) ___ avg. weekly: under $20___ 21-40 41-60 61-80 ___ 8 1 -1 0 0 100___ TOTAL _

Have you experienced any discrimination or prejudioe here in the U.S.?

No If yes, was it in obtaining a place to livs ____

in getting a Job at work in stores social relations ____

other (explain) ______

I f your w ife employed? No I f yes, occupation ______

Which Yugoslav group would you prefer to live near

i*y? ______Which Yugoslav group would you prefer NOT to live near ______

why NOT?______

Why did you leave Yugoslavia?. 130

Wh&t aspects of Amerioan l i f e do you LIKE best? ilhat aspects of American l i f e do you DISLIKE? ______What do you regard as the greatest difficulty or problem lAich you have faoed in adjusting to American lif e ?

Have you been as happy here as you were in the old days in Yugoslavia?

Yes No No difference Unsure ____

In what way i s the U. S. d ifferen t from what you thought i t would be?

What influenced you to come to Columbus?. Have you liv ed elsewhere in the Ü. S. Yes No.

If yes, lAere and how long did you live there? ____

How many years in Columbus?.

How does your group differ from other Yugoslav groups? Slovenian - Croatian - Montenegron - Macedonian - Serbian - others BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamic, Louis. Mv Native Land. New York-Londont Harper and Brothers, 1943. Adamic, Louis. The N ative's Return. New York-London: Harper and Brothers, 1933. Andrioa, Theodore, and Suster, Anthony. All Nationalities Directory. Cleveland: The Cleveland Press and The Nationalities Servioe Center, 1961. Barron, Milton L. (ed.). Amerieem Minoritiesi A Textbook of Readings in Interaroup Relations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1947.

Beard, Charles A., and Radin, George. Bel ken Pivot: Yugoslavia. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1929.

Beroovici, Konrad. On New Shores. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1925. Berkson, Isaac B. Theories of Amerloanisation. New York: Teaehers College, Columbia University, 1920. Bernard, Jessie. Amerioan Cemimity Behavior. 2d ed. revised. New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, 1962.

Bernard. William S. ïpmigration Policy: A Beauuraisal. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.

Berry, Brewton. Raoe Relations: The Interaction of Ethnie and Racial Groups. Boston: Houghton M ifflin Company, 1951* Bogardus, Qaory S. Essentials of Amerioanigation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press, 1919.

Bogardus, Baory S. SnMei Prmhlems and Social Processes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933. Brown, Francis J ., and Rouoek, Joseph. One America. Englewood C liffs: Prentice Hall, 1959.

Buchan, John. Yugoslavia. Boston-New York: Houghton, M ifflin Company, 1923.

131 132

Byrne a, Robert F. (ed.). Beat-Central Europe under the Caaanmiata: Ynaoelavia. New York* Frederick A. Praeger, 1937. Child. Irvin L. Ita lia n or Amerioan? The Second Generation In Con flict. New Havent Yale Univeraity Presa, 1943.

Davie, Maurice H. Worli IgllwtiffTl- New York: The Macmillan Company, 1936. Davis, Philip (ed.). and Americanization: Scj?çW, » Boston-New York: Ginn and Company, 1920. DeBray, R. G. A. Guide to the S lavic Languages. London: J . M. Denty and Sons, 1931. DeGroot, Didley Edward. "The A ssim ilation of Postwar Immigrants in Atlanta, Georgia." Ihcpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Univeraity, 1937. Draohsler, J u liu s. Democracv and A..4 m ile tiont Tte, BL&AdlDF of grant Heritages in America. New York: The Macadllan Company, 1 9 2 0 . Duncan, G. H. . Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1933. Fairchild, Henry Pratt (ed.). Dictionary of Sociology. Ames, Iowa; L ittle fie ld , Adams and Company, 1933. Fairchild, Henry P ratt. T—igT.*nt ^n|cgroii»dit- New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1927. Fairchild, Henry P ratt. T-mioraMan: A World Movement and I ts American Stgnlfloanee. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1926.

F ield s, Harold. The Refugee in the United S ta tes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. G a litia i, C hristine. A Study of Aeeimtietion among R^'imanians of the United States. New York; Columbia University Press, 1929.

Gittler, Joseph (ed.). Vn^grg^P

Gobetz, G iles E. "Adjustment and A ssim ilation of Slovenian Refugees." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1962.

Qovorchin, Gerald G ilbert. Amerioans from Yugoslavia. G ainesville: University of Florida Press, I 96I.

Graumann, R. A. "Method of Studying the Cultural Assimilation of Immi­ grants." Unpublished Master's thesis, London University, 1931. 133 Eandlln, Osoar. The Uprooted. Boston: L ittle, Brown and Co., 1952.

Hansen, Marous Lee. Thi» T««rtirT.ant in American H istory. Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1 ^ 2 . Herberle, Rudolph, and Hall, Dudley S. New Americana t A Study of Dlsnlaoed Persons in Louisiana and M ississip p i. Baton Rouge: Displaced Persons Cosmdssion, 1951* Hofster, E. W. Bff*i'ks on Seleotive Migration. The Hague: Martin Nijhoff, 1952. Hughes, Everett C. Where Peonies Meet. Gleneoe: The Free Press, 1952.

Krueger, Nancy M. "Assimilation and Adjustment of Post-war Immigrants in Franklin County, Ohio." Unpublished Ph.D. d isserta tio n , Ohio State IM iversity, 1955*

Kulisher, Eugene M. Europe on the Move: War and Population Qtonggfl 1917-194?. New York; Columbia University Press, 19^6.

Kuznets, Simon Smith. and the Foreign Born. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1954. M ills, C. Wright, and Golden, Rose Kcrh. The Puerto Rioan Journey. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Mladineo, Ivan. Narodnl Adresar (Our Peoples' Addresses). Publication information unknown.

Newman, Bernard. Unknown Yugoslavia. London: Herbert Jenkins, I960. Penunzio, Constantine. Tmmieration Crossroads. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927.

Park, Robert E., and Burgess, Ernest W. An Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1924.

Park, Robert E., and Miller, Herbert A. Old World Traits Transplanted. New York-London: Harper and Brothers, 1921. Radosavljevich, Paul R. Who Are the Slavs? Boston: Richard G. Badger, 1 9 1 0 . Rose, Arnold, and Rose, Caroline. America Divided; Minority Group R elations in the United S ta tes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953*

Ross, Edward Allsworth. The Old World in the New. New York: The Century Company, 1914.

Sohermerhorn, R. A. These Our People: M inorities in Amerioan Culture. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1949* 1 )4

Simpson, George £ ., and lin g er, Milton J . Raoial and Coltnral Minori­ t ie s : An Amalvmi. of Preindloe and Msmrimination. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Thomas, W. I., and Znaniecki, Florian. The Polish Peasant in Burone and Aaitlfla,. 5 vols. Boston: R. G. Badger and Company, 1918-1920.

Taft, Donald R., and Robbins, Richard. I n t e r n a MI,p?ations. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1955* Tyler, Pyntz. T«4an and the IMited S ta tes. New York: H. W. Wilson Company, 1958. UNESCO. Cultural çf Tjpijgran ts. New York: Cambridge U niversity Press, 1950* U. S. Bureau of the Census. Eighteenth Census of the United S ta tes: 1 Q6 0 . Population. Vol. I .

U. S. Bureau of the Census. Hlstorioal Statistics of t^ United States. "Mmm. tm 1Q<7. Washington. D. C.t I960.

Vernant, Jaoques. The Refugee in the Post War World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. White, Lyman Cromwell. 100.000 New Ameriofnm Euie of Modern New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Wolff, Robert Lee. Thj> Raik&«. in Our "M«,. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956. Woofter, T. J ., Jr. Rapes and Ethnic Groups in Amerioan L ife . New York: Mc(h‘aw-Hill Book Company, 1933.

Young, Pauline V. Th#P lltrr im s of Russian-Town. Chioago: The Univer­ sity of Chicago Press, 1932.

Zalar, Charles. fgnfrAffMi ^ Critical Study of Its Sodo- Legal s«d P o litis a i Anneots. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. Z iegler, Benjamin M. T—