Croatian Studies Review Časopis Za Hrvatske Studije

CROATIAN STUDIES REVIEW ČASOPIS ZA HRVATSKE STUDIJE

Volume 8, 2012 ISSN 1440-0448

Publisher: International Editorial Board: Croatian Studies Centre, Mladen Ančić, University of Zadar, Croatia Macquarie University, Nevenko Bartulin, University of Split, Croatia. Australia Stjepan Blažetin, Janus Pannonius University, Hungary Neven Budak, University of Zagreb, Croatia Co-publishers: Vinko Grubišić, University of Waterloo, Canada Department of Croatian Studies, Vesna Drapač, University of Adelaide, Australia Faculty of Philosophy, University of Split, Josip Matešić, Mannheim University, Germany Croatia Mislav Ježić, University of Zagreb, Croatia Centre for Croatian Studies Abroad, Krystyna Pieniazek-Marković, Universytet Im. University of Split, Croatia Adama Mickiewicza, Poland

For the Publisher: International Advisory Board Luka Budak, Director, Croatian Studies Centre Krešimir Bagić, University of Zagreb, Croatia (Macquarie University) Lada Badurina, University of Rijeka, Croatia Marko Trogrlić, Dean, Faculty of Philosophy Stjepan Barić, Janus Pannonius University, Hungary (University of Split) Ralph Bogert, University of Toronto, Canada Inoslav Bešker, University of Bologna, Italy Editor-in-Chief Vinko Brešić, University of Zagreb, Croatia Ivan Bošković, University of Split, Croatia Luka Budak (Macquarie University) Joško Božanić, University of Split, Croatia [email protected] Damion Buterin, Macquarie University, Australia Gordana Galić-Kakkonen, University of Split, Editors Croatia Zrinka Jelaska, University of Zagreb, Croatia Boris Škvorc (Macquarie University/University Dunja Jutronić, University of Maribor, Slovenia of Split) Ljiljana Kaliterna-Lipovčan, Institute of Social Literature, Migration studies Sciences “Ivo Pilar”, Croatia [email protected] Walter Lalich, Macquarie University, Australia Josip Lisac, University of Zadar, Croatia Danijel Dzino (Macquarie University) Goran Rem, University of Osijek, Croatia Helena Sablić-Tomić, University of Osijek, Croatia History, Book reviews Ljiljana Šarić, University of Oslo, Norway [email protected] Diana Stolac, University of Rijeka, Croatia Brian Willems, University of Split, Croatia Jim Hlavac (Monash University) Boguslav Zielinski, University of Poznań, Poland Linguistics Tanja Zimmerman, University of Konstanz, [email protected] Germany Sanja Zubčić, University of Rijeka, Croatia

Correspondence / Poštanska adresa: To Prospective Contributors Croatian Studies Review Articles submitted for publications should not Croatian Studies Centre exceed 10,000 words in length and review articles Department of International Studies 4,000 words if not agreed otherwise. They should be Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University submitted to email of the editors. Authors of articles published will receive one free copy of the Croatian Sydney NSW 2109, Australia Studies Review. All articles are anonimously peer- reviewed. Editing Nevenko Bartulin (University of Split). Potencijalnim suradnicima Zaprimljeni izvorni znanstveni članci ne smiju Danijel Dzino (Macquarie University) prelaziti 10000 riječi, a pregledni članci i recenzije 4000 riječi ako s Uredništvom nije dogovoreno Layout and Print drugačije. Trebaju biti poslani na e-mail adresu nadležnog urednika. Autori čiji članci budu Macquarie Press, Sydney objavljeni dobit će besplatan primjerak Časopisa za hrvatske studije. Svi članci prolaze kroz Printed in May 2013. međunarodni proces recenzije.

This volume was published thanks to the financial contribution of the State Office for Croats outside Republic of Croatia and the Croatian Studies Foundation of Australia.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be Sva prava pridržana. Nijedan dio ove reproduced or translated in any form by print, publikacije ne može se reproducirati ili prevesti photo-print, microfilm microfiche or any other u bilo kakvom obliku u tisku, fotokopiji, means without written permission from the mikrofilmu ili bilo kojem drugom obliku bez publisher. pisanog odobrenja izdavača.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 5

THE WORD FROM THE EDITORS 7

RIJEČ UREDNIŠTVA 8

ARTICLES 9

Sandra Cvikić: “The Vukovar Battle in the Context of Public and Scholarly Discourse about Yugoslavia’s Dissolution and Homeland War in Croatia” 11

Srećko M. Džaja: “The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croats: A Historical-Cultural Profile” 63

Jasna Čapo: “The world is my oyster: Well-educated Australian-Croatian citizens in the era of global mobilities” 91

Saša Božić: “Is There a Croatian Diaspora in Europe? From ‘Gastarbeiters’ to Transmigrants and Ethnics” 113

Rebeka Mesarić Žabčić: “The importance of the Croatian Diaspora for the development of the Republic of Croatia: Examples from Australia and the USA” 130

BOOK REVIEWS 149

Danijel Dzino: “Dissecting ‘Balkanist’ discourse in the present and the past: Review of N. Raspudić, Jadranski (polu)orijentalizam and V. Drapac, Constructing Yugoslavia” 151

Luka L. Budak: “Review of F. Lovoković, Hrvatske zajednice u Australiji, Nastojanja i postignuća [Croatian communities in Australia, Endeavour(ing)s and achievements]”. 161

SUBMISSION GUIDE 168

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

The word from the editors

It is with great pleasure that we present this new, eighth, volume of Croatian Studies Review. Besides continuing support from Croatian Studies Foundation and Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of Republic of Croatia, the publication of this volume is supported with the grant given by the State Office for Croats outside Republic of Croatia as a part of competitive grant provided for financing publishing programs and projects for Croatian diaspora. There were few changes from last volume. Editorial team, with Editor- in-Chief Luka Budak and Editor Dr Boris Škvorc is strengthened by two new members: Dr Danijel Dzino, ARC postdoctoral fellow from Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University, and Dr Jim Hlavac, lecturer at the Department of Linguistics, on Monash University in Melbourne. International editorial board and international advisory board also had some changes. Theeditors would also to thank Dr Nevenko Bartulin for his great contribution in translating and editing. Croatian Studies Review strongly supports free access to scholarly publications and for that reason older volumes of the journal are now available on the internet for free download on portal of Croatian Academic Journals (Hrčak), the database Central and Eastern European Library online and on web-site academia.edu under the profile for Croatian Studies Centre. Our intention is to continue with building quality scholarly publication which will deal with multidisciplinary research related to the Croatians and space where the Croatians live and at the same time be available to the readership all over the world. According to those intentions this volume is brining all articles in English and our intention is to continue with this practice. Our major research-interests remain: literature, history, language studies, studies of migration and diasporic communities, but we are inviting potential contributors to send us research from other relevant fields, such as History of Art or Media studies. Also, as of this volume, we are starting with publishing book-reviews, practice to be continued in following volumes.

For editors: Luka Budak and Danijel Dzino

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Riječ uredništva

S velikim zadovoljstvom predstavljamo novi broj Časopisa za hrvatske studije, osmi po redu. Uz kontinuiranu potporu Zaklade hrvatskih studija i Ministarstva znanosti obrazovanja i športa Republike Hrvatske, izdavanje ovog broja je potpomognuto grantom zaprimljenim od Državnog ureda za Hrvate izvan Republike Hrvatske u sklopu natječaja za financiranje programa i projekata nakladničke djelatnosti za hrvatsko iseljeništvo. Od prošlog broja napravljeno je par izmjena. Urednička ekipa uz glavnog urednika mr. sc. Luku Budaka i dr. Borisa Škvorca je pojačana s dvije prinove, dr. Danijelom Džinom, ARC postdoktoralnim istraživačem s Odjela za antičku povijest Sveučilišta Macquarie te dr. Jimom Hlavačem, predavačem na Odjelu za lingvistiku Sveučilišta Monash u Melbournu. Urednički odbor i savjet časopisa su također pretrpjeli manje izmjene i prinove; uredništvo se želi zahvaliti dr. Nedjeljku Bartulinu za njegov doprinos u prevođenju i lektoriranju tekstova. Časopis za hrvatske studije snažno podržava slobodni pristup znanstvenim publikacijama na internetu i shodno tomu stariji brojevi časopisa su odnedavna dostupni za slobodno skidanje na portalu hrvatskih akademskih časopisa Hrčak, bazi časopisa Central and Eastern European Library online te portalu academia.edu u sklopu profila Centra hrvatskih studija. Namjera nam je nastaviti s izgradnjom kvalitetnog znanstvenog časopisa koji se bavi multidisciplinarnim istraživanjima vezanim za Hrvate i prostore gdje žive Hrvati a da bude pristupačan čitateljstvu po cijelom svijetu. Shodno tome časopis je od ovog broja potpuno na engleskom jeziku i namjera nam je nastaviti tako i u sljedećim izdanjima. Glavna težišta časopisa i dalje ostaju: književnost, povijest, jezikoslovlje, studiji migracije i hrvatske zajednice u dijaspori a pozivamo potencijalne suradnike da nam šalju priloge i iz ostalih relevantnih područja poput povijesti umjetnosti ili medija. Također, od ovog broja počinjemo i s objavljivanjem prikaza knjiga koji će postati redovita praksa u sljedećim brojevima.

Za uredništvo: Luka Budak i Danijel Dzino

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Articles

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Sandra Cvikić: “The Vukovar Battle in the Context of Public and Scholarly Discourse about Yugoslavia’s Dissolution and Homeland War in Croatia”

Sandra Cvikić Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar Regional Centre Vukovar Vukovar, Croatia [email protected]

Abstract The aim of this paper is to provide a starting point for a better understanding of an alternative approach to the study of modern barbarism as proposed by Meštrović. Namely, in order to advance contemporary understanding of modern barbarism, the author calls for a social inquiry into publications about the wars in the former Yugoslavia based on how and to what extent the Vukovar Battle of 1991 is studied and perceived in international and domestic literature. This frame of reference is applied here under the scrutiny of critical theory in order to enable critical assessment of the international and domestic social inquiry into modern barbarism and to introduce less restrictive and vitally more alternative approach to its understanding. It is argued that an alternative approach should be based on the qualitative research into the personal narratives as an integral part of the comprehensive understanding of modern barbarism. Based on the surveyed literature, a debate which interprets contemporary violence and wars in the former Yugoslavia is analyzed only to conclude that it neglects to understand modern barbarism.

Key words: modern barbarism, the Vukovar Battle, alternative approach, qualitative research

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Introduction1 In the background of extensive scholarly production on nationalism and violence in the former Yugoslavia, rationalization was reproduced based on social theories ranging from symbolic interactionism to constructivism, positivism and post-positivism, functionalism and neo- functionalism, critical theory, semiotics and structuralism. In the absence of qualitative research into the bloody resolution of the the Yugoslav socialist states, western intellectuals and opinion makers are involved in debates through substantive sociological engagement and relativistic interpretations which pose serious questions to the accountability of their interpretative scholarly practices. Thus, one can argue that although functional, positivist, behavioral and totalizing perspectives and sociological explanations of war in Croatia have gained substantial advantage over the last two decades; it is obvious more then ever, that this social framework lacks pluralistic, interpretative and open-ended perspectives with its point of reference in particular cultural representations and meanings of personal experience.

Frame of References The aim of this paper is to provide a starting point for better understanding of an alternative approach to the study of modern barbarism as proposed by Meštrović.2 Based on the surveyed literature, both domestic and international, a debate which interprets

1 “The Homeland War is the generally accepted name for a recent period in Croatian history in the 1990s, when the modern Republic of Croatia was established, and then defended in the imposed war. (…) The term Homeland War refers to the following: final preparations of the Serbian aggressor for war and the realization of the main goal of Greater Serbian foreign policy of “all Serbs within one state” (in the greater part of the territory of the former Yugoslavia); unconstitutional and terrorist actions, and the arming and the armed insurgency of part of the Serbs in Croatia after mid-1990 (in military terms, a creeping or latent aggression); start of structuring of Croatian defensive forces after August 1990; start of the war and open aggression of Serbia and Montenegro – that is, of the Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) and Serbian-Montenegrian units – on Croatia in the summer of 1991 (soon after the Parliament of the Republic of Croatia enacted on 25 June 1991 the Constitutional Decision on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Croatia); defense of the territory of the Republic of Croatia starting in 1991, and the liberation of the greater part of its provisionally occupied territory in the period between late 1991 and the end of 1995. Therefore, according to the laws of the Republic of Croatia the term Homeland War also comprises the period immediately preceding the war in Croatia, i.e., open Serbian aggression on the Republic of Croatia, and the period immediately after the end of war operation in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.”, Nazor (2011): 10-11. 2 Meštrović (1993).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) contemporary violence and wars in former Yugoslavia is analyzed only to argue that it neglects to understand modern barbarism in Europe at the end of the 20th century. Namely, in order to advance contemporary understanding of modern barbarism, this paper calls for social inquiry into publications about the wars in the former Yugoslavia based on how and to what extent the Vukovar Battle from 1991 is studied and perceived in international and domestic literature. This frame of reference is applied here under the scrutiny of critical theory in order to enable critical assessment of the international and domestic social inquiry into modern barbarism and to introduce less restrictive and a more vital alternative approach to its understanding. It is argued that an alternative approach should be based on the qualitative research into the personal narratives as an integral part of the comprehensive understanding of modern barbarism. For the purpose of this paper out of 904 reviewed books (published in the period 1991–2010) available to the author, 258 domestic and international publications were surveyed based on the selection criterion. Selection criterion include only one criterion - reception of the Vukovar Battle in the contemporary domestic and international popular and scholarly books on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and the Homeland War in Croatia. Namely, all publications should have a section on the subject or to simply mention it on a page or two.3 Analyzed literature was available from following resources:

 Domicile book collection Vukovarensija in the Vukovar City Library (860 books).  Book collection of the Multi-Media Museum of the Homeland War in Vukovar - Croatian Military Campus in Vukovar.  Book collection in the Centre for War Crimes Investigation of the Croatian Association of Former Serbian Concentration Camp Prisoners in Vukovar.  Publications of the Croatian Memorial-Documentation Centre of the

3 It is important to note, however, that only 8 individual articles on the Vukovar Battle published in a few domestic scholarly publications are considered in this paper because they were listed in Penava (2003) (seven articles) and in Agressivität und Gewalt in Europa. Grenzfragen und Prüfsteiner der Integration der EU by Heinrich Badura (one article); and collection of papers published as books on domestic interdisciplinary scientific studies of the Vukovar Battle (Appendix 1, list 6) were included due to the fact that those were at the disposal to the author.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Homeland War in Zagreb.  Homeland War Book Collection at the National and University Library in Zagreb.  Book collection about Yugoslavia’s disintegration at the National and University Library in Zagreb.  Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Regional Centre Vukovar – Library.  Vukovar´s Bibliography by Šimun Penava.4

In order to overcome limitations of this paper and to provide a workable framework to critically analyze surveyed literature, 258 works were organized through hereby proposed typology:

1. International popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia. 2. Domestic popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia. 3. Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia: biographies, memoirs, monographic editions. 4. Domestic interdisciplinary scientific studies of the Vukovar Battle. 5. Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Vukovar 1991: memoirs and monographic editions. 6. Vukovar 1991 personal narrations: autobiographies and diaries.

Surveyed literature is listed under the above proposed typology and not a single book is presented in more than one typology. Therefore, the findings of the conducted research are based on this typology and selection criterion, and they are used to support the aim of this paper and scholarly argument.

Debating social theory of modernity and modern barbarism Abstract and conceptually structured theories of modernity are impregnated by discursive constructions of the social as they neglect the interconnections between the personal and social. Therefore, the late 1990s have asked for a more structural level of analysis and social research into the reality of everyday lives through emancipatory tools.

4 Penava (2003): 714-28.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

According to Meštrović5 cultural nexus per se provides a diametrically opposite approach to modernity, progress, history and science. Therefore, he advocates a unique blend of critical theory rooted in sociology and philosophy. His approach converges with Schopenhauer’s assumption that modern society is infinitely impregnated by the fragmentation of meaning which is a result of a disrupted social order by the enlightened will. It is evident so far, that scholarly discourse should develop a new dialectic of 21st fin de siècle narratives which would in return redirect social inquiry to follow the path of a true understanding of modern barbarism. Modernist interpretative work on violence, aggression and wars, is to produce a new mode of narratives in line with metaphysical, oral and social issues that pertain to all sorts of destruction, because Parsonian misconstrued positive tendencies have already become scientific habits. According to Meštrović,6 scholarly habits of the contemporary scholarly discourse and narratives should therefore transform itself into new trajectories of reading. At the same time, they should be developed by sociologists as artists because, according to Meštrović, the world revolves around human consciousness, and not the other way around. Reality is a mechanical reflection that lies in the realm of humanity which is determined by its consciousness and conscience. The empirical ethics of contemporary morality therefore is to be studied against the background of human actions developed and deeply rooted in people’s historical, political, state and social relations, and in return result in specific, real, material and ethical values. If a man based on his reason is an autonomous legislator of his action then the shifting boundaries between history and sociology thereby involve principles which can off-load collective responsibilities through selective targeting of resources. At the same time, they can raise questions related to reliability, subjectivity and representativeness of the personal accounts status.7 One can concur therefore with Meštrović, and accept the fact that the contemporary modern and civilized man is simultaneously “more polished and potentially more savage compared to our ancestors”; as he is in constant search for “new images devoid of

5 Meštrović (1993). 6 Meštrović (1993). 7 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) context”, which is “infantile and barbaric”.8 A grounding or reference for comprehensive sociological discourse today implies that all the claims related to civilized and enlightened social life should engage subjective affinities and narratives. As Meštrović9 points out and rightly so, contemporary sociology is crippled. There is a gap between two poles of the social sciences scholarly discourse on contemporary social life and societies – objective and subjective. The objective pole is concerned solely with perpetuation of the everlasting faith in a priori universal reason presented in positivist scientific narratives which neglect the social grounding of culture and therefore is reduced to an inexplicable ideology. On the other side, subjective pole is engaged in cultural relativist narratives and, thereby, becomes grounded in complex social traits that can never produce truths, obstructing the social inquiry into the systematic nature of social change in modern society. More than ever, contemporary 21st century humankind is faced with more, not less, aggression, violence and wars in so-called modern civilized societies.10 One can argue that, apart form the underdeveloped societies of the world, raised in the comfortable conformist state of oblivion, developed modern societies of the West flourish with constant stress, uncertainty and induced fear only to realize that modernist positivist models of development have failed so far to eradicate irrational manifestations of the will. Scholarly narratives and contemporary social research should therefore focus on sources of inexorable tension between different levels and aspects of the human condition if one is to understand and unravel grounding of social facts related to modern barbarism. The Modernist concern with collective memory, thus indicating more than ever that problems of the past are not resolved. Issues transgress and they are transferred through particular remnants of the barbaric acts into the present which proves: “the fact that past representations (memories, for instance) may coexist with present ones.”11 Life-event experiences compiled over the time are transformed either to personal, or collective traumas, and they represent a mechanical problem that

8 Meštrović (1993): 100-09. 9 Meštrović (1993). 10 Malešević (2011). 11 Meštrović (1993): 157.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) needs to be solved for the sake of progress and social order. Therefore, raw egoism of the modernist narratives produces neo-liberal instant solutions unable to deal with memories of violence, injustice and war - in general - with modern barbarism.Production of such scientifically engineered oversimplifications of modern barbarism can no longer sustain a long professed idea and belief that barbaric human traits will wear away tamed by human rights, social norms and humanistic values as our Western civilization progresses. It is evident, more than ever, as indicated by Meštrović,12 that contemporary scholarly reasoning requires fin de siècle narrative typical of Durkheim, Veblen, Freud, and Simmel in order to sustain a comprehensive understanding of the constitutional duality of human nature inherent in the modern barbarism. Today, a modernist view of the world is universally valid, and thereby it claims to have upper hand on contemporary savagery through a We – They distinction: ‘We’ are civilized and ‘They’ are barbaric.13 The moral frame14 of reference in line with modernist We- They divide poses serious limitations to empirical methodology of social sciences research especially when it neglects the qualitative social inquiry into spreading violence, war and terrorism. Today’s faith in science bears witness to the facts that cannot speak for themselves as they require workable theoretical grounds for meaningful scientific discussion.

Modern barbarism as fiction – conceptually trapped and fragmented meaning International scholars have predominantly used in their works the Vukovar violence as unavoidable historical fact without additional research into the subject and its relevance for better understanding of contemporary barbarism. Such scientific truth related to contemporary fragmented barbaric reality according to Meštrović, begs the question whether Veblen was right when he claimed that modern civilization is actually a latter-day barbarism. Contemporary barbarism elaborated in international popular and scholarly publications on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia is above all severed by positivist social constructions of reality. Namely, authors15 were not able to integrate

12 Meštrović (1991). 13 Meštrović (1993): 29. 14 Ramet (2005). 15 Appendix 1, list 1.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) different cultural perspectives of the nations involved in the conflict because the rationale for the war they constructed was moulded into oversimplified primordial concepts of personal and collective representations inherent in modern Western culture. The Vukovar siege and Yugoslavia’s war of disintegration, therefore, pose a serious question as to the validity of positivist normative program and empirical constitution of the social inquiry into the persistence of simultaneous barbaric temperaments and social problems in the contemporary world.16 Surveyed international popular and scholarly literature on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia refer to the Vukovar Battle in 41 publications.17 Reference to the battle is provided in two ways:

1. As a whole section in the chapter or 2. It is randomly mentioned on a page or two.18

Almost 90% (36 books out of 41) books refer to the subject randomly on a page or two; and only five publications (devoting a whole section to the Vukovar Battle) considered it a subject worth enough perusing further down the line of scientific investigation and meaningful interpretation. Based on the reduced number of representations of Vukovar’s tragedy, it can be therefore, argued that the contingency of meaning in the above international discursive constitution of scholarly inquiry into Yugoslavia’s violent disintegration and war in Croatia, confirms Meštrović’s assumption that contemporary temperaments and later-day barbarism is vastly oversimplified by the social theory framework of interpretations and it is stripped to its bare minimum. Such discursive constitution of the international scholarly works on Yugoslavia’s wars indicate the low level of public and scholarly interest in modern barbarism and/or the authors’ inability to apply Vukovar’s tragedy in such a way to improve its contemporary understanding. A contemporary positivist approach which tends to break up facts and put them back together in a strong blend that appears to be true and credible in order to produce scientific accounts of Yugoslavia’s war

16 Meštrović (1991); (1993); (1998). 17 Appendix 1, list 1. 18 Appendix 2: table 1.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) events, according to Ramet, Cushman and Meštrović, has become a scholarly production of conflict situations which risked penetrating into the historical representations of the recent past. According to Ramet, the application of a positivist approach in the social research of Yugoslavia’s disintegration was therefore, more prone to achieve culturally prescribed goals rather than develop sensitivity to contrary points of view when faced with modern barbarism and violence in Croatia.19 Thus, in their efforts to intellectually comprehend the extent of war crimes committed in Vukovar, western scholars in their research of modern barbarism rarely consider culturally shaped habits, customs, social character and the characteristics of ethnic groups as a rational part of everyday life. Barbarism in the bloody dissolution of Yugoslavia has therefore redirected scholars’ attention towards issues thought to be long extinct in Europe – ethnicity, nationalism, racism, xenophobia, genocide and war. Therefore, one can claim that the savagery of Vukovar Battle can shift social scientific interpretations of modern barbarism away from the direction of positivist reasoning and present-day compartmentalization between social research and validity which quite often leads to a conceptual trap.20 This conceptual trap, according to Meštrović is contingent with meaning that has “matured into the fragmentation of meaning” leading one to conclude that social life implies various types of representations and interpretations of barbarism. Applied through public media and modern communication tools, new representations and interpretations of barbarism transform information into commodity consumed by socialized and more civilized twentieth-century humanity.21 The majority of international popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia analyzed in this paper based on its reference to the Vukovar Battle are characterized by modern fragmentation of meaning and can only be understood as fiction unable to provide viable scientific truth contributing to a better understanding of modern barbarism because it can never get beyond the representation of one thing after another.22

19 Ramet (2005). 20 Meštrović (1993). 21 Meštrović (1993): 43. 22 Meštrović (1993).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Reminiscence of the recent past and modern barbarism Reminiscence of the recent past captured by Croatian narratives on Yugoslavia’s disintegration and war in Croatia23 bears the mark of the contemporary tendency to limit itself to rational intellectual persuasions which simultaneously reflects the wartime past and the obsolescence of the Vukovar Battle in Croatian collective memory. The obsolescence of this battle in the contemporary collective memory can be traced through the extensive Croatian popular and scholarly publications in the last twenty years.24 Thirty-two analyzed books represent narratives which mention or elaborate to a certain extent on the Vukovar Battle - randomly on one or more pages or sections. Domestic popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia neglects to elaborate, however, more on the social context, moral and ethical relevance to the modern understanding of the battle in the contemporary Croatian society and its contribution for a better understanding of barbarism. Surveyed literature based on the two fold selection criterion extends its interest on the Vukovar Battle predominantly (18 out of 32) on a page or two quite similar to the international publications stating the obvious – a historical fact. The remaining 14 publications devote a whole section related to the war events and/or atrocities committed in Ovčara.25 Facts related to the chronology of events in the Vukovar Battle, expressed through randomly mentioned sentences or in sections, indicate to what extent the level of perceived relevance is significant for the understanding of this modern barbaric phenomenon in contemporary Croatian society. Therefore, one can claim that what is to be found underneath the reorientation of a society’s habitual practices of a new modern democratic Croatia is limited to its rational intellectual debates which reflect the recent wartime past without an effort to explain and/or understand the grounding causal relationships which constitutes the Vukovar tragedy as a founding pillar of the Croatian independent state. Persistent character traits of the Croatian democratic and patriotic

23 Appendix 1, list 2. 24 Appendix 1, list 2. 25 The Ovčara farm is a place where one of the first atrocities during Serbian aggression on Croatia was committed by the Yugoslav People’s Army. On November 20, 1991, 266 wounded civilians and defenders and medical staff (20) were executed on the farm and buried in a trench. 200 bodies in the age between 16 and 72, were exhumed from this mass grave in September and October 1996, Nazor (2011): 105.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) ideals26 that have deeply impregnated the social interpretation of the Vukovar Battle in before mentioned domestic literature on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia, are more prone to achieve culturally prescribed goals rather than develop scholarly discourse as an inquiry into the systematic nature of social change in contemporary Croatian society. Analyzed books indicate the authors selective targeting of the Vukovar war events thus obstructing the social inquiry into the complex structure of committed violence and crimes. The significance and the moral value of the human suffering in the Vukovar Battle is reduced to sentences and sections that does not develop sensitivity for the subject nor define relevant historical meaning for the Croatian collective memory today. It could be inferred that this kind of domestic scholarly discourse is impartial and it obfuscates the barbaric aspects of the Vukovar tragedy on several levels:

 Level of social inquiry.  Level of historical meaning and collective memory.  Level of moral values of human suffering.  Level of scholarly explanation and/or understanding.

If, according to Ramet,27 one takes an idealist28 stand in the subject of Yugoslavia’s disintegration and wars, then the Vukovar Battle has significant meaning and requires special attention in the social inquiry into 20th century modern barbarism. Why is it so? What is so significant about the Battle of Vukovar? In many respects these questions require complex answers which are difficult to compose. Namely, based on Ramet’s idealist line of scholarly inquiry, it is essential to develop stable grounding in universal beliefs and valid moral standards in order to establish universally valid moral perceptions of the Vukovar barbarism.29 The social research into the modern barbarism therefore

26 Rogić (1998). 27 Ramet (2005). 28 “… idealism (the belief that moral beliefs matter, that shifts in moral consensus can have political consequences, and that one can speak sensibly about universal moral norms and universal rights, with corollary too that there are some duties incumbent upon the international community under certain conditions)…” Ramet (2005): viii. 29 In this paper, universalism (“the belief that one can speak sensibly of a universally valid moral standard by which one may criticize the laws or practices of a given government for being wrong (immoral) and that one can establish some universally valid moral percepts by the exercise of unaided reason”) is used as proposed by Ramet, and in opposition to relativism (“any orientation which relativizes morality or which treats the rights of one

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) cannot afford but to ask the fundamental question of responsibility for the crimes commited against humanity in Vukovar 1991. Who is responsible for the atrocities and violence perpetrated in Vukovar 1991? Could Europe afford to be ignorant or delusional as it was during the Second World War when crimes against humanity were committed in numerous concentration camps? As indicated by Cushman and Meštrović30 can modern humanity and global society excuse itself with a remark “We didn’t know!”? The social inquiry into modern barbarism therefore includes research into the politics of memory and forgetting, and the official and hidden histories that penetrate into the realm of new world order, freedom and democracy labeled as West European export products of equality and human rights. Comprehensive understanding therefore hinges upon culturally shaped parts of what is to become a valid record of social history which in this case is devoid of structurally defined quality and scientific excellence and therefore no longer represents a ‘true’ interpretation of Vukovar 1991 wartime reality. At the same time, it is evident that the reorientation of a society’s habitual practices to limit its wartime experience to fragmented patterns of authentic domestic narrations contributes greatly to the intentional neglect of the Vukovar 1991 historical meaning and significance for Croatian contemporary society. This prevailing trend continues along the lines of Croatian personal war narrations,31 war accounts and chronicles labelled as biographies, memoirs and monographic editions. Those Croatian texts of war narratives contain meaning which require a study of storytelling and can greatly contribute to better understanding of modern barbarism. Although biographies, memoirs and monographic editions are structured wartime experiences as a personal and social history, they do, however, reflect an author’s perception and subjective understanding of the war in Croatia. Simultaneously, the Vukovar’s Battle has touched each and every person in Croatia not just on a personal level but on the level of their rational existence. However, the question is to what extent this collective trauma has affected the Croatian nation in a sense that even in their personal narratives they

(group of) people as less important that than the rights of some other (group of) people”), Ramet (2005): xvii. 30 Chushman, Thomas at al. (1996). 31 Appendix 1, lists 3, 4, 5.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) neglect to deal with it more than a sentence or a section. Namely, analyzed war biographies refer to the Vukovar Battle in 18 publications (List no. 3.). Almost 80% (14 out of 18) of biographies that recollect personal memories about the war in Croatia devote to the Vukovar Battle just a sentence on a page or two. Again, one can notice that personal war narratives, such as biographies, obfuscate Vukovar’s wartime events in order to emphasize only its non-civilising barbaric aspects thus neglecting to express on a deeper, personal level to what extent this historical battle has affected their lives. This framework of personal wartime narrations contribute more to the reorientation of a society’s habitual practices towards social history production and culture of ignorance, then to conclusively prove what constitutes a valid interpretation of the war in Croatia. Namely, this personally experienced past during Serbian aggression and war in Croatia contains a selective memory of events in which, based on the analyzed domestic literature, the Vukovar Battle does not hold the focal point. To what extent this barbaric attack on the city is shared among Croatian people, depends greatly on how strongly it is reinforced through their narrations about the war in Croatia. Out of 35 analyzed war memoirs, 21 mention Vukovar Battle in a sentence on a page or two, and only 14 deemed it important to devote it a whole section. Therefore, the analysis of the personal narrations of war in Croatia based on the Vukovar Battle indicates how selective and fragmented is the meaning and interpretation inherent in the recorded memory of their authors. At the same time, biographies and memoirs of war in Croatia both perceive Vukovar’s barbarism in line with the fractures of collectively constructed war memories which are continuously produced, reinforced and/or manipulated by the official politics and media.32 With few exceptions, this social framework of interpretations related to personal war narratives in Croatia has created conceptual layers of fragmented wartime reality, thus enabling one to establish an elusive connection between scholarly interpretations and individual (experienced) perceptions. The relationship is therefore, veiled, obscured and sometimes lost entirely under the pressure and scrutiny of

32 Croatian politicians and government officials such as: Stjepan Mesić, Josip Boljkovac, Slavko Degoricija, Mate Granić, Hrvoje Katičić; and Croatian army officials such as Janko Bobetko and Martin Špegelj.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Croatian national politics.33 Memoirs of war in this context, according to Gordana Cvitan34 develop memories about one’s own side of the conflict neglecting to recognize that they conform to domestic and international politics to the extent that they limit personal experiences, thoughts and emotions on the comfortable and acceptable levels of recognition by ‘Others’. This in return is considered to be a ‘proper’ promotion of war in Croatia35 without prejudice and in line with correct international popular and scholarly discourse on the Yugoslav wars.36 Text forms of experience such as hereby presented Croatian war biographies, memoirs and monographic editions however enables one to investigate into the underlying and persistent character traits of the perception and reception of the Vukovar Battle in the Croatian collective memory. Figures above indicate that the majority of war memoirs mention the Vukovar Battle as a singled out historical event and not as a theme or a subject relevant to the socio-political reality of contemporary Croatian society. Those publications express certain discomfort when faced with barbarism of such scale and it is not surprising that the authors neglect, omit or remain quiet about the Vukovar Battle because it requires them to place it in a larger context from which is possible to discuss culturally shared and appropriate meaning of the Serbian aggression, violence and crimes against humanity. Namely, war memoirs next to monographic editions, quite often represent the past stored in narrations that is accessible to the public and is frequently used by government institutions to interpret recent historical events. From the analyzed publications so far it is evident that the Vukovar Battle is underrepresented in the contemporary historical memory in Croatia. This abundant source of information, although very diverse and subjectively selective indicates one common denominator: Croatian war biographies and memoirs alike, refer to the Vukovar Battle predominantly in a page or two, and they are less likely to devote a whole section to it. However, if such narrations are considered to be text forms of experience, then in the context of Croatian collective memory, the Vukovar Battle does not hold a significant position.

33 Žanić (2010). 34 Cvitan (2002). 35 As indicated by Vržina Špoljar (2009); (2010); (2012). 36 International media and political power elites stating that all the sides are equaly guilty in the Yugoslav wars of succession, Ramet (2005).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Namely, it does hold just a formal position which indicates the tragedy and suffering of the Vukovar people and its defenders. However, it does not elaborate more then in few sentences, on the meaning, moral grounds and historical significance for the Croatian people. Above all, none of those war narrations – biographies and memoirs, bother to elevate the wartime experience of the Vukovar Battle to a higher level of universal human rights and crimes against humanity in order to address the European Union’s impotent efforts to provide peace in the region and contain the ‘modern barbarism’ of the ‘Balkan tribes’. Furthermore, personal chronicles of war in Croatia presented in monographic editions37 deal with the Vukovar Battle predominantly in sections or paragraphs (22 books out of 27). Sections however, follow the line of the author’s individual testimonial impulse “to communicate common historical truth”38 and therefore outline the basic facts about the Vukovar Battle and the siege of the city:

 The greatly outnumbered defenders of the city.  Civilian collateral victims.  Massacre in Ovčara.  The Vukovar Hospital patients.  Extensive destruction of private homes and city infrastructure.

This expansive network of monographic editions breaks up the above outlined facts about the Vukovar Battle only to mix them into a story of ʻmythinformation’.39 In return, as indicated by Losi, the effects of such text forms of experience include focalized memory of the fundamental trilogy: aggressor-victim-rescuer situated in the framework of interpretations which allows diverse versions of this basic conflict plot only to construct future reciprocal roles as generators of violence.40 Therefore, the Vukovar Battle is frozen around the dominant storyline constellations based on the aforementioned fundamental plot trilogy of

37 Appendix 1, list 5. 38 “… narratives of personal war memories follow two main communication impulses: (a) testimonial impulse – when the witness is supposed to communicate common historical truth and be morally responsible for revealing facts which correspond with the concerns of a wider spectrum of emphatic readers and professional commentators; (b) narrative impulse – that aims to make sense of an individual experience with the potential to challenge the expectations of a broader public.” Jambrešić Kirin (2000): 1. 39 Losi, Natale et al. (2001): 7. 40 Losi, Natale et al. (2001).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) mythinformation, and is not able to reach outside of it and into the alternative approach to the study of modern barbarism in Croatia. On the other hand, authors of war monographic editions neglect to follow their narrative impulse in order to position their individual experience and thoughts against the Vukovar barbarism and challenge the broader public perception of the siege in 1991.41 Thereby, it is possible to challenge the social interpretations of Balkanisation aspects of the war in Croatia, and include into one’s social inquiry traditional and emotional elements spontaneously derived from Vukovar’s 1991 tragedy. Those spontaneous traditional and emotional elements are the founding blocs of collective trauma deeply inflicted by the brutal war. Croatian wartime personal narratives and their interpretation of the Vukovar Battle exert an extreme pressure on society as it tries to come to terms with war-related realities of the recent past. Therefore, contemporary domestic scholarly discourse on the Vukovar Battle and war events leaves just enough room to speculate and manipulate with social interpretations and explanations of the war-related realties that are cultural constructions of revised historical and social facts. It also forces one to consider and stress the collective dimension of the issue. Namely, the traumatic event of Vukovar has influenced the Croatian people and exiled the Vukovar community forcing them to block and reduce the interpretation of their lives and what has happened to them, while at the same time, they struggle to comprehend the meaning behind this tragic historical episode. Contemporary scientific reasoning of the war in Croatia therefore, begs for engaged social research and the revision of objective social facts which should bring about valued and socially relevant understanding of the Vukovar Battle. Analyzed domestic interdisciplinary scientific studies related to the battle (the list is by no means extensive and is therefore constructed according to its availability to this author)42 in which social scientist researched various issues related exclusively to the Vukovar siege indicate upfront that the list is not extensive (12 books). This means that the Vukovar Battle is neither a favourable nor relevant scientific subject to study for Croatian social scientists. Next to this, one can also notice the absence of a comprehensive and encompassing qualitative study of the Vukovar

41 Jambrešić Kirin (2000). 42 Appendix 1, list 6.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Battle which should be a product of long-term research conducted over a period of years by teams of social scientists in Croatia. It begs the question as to why is it so? Does an interdisciplinary social research depend on finances or national policies? Or is it a deeper issue related to the overall academic crises in Croatia which does not want to get involved with a long-term project that requires commitment, sacrifice, and dedication to old fashioned thirst for knowledge and truth? With notable exceptions, the ignorant contemporary intellectual and scholarly elite in Croatia is reluctant to engage in social research if it requires to go beyond scientific borders and into the realm of universal moral ethics and real life of everyday people.43 Desensitized and detached from a modern day barbarism committed in Vukovar Battle, contemporary interdisciplinary scholarly discourse on violence, war and killings in Croatia is limited to scientific production which predominantly represents an over-intellectualized image of what constitutes today's over-privileged academic community disconnected from the real issues of the contemporary Croatian society as engaged scientists. Therefore, it could be inferred that the reason behind the absence of elaborate social research on the issues related to Vukovar’s barbarism is twofold. On one hand, no workable theoretical ground is found for the meaningful and fruitful scientific discussion on the subject at stake; and on the other hand, under enormous domestic political pressure and international influence, Croatian scholars have become more prone to engage in the research which does not involve difficult issues related to the Vukovar tragedy and the 1991 Battle instead, they involve themselves with global subjects such as poverty, gender, public opinion pools, environment protection, development policies, technology and education.44 Croatian social scientists failed to develop research based on Vukovar Battle’s experience and memories of all survivors which could greatly contribute for better understanding of the contemporary modern barbarism and Homeland War in general. One can easily claim that Vukovar’s barbarism and savagery as

43 Namely, according to the Doctoral and Master’s Thesis Collection at the National and University Library in Zagreb, the list for the period 1990–2006 clearly indicate that there is no M.A. and PhD dissertation on any subject related to the Vukovar Battle. List is accessible on the Library’s web site: http://www.nsk.hr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dr_1990-2006.pdf. 44 Evident from the Doctoral and Master’s Thesis Collection at the National and University Library in Zagreb, the list for the period 1990–2006. The list is accessible on the Library’s web site: http://www.nsk.hr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dr_1990-2006.pdf.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) relevant research subject disrupts the dynamic equilibrium between contemporary scientific interpretations and positivist reasoning represented in various Croatian publications on war and Yugoslavia’s disintegration.45 Unable to produce workable social reasoning of modern barbarism such as war and genocide in Vukovar 1991, Croatian social research follows positivist modern categories of space, time and causality only to satisfy contemporary canons of empirical research professed by their international colleagues disconnecting themselves from the real issues at stake.46 Therefore, it is obvious more then ever, that Croatian social scientists should take a qualitative leap into the unstructured and insufficiently theoretically analyzed text forms of personal Vukovar war-narrations in order to develop a workable and meaningful scholarly discussion about the Yugoslavia’s disintegration and war in Croatia.

Subjective personal narratives and the social world of modern barbarism Modern barbarism in today’s contemporary societies so far is not mastered by the right forms of social control and rational control of efforts. Based on the subordination of human needs and control over natural resources, modern Western civilization is inept to contain sophisticated violent tendencies within boundaries of tolerance, coexistence, human rights and cultural diversity. Modernist social engineering developed as a tool to eliminate the barbarism of modern society is not only a survival technique to ensure the sanity of the global society. On the contrary, it is based upon scientific endeavors that are contingent with discoveries of new social relationships which can bring about new forms of sophisticated violence. Those relationships constitute anti-social tendencies and develop fragmented social meaning of moral action. According to Meštrović,47 contemporary social inquiry into civilized anti-barbarism constitutes a new mode of reading and understanding of the constitutional duality of human nature. Therefore, following this line of social sciences inquiry, in this paper are analyzed authentic Vukovar wartime chronicles and first hand

45 As indicated by Vržina Špoljar (2012). 46 Meštrović (1993). 47 Meštrović (1993).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) narrations of the 1991 Battle produced by civilians and soldiers in the last twenty years.48 Rendering such life histories in a political climate of the contemporary Croatian society which constitutes multitudes of interpretations requires according to Ricoeur,49 to speak about narrative unity of life in order to articulate retrospection of the Vukovar Battle events. The fragility of the human condition in extreme war circumstances therefore is represented through actions50 that are intelligible and proper subject of social scientific inquiry. However, as Ricoeur indicates: “all action is in principle interaction just as all discourse is in principle dialogical.”51 It follows then, that action in the context of war, like war discourse in chronicles of war accounts and personal experiences in narratives about Vukovar, is inherently subject to interpretation, and all interpretative activity by scholars in social sciences proceeds by way of a dialectic between guessing and validity. However, to validate this kind of interpretation requires from one not only to limit itself to empirical validation, but to extend its validation against competing interpretations as an argumentative discipline based on “logic of uncertainty and qualitative probability.”52 If the actions interpreted in the war chronicles of the people directly involved in the Vukovar Battle are to be analyzed, according to Ricoeur, as purposive and related to other actions in a meaningful context of historical time; then such narrations should transfer historical time into human time. Narrative mode, therefore, articulates the human time of barbarism and attains its full significance when it becomes a constitutive part of personal identity. His or her character identity strongly relates to their narrative identity and is expressed in the personal encounter with violence, destruction and killings. Thus, Vukovar personal narrations of war accounts and experience have ethical dimensions, because the narrative unity with personal lives is made up of moments of its responsiveness or failure to respond to others.53 Thereby, the life experiences of war accounts during the Vukovar Battle interpreted in personal narrations54 are the starting point

48 Appendix 1, lists 7 and 8. 49 Dauenhauer & Pellauer (2012). 50 Dauenhauer & Pellauer (2012). 51 Dauenhauer & Pellauer (2012). 52 Dauenhauer & Pellauer (2012). 53 Dauenhauer & Pellauer (2012). 54 Appendix 1, lists 7. and 8.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) and key term for social science inquiry into an acceptable definition of what constitutes a study of text forms of experiences in the scientific, social and philosophical frame of reference, especially if it aims to contribute to a better understanding of modern barbarism. Vukovar war memoirs55 as text forms of experience, however contain documentary evidence that tell past events even though in this case, publications analyzed leave unanswered questions of utmost importance to the study of the battle:

 None of the authors provide documents which can prove that there was an explicit order to defend the city (neither defenders nor the national authorities have the answer).  None of the authors elaborate on the fact that nobody wanted to provide answers to the questions related to the outcome of the siege.

Those open questions left unanswered until present day, create controversies in the public and scientific communities in Croatia, thus providing the grounds for all sorts of political manipulations, be it domestic or international. As indicated by Gordana Cvitan,56 the result of this ambiguity is noticed, on one hand, in today’s general disappointment by the Vukovar defenders as to how they are treated by contemporary Croatian society and; on the other hand, in autism of the government authorities responsible for the Vukovar defense in 1991. Namely, under the general conditions of war outlined in the plans for Serbian aggression on Croatia, Vukovar war casualties have become redundant and survivors bear the witness to barbarism without precedent.57 The power of evidence expressed in the personal narrations of the Vukovar Battle, thus stands weak under the international political pressure to reduce58 crimes against humanity outside the jurisdiction and responsibility of their own authorities. They are living proof that text forms of experience and memory can never be neutral. Memory, history, forgetting and remembering Ricoeur argues, all belong to people, for without memories there could be no history involving

55 Appendix 1, list 7. 56 Cvitan (2002). 57 Nazor (2011). 58 The most prominent example is Hague’s (International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) reduced sentence against general Veselin Šljivančanin for war crimes at Ovčara from 17 to 10 years.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) people. Therefore, to concur with Ricoeur, this type of historical knowledge deserves to be called true and equal to or at least a part of the official historical knowledge in Croatia. Subjective narratives such as those presented in this paper contain an individual’s memory of what he or she has encountered or done or suffered during the Vukovar Battle. Testimonies of this sort shape a group’s memory, its common knowledge. Remembering is a social duty not only for their communities and the nation as a whole, but above all, for European society, which has a moral obligation to acknowledge human sacrifice and give meaning to their loss through justice and truth. It could be argued then, that qualitative social research into subjective personal narrations of the Vukovar Battle can greatly improve contemporary understanding of modern barbarism. Furthermore, monographic war editions59 analyzed in this research are personal narratives that revolve around unexpected war episodes, ruptures and disturbance of normal states of affairs or social rules in Vukovar during its three months siege in 1991. Those narratives convey a special message and interpretation about war events and/or the characters involved in them as they vary in structure, content type, social function and interactional organization. Reflecting the power and social relationships among interactants, Vukovar monographic war editions therefore provide means to reach out of the box - from a personal into the public sphere - with the aim to harbor itself along the choices they make in order to speak out and for its survivors. Discursive practices of such kind point out to the fact that narrators as authors, “construct and articulate a variety of meanings that go beyond the manifestation of their individual self ” in order to encompass multiple ties and social relationships in war conditions.60 It could be inferred, according to De Fina,61 that this type of narration is a discursive practice which in Vukovar’s case is very important in the sense that it negotiates and modifies beliefs and relationships deeply impregnated by 1991 war realities. If one is to concur with Ochs and Capps62 then socially accepted conventions about the Vukovar Battle

59 Appendix 1, list 8. 60 De Fina (2003): 19. 61 De Fina (2003). 62 They “also discuss the fact that experiences are framed within the limits of stereotypes and socially accepted conventions through cultural templates or conventional images of people and events.” De Fina (2003): 21.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) expressed in analyzed monographic editions have created cultural templates and/or conventional images of Vukovar defenders, victims and survivors as martyrs detached from their symbolic roots. The arguments discussed in this section converge on the idea that Vukovar’s war realities expressed in monographic editions as personal narrations should become functional parts contained in the historical knowledge of the recent Croatian past. As previously mentioned, this historical knowledge, contrary to relativist standing on the subject, deserves to be called true, according to Ricoeur.63 Coming out of war without asking questions related to the barbarism of the battle of Vukovar implies that Croatian society has not developed a social framework of memory. It also predisposes one not to ask the fundamental question “why?”. Where and how to situate personal narrations (memoirs, monographic editions, autobiographies and diaries) about the Vukovar Battle into the framework of Croatian collective memory requires from the contemporary social sciences to overcome fragmentations and contamination with politicized expressions of reality. At the same time, the absence of such narrations in the contemporary social inquiry into modern barbarism indicates to what extent subjective memory and personal history are neglected as valid and reliable sources of knowledge. Therefore, meaning contained in texts of the first hand narratives such as autobiographies and diaries require studies of life as structured quality of experience with patterns of social inquiry considered both as a phenomenon and method.64 In this paper, according to Clandinin and Connelly,65 it is assumed that authentic war narrations (autobiographies and diaries)66 of the Vukovar Battle contain stories that can provide full sense and “coming out of a personal and social history” lived by the people as a valid record of experience, situation67 and time. Namely, ‘subjective’ or ‘cultural’ direction towards personal and social meanings as basis of action should gain greater prominence in social 68 inquiry into contemporary war narrations. According to

63 Dauenhauer & Pellauer (2012), accessed on March 26, 2013. 64 Denzin, Norman et al. (1998): 158. 65 Denzin, Norman et al. (1998): 155. 66 Appendix: List No. 9. Autobiographies and List No. 10: Diaries. 67 Denzin, Norman at al. (1998): 157. 68 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Chamberlayne, Bornat and Wengraf,69 autobiography, eye-witness statements and straightforward personal narrative (such as diaries) as biographical methods thus provide wide varieties of interpretative procedures which combine the personal and the social as they gradually become a life-history. Vukovar Battle autobiographies are “rooted in an analysis of both social history and the wellsprings of individual personality” as they “reach forward and backwards in time, 70 documenting processes and experiences of social change.” The Vukovar Battle literature therefore, represents a functional question in the general framework of public and scholarly discourse on war in Croatia. Among the vast number of war narrations and professional writers of someone’s else memories,71 Vukovar personal narrations such as memoirs, monographic editions, autobiographies and diaries reflect war reality that is nowadays very difficult to grasp. According to Gordana Cvitan72 the ʻaesthetics of discomfort’ is what lies beneath those personal narrations as their authors try to find devalued moral consciousness of the nation. Discomfort is mutually shared by those who write and those who read as they are confronted with the brutalities of war in Vukovar. What it means is that social inquiry into Vukovar Battle narrations of personal war experiences should include development of explanations around “telling and remembering, and 73 their functions in relation to agency and meaning.” More so, Vukovar’s marginalized histories inaccessible through conventional documentary sources underline a present “imbalance in making and 74 telling of history” in Croatia. Therefore, this type of biographical work, reflective as it may be “in its self-construction, life review and identity development”75 is contingent with information valuable to scholarly explanation and/or understanding of modern barbarism. Based on the conducted research, autobiographies76 represent to a

69 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000). 70 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 1. 71 One of the most productive professional writers recoding stories, memories and feelings of the Vukovar Battle survivors and soldiers is Davor Runtić (see Appendix 1, lists 7, 9 and 10). 72 Cvitan (2002): 13. 73 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 5. 74 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 5. 75 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 5. 76 Appendix 1, list 9.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) certain extent a testimony and document of time that is witness to a snap-shot memory of war reality. Vukovar’s wartime reality in this case, is locked up and channeled through documentary means and purified to the level of expressed and lived in 36 autobiographies. They bear witness to barbarism that goes beyond existing and new roles of compliance to the mainstream discourse on war in Croatia.77 Namely, compliance to the mainstream discourse on war in Croatia requires from one to revise and revisit unique point of views of Vukovar’s actors which express their war reality without outside interventions into their personal life experiences. Therefore, a canon of qualitative inquiry focused on the point of view of the actor engaged in Vukovar war developments should be directed towards biographising into social sciences which include a comprehensive understanding of the “evaluation of structures, agencies and actions as historically formed and historically forming.”78 To explore emotional levels of personal meaning, however, requires a full disclosure of the Vukovar Battle eyewitness stories, because it documents both sides of the coin: subjective and objective reality. As Gordana Cvitan indicates79 – the city is besieged and the hero has survived. The hero is a document and a testament to the war, not more or less. The author was a soldier and now provides a written testimony that can only be understood by those who survived and participated but were never able to witness themselves. In-depth analysis of both, intra-psychic and societal-context of the Vukovar 1991 wartime personal narrations enable one to “explore latent levels of personal meaning” through biographical-interpretative method.80 However, “substantive sociological engagement with the individual and the social” in Vukovar’s case therefore, “requires distinction between the objective factors” of the war situation and the subjective interpretation of that situation which is of fundamental significance.81 Narrative truth in Vukovar life history and narrations of the war, based on the conducted research, is therefore, marginalized and neglected historical truth. So far, Vukovar narrations as stories of personal war experiences are “marginal to history making or to sociological

77 For example: autobiographies by Ivan Slonje-Šved, and Ivan Kifer-Helin. 78 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 8. 79 Cvitan (2002). 80 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 9. 81 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 3.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) explanation” in Croatia and they ask for engaged approach to scientific inquiry into personal accounts of written words in order to give “value to subjective experience”82 and provide an alternative approach to the study of modern barbarism.

Qualitative research and alternative approach to study of modern barbarism Subjective, cultural and biographical turn in the social sciences understand that the qualitative research seeks for commonalities between approaches and a deeper understanding of differences, which in the case of Vukovar, should follow “trajectories as means of comparing responses to traumatic” war events.83 Therefore, a deep rift that traverses the scholarly discourse on Yugoslavia’s dissolution (domestic and international), exhibit also a complex lineages of social inquiries into the defended subject together with the intersubjective provenance of selectively targeted resources. So far, international and domestic scholarly research into aggression and war in Croatia was not extensively concerned “with the personalized world of experience and the structuring of the externalities impinging on individuals and 84 collectivities” in the case of Vukovar. The Vukovar war case reconstruction is rarely found embedded into the social inquiry of the Yugoslavia’s macro-structures in a sense that it provides mutual implications of lives, stories, contexts and subjectivities situated in researched life. Therefore, “the importance of sensitive understanding of inner-worlds and emotional blockages and the interaction of those with complex cultures and contexts” should therefore include narrations of personal experiences of the war in Vukovar as integral part of all social investigations in Yugoslavia’s disintegration and war in Croatia.85 This in return can explain the interaction between social mechanisms and social arrangements that are in line with individual life strategies and contribute to comprehensive understanding of the social setting and war realities of modern barbaric societies. However, personal narrations of the Vukovar tragedy represent people that deserve to be heard. Their life stories should be voiced out after having been kept hidden from the ʻofficial’ history and they

82 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 3-5. 83 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 14. 84 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 17. 85 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 24.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) should be allowed to enter contemporary social research. Social research and inquiry into the Vukovar Battle personal narrations provide a voice to marginalized histories of the few and simultaneously empowers both victims and survivors to speak for themselves not letting objective distant observers to speak for them. However, according to Wengraf86 one is to go beyond sophisticated formal text- analysis and recycling of the narrations in order to extend the understanding of the subject “through the process of social and societal contextualization”. What it means is that one should “locate that personal and interpersonal history within the history of context”, which in return enables understanding rather than just recycling of the personal stories.87 Therefore, researched knowledge of the real history of the personal and local social context of the Vukovar Battle is necessary for the comprehensive understanding of the war in Croatia and Yugoslavia’s disintegration. Text-analysis88 of the Vukovar personal war narrations predispose development of socio-historical model embedded in the objective context (with the knowledge of the external real) which can be further used to interpret the significance of the text, history and subjectivity on the national level. If allowed to enter contemporary qualitative social research, Vukovar war narrative autobiographies and diaries will enable concrete particularities and implicit typologies to transfer into explicit knowledge and help to clarify the general concepts of the war and bloody resolution of the 89 socialist Yugoslavia. In doing so, it will greatly improve understanding of modern barbarism. If ignored or forgotten, Vukovar’s personal war narrations will be unable to tell stories about their violent past and inevitably remain silent or allow somebody else to create new past. General speechlessness when confronted with Vukovar’s tragedy leads to the conclusion that popular scholarly memory is full of blank spaces and selective resources. The judgmental attitude of the international

86 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 142. 87 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 143. 88 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000). 89 According to Holloway and Jefferson: “theoretical assumption about the subject in biographical research, as in qualitative social sciences more generally, is that research subjects are knowledgeable agents, willing and able to ‘tell it like it is’; subjects who are always somehow closer to the truth of their self-hood than the researcher can ever be.” Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 169.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) community has hampered social inquiry into the war in Croatia while it refused to come to terms with the grave barbarism in the Vukovar siege of 1991. Flooded by Western scholars who tried to reason the subject, however well intended, they had very little possibility to understand the ‘Yugoslavia’s tragedy’ let alone the Vukovar stories of war and genocide. Their one-sided nature of communication has created a construction of the Croatian recent past through “a meaning-making lens” which does not correspond to and include the Vukovar tragedy as a crucial event in Croatian collective memory.90 Dismantling of the collective memory and burying the Vukovar war history however risked to penetrate the environment which favored one version of the recent Croatian past over ‘the other’. Western scholars and Croatian alike did not help in the process, because they were prone to favor one interpretation – ‘objective’ over another – ‘subjective’ unable to grasp realities such as Vukovar’s (which does not mean that they do not exist). Therefore, Vukovar personal war narrations pose a serious question to the validity of various selective interpretation of the war and Serbian aggression on Croatia. Marginalized and ignored, or reduced to the level of mare historical fact, the Vukovar tragedy indicates to what extent international and domestic scholars alike, are not clear whose past they are recording and for whom.91 One can concur therefore with Andrews, and state that Vukovar’s people “do not need Western cassette players to liberate their memory.”92 “What they want, and need, and are trying to create for themselves, is space to talk about their lives, both past and present, in the way that they perceive them”, and it is an imperative for the domestic scholars and international alike, to understand what constitutes new barbarism in Vukovar at the end of the 20th century.93

Conclusion Vukovar’s personal narratives are in a position to reflect upon, and respond honestly to remembered past free to voice out their truth. A fragile bond between the forgotten and the unspoken can only be reinforced by their rediscovery of memory and not additionally

90 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 189. 91 Appendix 1, table 6. 92 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 191. 93 Chamberlayne, Prue et al. (2000): 191.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) burdened by assisted scholarly interpretations which threaten to replace one form of speechlessness with another. Scholarly research into the Vukovar Battle should therefore include investigation into its levels of significance for the Croatian people and the nation as a whole: a. On the level of significance for the nation-state building process (state sovereignty, independence, nation state). b.The historical meaning (the siege, genocide, crimes against humanity). c. Croatian war of defense against Serbian aggression (EU and global geopolitics).

Fossilization of the recent traumatic memories and its manipulation through extensive literary production thus calls for the development of a collective memory framework development suitable for and according to Croatian social realities of war experiences. This in return provides on the one hand, the basic connection between the meaning and symbolic roots of experienced war realities by defenders, war victims and survivors; and on the other hand, on the level of Croatian society, it gives a meaning to Vukovar sacrifice and suffering as it is perceived as an integral part of the national integration process, historical significance and Croatian defensive war against Serbian aggression. Social interaction and wearing away of war memories are grounded in words as symbolic representations and they behave like things with invisible impact on human mind and soul. Civilized wounds according to Meštrović94 are a result of affect-laden memories that behave like Durkheim’s representations - as if they posses a will of their own. Therefore, it is quite possible to assume that collective memories under intense repression of invisible traumas coming from the past continue to thrive and live in present time only to influence the behavior of the subject – the whole peoples – due to a distorted sense of history. Namely, cultural problems the same as aggressive instincts that are not worn away by certain nations due to culture, actually result in sickness. He points out that “sanity is maintained through proper mental hygiene that involves an ongoing, accurate assessment of personal and collective memories, which is to say – history,” because

94 Meštrović (1993).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

“memories exist permanently as mental facts: they do not disappear when the firing that caused them disappear.”95 Memories are not worn out by the passage of time because they are constantly reconstructed, repressed, or transformed in some way or another. Traumatic memory wearing away process as mechanical problem can not be simply amputated by modernist narratives from accumulated traces of the past, because humans increasingly suffer more under the umbrella of modernity. Meštrović96 argues that they construct fictive forms of “hyper-reality as a valid substitute for old-fashioned reality” thereby perpetuating the most oppressive external force in the world 97 – “collectivity in form of civilization.” Therefore, contemporary narrations related to the disintegration of socialist Yugoslavia call for social inquiry into collective representations and neuroses as social structures because “they endeavor to achieve by private means what is 98 affected in society by collective effort.” At the same time, qualitative research into modern barbarism in Croatia can not afford to avoid testimonial narrations of the Vukovar war experiences and memories as an alternative approach to social analysis of the phenomenon at stake. Out of more then 90099 surveyed domestic and international works on Yugoslavia’s disintegration and war in Croatia, published in the period 1991–2010, the analysis of 258100 books indicates that the reception of the Vukovar Battle as reference to extreme violence can contribute to a better understanding of modern barbarism. However, its absence from the researched contemporary popular and scholarly literature forces one to acknowledge the fact that barbarism of the Vukovar Battle is continuously under technical censorship which perpetuates a sophisticated production of selective and biased memory and history reconstruction. Therefore, international and domestic debates which interpret contemporary violence and wars in the former Yugoslavia failed to understand modern barbarism.

95 Meštrović (1993): 206-07. 96 Meštrović (1993): 214. 97 Which means that stressful life-events are “shaped by collective processes and individual predispositions” resulting in trauma, Meštrović (2000): 217. 98 Meštrović (1993): 254. 99 71% of the surveyed works does not mention the Vukovar Battle at all. 100 Out of 258 books (only 21% of the total): 23% mention the Vukovar Battle and war related experiences in a paragraph or a section; 37% mentions it in a page or two and 40% is all about the Vukovar Battle.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Bibliography Andrews, M. (2000): ‘Texts in a changing context. Reconstructing lives in East Germany’. In: The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Sciences. Comparative issues and examples, eds. P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat & T. Wengraf (London & New York): 181-194. Banks, M. (1996): Ethnicity: anthropological constructions (London & New York). Brassett, J. (2010): ‘Cosmopolitan Sentiments After 9-11? Trauma and the Politics of Vulnerability’, Journal of Critical Globalization Studies 2: 12-29. Chamberlayne, P., Bornat, J. & Wengraf, T. (2000): ‘Introduction. The biographical turn’. In: The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Sciences. Comparative issues and examples, eds. P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat & T. Wengraf (London & New York): 1-26. Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. (1998): ‘Personal Experience Methods’. In: Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, eds. N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (London): 150-178. Clifford, J. & Marcus, G.E. (eds.) (1986): Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Experiments in Contemporary Anthropology (London). Coser, L.A. (1992): ‘Introduction: Maurice Halbwachs 1877-1945’. In: Maurice Halbwachs on Collective memory. The Heritage of Sociology (Chicago & London): 1-34. Cushman, T. (2004): ‘Anthropology and genocide in the Balkans. An analysis of conceptual practices of power’, Anthropological Theory 4(1): 5- 28. Cushman, T. & Meštrović, S.G. (eds.) (1996): This Time We Know. Western Responses to Genocide in Bosnia (New York & London). Cvitan, G. (2002): Od čizama do petka – (D)opisi rata (Zagreb). Dauenhauer, B. & Pellauer, D. (2012): s.v. ‘Paul Ricoeur’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/ricoeur/ Denich, B. (1993): ‘Unmaking multi-ethnicity in Yugoslavia: metamorphosis observed’, Anthropology of East Europe Review 11(1-2): 43-53. ______. (1994): ‘Dismembering Yugoslavia: Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic Revival of Genocide’, American Ethnologist 21(2): 367-390. Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998): ‘Introduction. Entering the Field of Qualitative Research’. In: Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, eds. N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (London): 1-32.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

De Fina, A. (2003): Identity in Narrative. A study of Immigrant Discourse (Amsterdam & Philadelphia). Frykman, M.P. (2003): ‘The War and After.On War-Related Anthropological Research in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina’, Etnološka tribina 26(33): 55- 74. Gellner, E. (1983): Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca & New York). Hayden, R.M. (1996): ‘Imagined Communities and Real Victims: Self- Determination and Ethnic Cleansing in Yugoslavia’, American Ethnologist 23(4): 783-801. Holloway, W. & Jefferson, T. (2000): ‘Biography, anxiety and the experience of locality’. In: The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Sciences. Comparative issues and examples, eds. P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat, & T. Wengraf (London & New York): 167-180. Jambrešić Kirin, R. (1995): ‘Testimonial Discourse Between National Narrative and Etnography as Socio-Cultural Analysis’, Collegium Anthropologicum 19(1): 17-27. ______. (2000): ‘The Politics of Memorising and Forgetting: Reminiscence of the Second World War in Croatia’, research report. Research Support Scheme, Open Society Support Foundation, Open Society Institute (Budapest). http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001140/01/148.pdf, last access 12/4/2013. Kardov, K. (2004): ‘Stišavanje prošlosti: Vukovar između mjesta i prostora sjećanja’. In: Nasilno rasturanje Jugoslavije. Uzroci, dinamika, posledice. Zbornik radova, ed. M. Hadžić (Begrade): 227-238. Losi, N., Passerini, L. & Salvatici, S. (eds.) (2001): Archives of Memory: Supporting Traumatized Communities Through Narration and Rememeberance. Psychosocial Notebook 2 (Geneve). Malešević, S. (2011): Sociologija rata i nasilja (Zagreb). Meštrović, S.G. (1991): The Coming Fin de Siecle: An Application of Durkheim’s Sociology to Modernity and Postmodernism (New York). ______. (1993): The Barbarian Temperament. Toward a postmodern critical theory (London & New York). ______. (1998): Anthony Giddins: The last modernist (New York). Nazor, A. (2011): Velikosrpska agresija na Hrvatsku 1990-ih (Zagreb). Osborne, T. (1998): Aspects of Enlightenment. Social theory and the ethics of truth (London). Penava, Š. (2003): ‘Bibliografija radova o Vukovaru u Domovinskom ratu’, Scrinia Slavonica 3: 714-728.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Povrzanović, M. (1995):‘Crossing the borders: Croatian War Ethnographies’, Narodna umjetnost 32(1): 91-106. Ramet, S. (2005): Thinking about Yugoslavia. Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Cambridge). Rogić, I.N. (1998): Smaragdni brid. Vukovar 91. i hrvatski identitet (Zagreb). Vržina Špoljar, S. (2009): ‘Hrvatski domovinski rat i prakse posramljivanja – antropološki osvrt’. In: Demografski kontekst i sociokulturne posljedice hrvatskoga Domovinskog rata, eds. D. Živić & I. Žebec (Zagreb & Vukovar): 243-262. ______. (2010): ‘Mirna reintegracija, nemoralna “Pravda”, nemirna međunarodna savjest – prilog antropologiji Vukovara’. In: Mirna reintegracija Hrvatskog Podunavlja: znanstveni, empirijski i iskustveni uvidi, eds. D. Živić & S. Cvikić (Zagreb & Vukovar): 115-132. ______. (2012): ‘Anthropology of Vukovar: strategically revealing the civilizing missions and practices of the culture of death’. In: Victor Quia Victima. Nada za Hrvatsku, ed. D. Živić (Zagreb & Vukovar): 133-170. Wengraf, T. (2000): ‘Uncovering the general from within the particular. From contingencies to typologies int he understanding of cases.’ In: The Turn to Biographical Methods in Social Sciences. Comparative issues and examples, eds. P. Chamberlayne, J. Bornat & T. Wengraf (London & New York): 140-162. Winch, P. (1990): The Idea of Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy (Padsow & Cornwal). Žanić, M. (2010): ‘Predstavljanje i praćenje provedbe Erdutskoga sporazuma u hrvatskom i srpskom izdanju Vukovarskih novina’, In: Mirna reintegracija Hrvatskog Podunavlja: znanstveni, empirijski i iskustveni uvidi, eds. D. Živić & S. Cvikić (Zagreb & Vukovar): 227-242.

Sažetak

Namjera je ovoga rada utvrditi početno stajalište za bolje razumijevanje alternativnog pristupa proučavanju suvremenoga nasilja kako to predlaže Meštrović. Naime, kako bi se unaprijedilo suvremeno razumijevanje modernoga nasilja, autorica ukazuje na to da je potrebno provesti sociološka istraživanja publikacija o ratovima u bivšoj Jugoslaviji tako da se ona temelje na tome kako je i do koje razine vukovarska bitka iz 1991. godine percipirana i istraživana u međunarodnoj i domaćoj literaturi. Upravo se takav referentni okvir istraživanja koristi u ovom radu kako bi se iz perspektive kritične teorije omogućila analiza međunarodnih i domaćih socioloških istraživanja modernoga nasilja te predložio

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) manje restriktivan i vitalniji alternativni pristup razumijevanju navedenog fenomena. Predložen alternativni pristup temelji se na kvalitativnom istraživanju osobnih naracija kao integralnog dijela za sveobuhvatno razumijevanje modernoga nasilja. Stoga se pretpostavlja da su vukovarske osobne naracije sa stajališta zapamćene prošlosti u poziciji da se na nju slobodno reflektiraju i o njoj istinito progovore njihovi akteri. Upravo je tu krhku vezu između zaboravljenoga i izrečenoga moguće osnažiti ponovnim otkrivanjem sjećanja koja se nalaze u osobnim naracijama, a da ih se pri tome ne optereti dodatno potpomognutim znanstvenim interpretacijama koje tako često znaju zamijeniti jedan oblik šutnje s drugim oblikom šutnje. Naime, nedavna traumatska sjećanja koja su sada fosilizirana i njima se uvelike manipulira kroz literarnu produkciju, ukazuje na potrebu izgradnje kolektivnog okvira sjećanja koje odgovara hrvatskoj društvenoj stvarnosti ratnih iskustava. Na taj bi se način, s jedne strane, osiguralo temeljno povezivanje značenja i simboličkih korijena iskustvene ratne stvarnosti branitelja, žrtava rata i preživjelih. S druge strane, na razini hrvatskoga društva, takav kolektivni okvir sjećanja pridodao bi vukovarskoj žrtvi i patnji 1991. godine značenje koje joj pripada kao neodvojivi dio nacionalnog integracijskog procesa, povijesne važnosti i hrvatskoga obrambenoga rata protiv srpske agresije. Stoga kvalitativno istraživanje modernoga nasilja u Hrvatskoj ne bi trebalo izostaviti naracije vukovarskih svjedočenja o ratnim iskustvima i sjećanjima iz 1991. godine jer iste predstavljaju sastavni dio sociološke analize navedenoga fenomena. Od 900 istraženih domaćih i međunarodnih knjiga na temu raspada bivše Jugoslavije i rata u Hrvatskoj (objavljenih u periodu 1991. – 2010. godine), analizom njih 258 utvrđeno je da vukovarska bitka iz 1991. godine na koju se referiraju a predstavlja primjer ekstremnoga nasilja, može doprinijeti boljem razumijevanju modernoga nasilja. Međutim, u isto vrijeme, ovo istraživanje pokazuje da upravo izostanak vukovarske bitke 1991. godine i počinjenoga nasilja u popularnoj i znanstvenoj literaturi, nije slučajan i da se stoga nalazi kontinuirano pod tehničkom cenzurom koja dalje proizvodi sofisticirane selektivne oblike i pristrana sjećanja kroz rekonstrukciju povijesti. Zbog toga, rasprava na međunarodnoj i domaćoj sceni u literaturi koja interpretira suvremeno nasilje i ratove bivše Jugoslavije nije u mogućnosti razumjeti moderno nasilje.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Appendix 1

List 1: International popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia

1. Badura, H. (ed.) (2009): Agressivität und Gewalt in Europa. Grenzfragen und Prüfsteiner der Integration der EU (Krems & Donau). 2. Biserko, S. (ed.) (2007): Vukovarska tragedija 1991. U mreži propagandnih laži i oružane moći JNA. 2 Volumes (Belgrade). 3. Biserko, S. (ed.) (2009): Proces Vojislavu Šešelju: Raskrinkavanje projekta Velike Srbije (Belgrade). 4. Cigar, N. L. (1995): Genocide in Bosnia: The Policy of “Ethnic Cleansing“ (Austin, TX). 5. Cot, J. (ed.) (1997): Posljednji balkanski rat? Bivša Jugoslavija: svjedočenja, raščlamba, izgledi (Zagreb), originally published as Dernière guerre balkanique? Ex-Yougoslavie: témoignages, analyses, perspectives (Paris, 1996). 6. Cushman, T. & Meštrović, S.G. (1996): This Time We Know. Western Responses to Genocide in Bosnia (New York & London). 7. Cushman, T. (2004): ‘Anthropology and Genocide in the Balkans. An analysis of conceptual practices of power’, Anthropological Theory 4(1):5- 28. 8. Finkielkraut, A. (1992): Kako se to može biti Hrvat? (Zagreb), originally published as Comment peut-on tre croate? (Paris, 1992). 9. Finkielkraut, A. (1995): Zločin je biti rođen (Zagreb), originally published as Le crime d'être né. L'Europe, les nations, la guerre (Paris, 1994). 10. Frusca, P. (1997): Genocid na Balkanu u ime «Velike Srbije» (Trieste). 11. Gow, J. (1997): Triumph of the Lack of Will. International Diplomacy and the Yugoslav War (New York). 12. Heller, Y. (1999): Neugašena žeravica. Reportaže iz ratova na tlu bivše Jugoslavije 1991.-1995. (Zagreb), originally published as Des brasiers mal teints: un reporter dans les guerres yougoslaves, 1991-1995 (Paris, 1997). 13. Hodge, C. (2007): Velika Britanija i Balkan (Zagreb), originally published as: Britain and the Balkans (London & New York, 2006). 14. Hodge, C. & Grbin, M. (eds.) (2000): Europa i nacionalizam. Nacionalni identitet naspram nacionalnoj netrpeljivosti (Zagreb). 15. Holbrooke, R. (1998): Završiti rat (Sarajevo), originally published as To End a War (New York, 1998). 16. Jovanović, N. (2002): Idemo na Zagreb. Dnevnik sa srpskim rezervistima (Zagreb). 17. Kadijević, V. (1993): Moje viđenje raspada. Vojska bez države (Beograd). 18. Lambrichs, L.L. (2007): Vukovar nikad nećemo vidjeti (Zagreb), originally published as: Nous ne verrons jamais Vukovar (Paris, 2005). 19. Lampe, J.R. (2000): Yugoslavia as History. Twice there was a country (Cambridge). 20. Libal, M. (2004): Njemačka politika i Jugoslavenska kriza 1991.-1992. (Zagreb).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

21. Macdonald, D.B. (2002): Balkan Holocausts? Serbian and Croatian victim- centered propaganda and the war in Yugoslavia (Manchester & New York). 22. Meštrović, S.G. (1994): The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism (London & New York). 23. Mamula, B. (2000): Slučaj Jugoslavija (Podgorica). 24. Michas, T. (2002): Unholy Alliance. Greece and Milošević’s Serbia (Austin, TX). 25. Morton, S., Jeffrey, R., Nation, C, Forage, P.C. & Bianchini, S. (2004): Reflections on the Balkan Wars. Ten Years After the Break-up of Yugoslavia (New York). 26. Perica, V. (2002): Balkan Idols: Religion and Nationalism in Yugoslav States (Oxford & New York). 27. Purešević, Z. (ed.) (2000): Srđan M. Popović: Put u varvarstvo (Beograd). 28. Ramet, S.P. (2002): Balkan Babel: The Disintegration of Yugoslavia from the Death of Tito to the Fall of Milošević (Cambridge). 29. ______. (2005): Balkanski Babilon. Raspad Jugoslavije od Titove smrti do Miloševićeva pada (Zagreb). 30. ______. (2005): Thinking about Yugoslavia. Scholarly Debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Cambridge). 31. Rumiz, P. (2000): Masken für ein Massakr. Die manipulierte Krieg: Spurensuche auf dem Balkan (Munich) 32. Reiβmüller, J.G. (1995): Rat pred našim vratima. Uzroci hrvatske tragedije (Zagreb), originally published as Der Krieg vor unserer Haust r: Hintergr nde der kroatischen Trag die (Stuttgart, 1992). 33. Silber, L. & Little, A. (1996): Smrt Jugoslavije (Opatija), originally published as The Death of Yugoslavia (London, 1995). 34. Stover, E. & Peress, G. (1998): The Graves. Srebrenica and Vukovar (Zurich, Berlin & New York). 35. Ströhm, C.G. (1994): Što sam rekao Hrvatima (Zagreb). 36. Tanner, M. (2001): Croatia. A Nation Forged in War (New Haven & London). 37. Thatcher, M. (2004): Državničko umijeće. Strategija za svijet koji se mijenja (Zagreb), originally published as Statecraft: strategies for a changing world (London & New York, 2002). 38. Udovički, J. & Ridgeway, J. (eds.) (2000): Burn this house. The making and unmaking of Yugoslavia (Durham & London). 39. Ullman, R.H. (ed.) (1996): The World and Yugoslavia’s Wars (New York). 40. Weitz, E.D. (2003): A Century of Genocide. Utopias of Race and Nation (Princeton & Oxford). 41. Zimmermann, W. (1997): Izvori jedne katastrofe: Jugoslavija i njezini rušitelji. Posljednji američki veleposlanik piše o tome što se dogodilo i zašto (Zagreb), originally published as: Origins of a catastrophe: Yugoslavia and its destroyers:America's last ambassador tells what happened and why (New York, 1996).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

List 2. Popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia, published in Croatia

1. Baletić, Z. (1996): ‘Vukovar u hrvatskoj razvojnoj strategiji’. In: Zbornik radova dvadesetog znanstvenog skupa “Susreti na dragom kamenu”: Problemi obnove u funkciji razvoja Republike Hrvatske, ed. P. Ravlić (Pula): 423-429. 2. Banac, I. (1992): Dubrovnik i Vukovar (Dubrovnik). 3. Bilić, B. (2001): Misli 21. stoljeća. Treća Hrvatska (Zagreb). 4. Buljan, Z. (1993): ‘Aktivnosti Gradskog muzeja Vukovar na zaštiti arhivske građe u uvjetima agresije na grad Vukovar i Republiku Hrvatsku’, Glasnik arhiva Slavonije i Baranje 2 (Osijek): 37-39. 5. Crlenjak, B. (1991): ‘Vukovar: moralna kataklizma civilizacije’, Godišnjak za kulturu, umjetnost i društvena pitanja 9 (13): 191-200. 6. Goldstein, I. (2008): Hrvatska 1918.-2008. (Zagreb). 7. Klain, E. (ed.) (1992): Ratna psihologija i psihijatrija (Zagreb). 8. Kovacs, F. (1993): ‘Djelovanje civilne zaštite u Vukovaru za vrijeme Domovinskog rata 1991.’, Civilna zaštita: znanstveno-stručni časopis za zaštitu i spašavanje 2(1): 69-76. 9. Landeka, M. (1991): ‘Humanitarna pomoć Vukovaru u početku rata’, Godišnjak za kulturu, umjetnost i društvena pitanja 9(13): 218-222. 10. Magaš, B. & Žanić, I. (1999): Rat u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini 1991. – 1995. (Zagreb & Sarajevo). 11. Marčinko, M. (1991): ‘Od Bleiburga do Vukovara’, Hrvatska revija 41: 450-454. 12. Marijan, D. (2002): Smrt oklopne brigade. Prilozi za istraživanje rata za Hrvatsku i Bosnu i Hercegovinu 1990.-1992. (Zagreb). 13. ______. (2008): Slom Titove armije. JNA i raspad Jugoslavije 1987.- 1992. (Zagreb). 14. Piskač, N. (2002): Poražena Hrvatska (Zagreb). 15. Polović, J. (2004): Utjecaj SAD-a na hrvatsku politiku u razdoblju od 1990.- 2000. godine (Zagreb). 16. Radelić, Z., Marijan, D., Barić, N., Bing, A. & Živić, D. (2006): Stvaranje hrvatske države i Domovinski rat (Zagreb). 17. Rupić, M. (ed.) (2007): Oružana pobuna Srba u Hrvatskoj i agresija oružanih snaga SFRJ i srpskih paravojnih postrojbi na Republiku Hrvatsku (1990.-1991.), Hrvatska i Domovinski rat 1990.-1995: Dokumenti 1 (Zagreb). 18. Rupić, M. (ed.) (2007a): Dokumenti institucija pobunjenih Srba u Republici Hrvatskoj (1990.-1991.). Hrvatska i Domovinski rat 1990.-1995: Dokumenti 2 (Zagreb & Slavonski Brod). 19. Spajić-Vrkaš, V. (1992): Croatia Discovers Janus (Zagreb). 20. Šakić, V. & Kaliterna Lipovčan, Lj. (2001): European Integration for the 21st Century (Zagreb). 21. Šeparović, Z. (ed.) (1992): Documenta Croatica. On Croatian History and Identity and the War Against Croatia (Zagreb). 22. ______. (ed.) (2000): Hrvatski žrtvoslov. Zbornik radova (Zagreb). 23. ______. (ed.) (2002): Vukovar 2001. Da se ne zaboravi. Zbornik radova

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

(Zagreb). 24. ______. (ed.) (2006): O žrtvama je riječ, Zbornik radova. (Zagreb). 25. Starešina, V. (2004): Vježbe u laboratoriju Balkan (Zagreb). 26. ______. (2005): Haaška formula (Zagreb). 27. Šikić, N., Žužul, M. & Fattorini, I. (eds.) (1994): Stradanja djece u Domovinskom ratu (Zagreb). 28. Zvonarek, I. (2005): Geneza teritorijalne pretenzije Srbije prema Hrvatskoj i kršenje ratnih zakona i običaja tijekom Domovinskog rata od strane agresora (Zagreb). 29. Žanić, I. (1998): Prevarena povijest: guslarska estrada, kult hajduka i rat u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini 1990.-1995. godine (Zagreb). 30. Živić, D. (2006): Stanovništvo Vukovarsko-srijemske županije (odrednice i obilježja demografskih promjena od sredine 19. do početka 21. stoljeća) (Zagreb - Vukovar). 31. Žunec, O. (1997): Planet Mina (Zagreb). 32. ______. (2007): Goli život I. i II.: Socijeltalne dimenzije pobune Srba u Hrvatskoj (Zagreb).

List 3: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia – Biographies

1. Bekavac, I. (ed.) (1997): Dr. Franjo Tuđman. Misao hrvatske slobode od nacionalne ugroženosti do državne samostalnosti (fragmenti, misli i pogledi) (Zagreb). 2. Bobetko, J. (2002): Sava je ipak potekla prema Zagrebu. Govori, članci, intervjui 1990.-2002. (Zagreb). 3. Cvetnić, R. (1997): Kratki izlet. Zapisi iz Domovinskog rata (Zagreb). 4. Đuretić, N. (2004): Iskreno vaš … zapisi s otoka (Zagreb). 5. Gugo, A. (1995): Da se ne zaboravi (Zagreb). 6. Ježić, B. (1995): Dnevnik rata (Zagreb). 7. Hartmann, F. (2002): Milošević dijagonala luđaka (Rijeka & Zagreb), originally published as Milosevic: la diagonale du fou (Paris, 1999). 8. Kačić, H. (2002): Serving my country. Croatia Revivida (Zagreb). 9. Merišnjak, S. (2002): Gvordijski čvor (Zagreb). 10. Mihanović, N. (1996): Na putu do hrvatske državnosti (govori 1990.-1994.) (Zagreb). 11. Pavković, M. (ed.) (2006): Slobodan Milošević krvnik Balkana. Dokumenti i svjedočanstva (Varaždin). 12. Perić, I. (1995): Godine koje će se pamtiti (Zagreb). 13. Rajter, V. (1995): Nebeski ratnici. Uspomene hrvatskog pilota (Zagreb). 14. Rumiz, P. (2002): Maske za masakr (Zagreb), originally published as Maschere un massacro, 2nd edition (Rome, 2000). 15. Runtić, D. (2003): Prvi hrvatski redarstvenik (Cerna). 16. Subotić, I. (1995): Ratna priča dragovoljca (Vinkovci). 17. Ujević, D. (2003): Ministar obrane. Jedno sjećanje na Gojka Šuška (Zagreb). 18. Viro, D. (2007): Slobodan Milošević – Anatomija zločina (Zagreb).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

List 4: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia – Memoirs

1. Blaskovich, J. (1998): Anatomija prijevare (Zagreb). 2. Bobetko, J. (1996): Sve moje bitke (Zagreb). 3. Boljkovac, J. (2009): „Istina mora izaći van...” Sjećanja i zapisi prvog ministra unutarnjih poslova neovisne Hrvatske (Zagreb). 4. Borovčak, D. (2001): Hello Toronto. Ovdje Zagreb, 1991.-2001. (Zagreb). 5. Carević, O. (1995): Glas srca i razuma (Zagreb). 6. ______. (2005): Dodirnimo zvijezdu prijateljstva (Zagreb). 7. Degoricija, S. (2008): Nije bilo uzalud (Zagreb). 8. Džeba, K. (1998): Sudbina novinara-članci, kolumne, intervjui 1990.-1992. (Zagreb). 9. Freundlich, M. (1996): Kao čitav jedan život – izabrani članci (Zagreb). 10. Gotovac, V. (1995): Znakovi za Hrvatsku (Zagreb). 11. Granić, M. (2005): Vanjski poslovi. Iza kulisa politike (Zagreb). 12. Gregurić, F. (1998): Vlada demokratskog jedinstva Hrvatske 1991.-1992. (Zagreb). 13. Gumzej, J. (1997): Od balvana do Daytona (Zagreb). 14. Hedl, D. (1993): Ratne reportaže (Osijek). 15. Kačić, H. (2003): U službi domovine. Croatia revivida (Zagreb). 16. Katinić, K. (1992): Mir u kliještima rata. Živjeti i preživjeti rat (Zagreb). 17. Manolić, J. (1995): Intervjui i javni nastupi 1989.-1995. (Zagreb). 18. Milardović, A. (1992): Requiem za Jugoslaviju. Komentari i dnevnici 1989.-1992. (Zagreb). 19. Mesić, S. (1994): Kako je srušena Jugoslavija. Politički memoari (Zagreb). 20. Mučalo, M. (1993): S Domovinskih bojišta (Zagreb). 21. Pečarić, J. (2002): Pronađena polovica duše. 10 godina s australskim Hrvatima (Zagreb). 22. Rogić, I.N. (1992): Peti stupanj prijenosa. Kratka povijest najduže hrvatske godine pisane nedjeljom (Zagreb). 23. Rudolf, D. (1999): Rat koji nismo htjeli. Hrvatska 1991. (Zagreb). 24. Stojanović, J. (2010): Tjeskobe. Ratno svjedočanstvo jednog liječnika (Zagreb). 25. Svoboda, D. (2002): Trik razglednice (Osijek). 26. Špegelj, M. (2001): Sjećanja vojnika (Zagreb). 27. Štefica, Š. (2006): Vukovarski zbornik br. 1. (Vukovar). 28. ______. (2007): Vukovarski zbornik br. 2. (Vukovar). 29. Tuđman, F. (1995): Zna se. HDZ u borbi za učvršćenje hrvatske državne suverenosti (Zagreb). 30. ______. (1999): Hrvatska riječ svijetu. Razgovori sa stranim predstavnicima (Zagreb). 31. Vazdar, V. (1993): Sjene rata (Osijek). 32. Visković, N. (2003): Sumorne godine – Nacionalizam, bioetika, globalizacija (Split). 33. Vuković, M. (2003): Desetljeće koje se pamti – Dnevnički zapisi 1990.- 1999. (Zagreb).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

34. Živić, D. (2008): Vukovarski zbornik 3. (Vukovar). 35. ______. (2009): Vukovarski zbornik 4. (Vukovar).

List 5: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia – Monographic Editions

1. Aparac-Gazivoda, T. & Katalenac, D. (1993): Wounded Libraries in Croatia (Zagreb). 2. Đurić, T. (1993): ‘Ratna sudbina hrvatske tradicijske baštine’, Hrvatsko društvo folkloristike 1: 1-108. 3. Ferinac, K. (ed.) (1991): Fotomonografija – Varaždinski dani rata (Varaždin). 4. Filipović, Z. (1992): Dnevnik smrti (Zagreb). 5. Ivančević, R. (1993): Cultural Heritage of Croatia in the War 1991-1992 (Zagreb). 6. Jović, J. (2000): Sudbonosci: Politički presjek Hrvatske 20. stoljeća (Split). 7. Jovičić, Z. (1993): Ratni zločini Jugoslavenske armije 1991.-1992. (London, New York, Toronto, Sydney & Zagreb). 8. Kapetanović, M.R. (1997): Kronologija zbivanja u RH 1989.-1995. (Zagreb). 9. Kevo, M. (1992): Rat za Hrvatsku: istočnoslavonska ratna kronika.Vinkovci (Osijek). 10. Krunpotić, M. (1998): Kronologija rata. Agresija na Hrvatsku i Bosnu i Hercegovinu (s naglaskom na stradanja Hrvata u BiH) (1989.-1998.) (Zagreb). 11. Kujundžić, M. & Dizdar, Z. (2000): Hrvatska borba za opstojnost 1918. - 1998. (Zagreb). 12. Maričić, M. (1994): Županijski vijenac (Županja). 13. Maroević, I. (1995): Rat i baština u prostoru Hrvatske (Zagreb). 14. Oraić Tolić, D. (1992): Hrvatsko ratno pismo 1991/92. Apeli, iskazi, pjesme (Zagreb). 15. Perić, I. (2007): Suvremena i samostalna Republika Hrvatska (Zagreb). 16. Pifat-Mrzljak, G. (1992): Nobel Laureates for Peace in Croatia (Zagreb). 17. Centar za dokumentaciju o Domovinskom ratu (1997): Ratni zločini srpskih vojnih i paravojnih postrojbi u Hrvatskom Podunavlju: 1991. – 1995. (Vinkovci). 18. Rehak, D. (2005): Nek’ ne dođe nitko do prijatelj drag (Vukovar). 19. Selak, A. (1992): Mass killing and genocide in Croatia 1991/92: A book of evidence (Based upon the evidence of the Division of Information, the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Croatia) (Zagreb). 20. ______. (1992): Scientists against the war in Croatia. World Responses to the Ruđer Bošković Institute’s Endeavour for Peace in Croatia (Zagreb). 21. Slišković, M. (2005): Žene u Domovinskom ratu. Snaga ljubavi činiti dobro (Zagreb). 22. Soldo, I. (1992): Croatia: Hospitals on Target. Deliberate Military Destruction of the Hospitals in Croatia (Zagreb). 23. Šaravanja, D.V. (2002): 10000 djece bez roditelja u Domovinskom ratu (Gradine).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

24. Croatian Information Centre (1992): The War Against Croatia: a chronology of the aggression (Zagreb & New York). 25. Topić, D. & Špišić, D. (1992): Slavonska krv. Kronologija rata (Osijek). 26. Veselica, M. (2005): Uskrsnuće Republike Hrvatske od 1990. do Bljeska i Oluje 1995. godine (Zagreb). 27. Zgaga, V. (1997): War damages to Museums and Galleries in Croatia (Zagreb).

List 6: Croatian interdisciplinary scientific studies of the Vukovar Battle

1. Akrap, A. (1999): ‘Koliko Hrvatska ima stanovnika nakon Domovinskog rata’, Društvena istraživanja 8(5-6): 677-919. 2. Franc, R. (1993): ‘Rat protiv Hrvatske’, Društvena istraživanja 2(2-3): 215- 566. 3. Jurčević, J. (2000): Vukovar ’91. Značenje, vrednote, identitet (Zagreb). 4. Jurčević, J., Živić, D. & Esih, B. (2004): Vukovar ’91. Međunarodni odjeci i značaj (Zagreb). 5. Kaliterna, Lj. (1997): ‘Prognana Hrvatska’, Društvena istraživanja 6(2-3): 193-422. 6. Kardov, K. (2004.): ‘Stišavanje prošlosti: Vukovar između mjesta i prostora sjećanja’. In: Nasilno rasturanje Jugoslavije. Uzroci, dinamika, posledice. Zbornik radova, ed. M. Hadžić (Beograd): 227-238. 7. Lamza, V. (eds.) (1992): ‘Javno mnijenje Hrvatske: Izbori 1992.’, Društvena istraživanja 1(2): 213-354. 8. Marijan, D. (2004): Bitka za Vukovar (Zagreb & Slavonski Brod). 9. Štambuk, M. (ed.) (2008): ‘Vukovar-pitanja o budućnosti’, Društvena istraživanja 1(2): 1-326. 10. Živić, D. & Žebec, I. (2007): Vukovar ’91. Vukovar-Hrvatska baština i perspektive razvoja (Zagreb & Vukovar). 11. ______. (2009): Vukovar '91. Demografski kontekst i sociokulturne posljedice hrvatskoga Domovinskog rata (Zagreb & Vukovar). 12. Živić, D. & Cvikić, S. (2010): Mirna reintegracija hrvatskoga Podunavlja: znanstveni, empirijski i iskustveni uvidi (Zagreb & Vukovar).

List 7: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Vukovar 1991 - Memoirs

1. Almaš, M. (1993): Drugi put Vukovar (Vukovar). 2. Borković, B. (1995): Rušitelj ustavnog poretka (Zagreb). 3. Božićević, M. (1997): Hranite ili ubijte: 45 dana u srpskom logoru u Borovo Selu: 2. srpnja-15. kolovoza 1991. (Zagreb). 4. Crlenjak, B. (ed.) (1995): Dimenzije zločina počinjenih u Vukovaru 1991. godine (Zagreb). 5. Crnjac, S. (1994): Vukovar i poslije njega (Zagreb). 6. Fedorovsky, S. & Kliment, Ž. (1992): Vukovarski dobrovoljac (Zagreb). 7. Glavašević, S. (1992): Priče iz Vukovara (Zagreb).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

8. Gurguri, H. (2009): Vapaj oko Vukovara (Gislaved). 9. Katanić, J. (1994): Glas iz Vukovara (Varaždinske Toplice). 10. Lang, S. & Ivanković, V. (2005): Pružena ruka. Hrvatski „Pravednici“. Djela dobra u ratu (Zagreb). 11. Miljković, M. (2000): Vukovarski deveti krug (Zaprešić). 12. Nekić, N. (1999): Vukovarske elegije (Zagreb). 13. Plavšić, D. (1994): Zapisi iz srpskih logora (Zagreb). 14. Prkačin, N. (1993): Tamo gdje nema rata (Vinkovci). 15. Raić, A. & Vučak, I. (eds.) (1992): Medicinska svjedočenja o vukovarskoj tragediji (Zagreb). 16. Rogić Nehajev, I. (1998): Smaragdni brid. Vukovar ’91. i hrvatski identitet (Zagreb). 17. Runtić, D. (1999): Vukovar 1991 Vinkovci. Ratne kronike (Vinkovci). 18. Šakić, V. (1997): Načelo Vukovar. Bilješke za imaginarnu povijest vukovarske Hrvatske (Zagreb). 19. Viro, D. (ed.) (2002): Priče iz Domovinskog rata (Zagreb). 20. Croatian Information Service (1992): Vukovar – An Eye-Witness Account of Medical Staff (Zagreb).

List 8: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Vukovar 1991 - Monographic Editions

1. Biro, Š. (1993): Organizacija i djelatnost stomatološke službe u ratnoj epopeji Medicinskog centra Vukovar (Zagreb). 2. ______. (ed.) (2000): Vukovarska bolnica (Vinkovci). 3. Hrvatski informativni centar (1992): Bolnica na meti (Zagreb). 4. Brozović, P. (2004): Između života – monografija (Vukovar). 5. Crlenjak, B. (ed.) (1995): Vukovar – ponos Hrvatske (Zagreb). 6. Dedaković-Jastreb, M., Mirković-Nađ, A. & Runtić, D. (1997): Bitka za Vukovar (Vinkovci). 7. Filipović, Z. (2006): Dnevnik smrti 1991. – integralno (Sarajevo). 8. Hekman, J., Bratulić, J. & Pal, A. (eds.) (2001): Spomenica MH u povodu desete obljetnice vukovarske tragedije 1991.-2001. (Zagreb). 9. Horvat, V. (ed.) (1996): Gdje su naši najmiliji? (Zagreb). 10. ______. (1999): Suzama do istine (Zagreb). 11. ______. (ed.) (2001): Deset godina nade i boli 1991.-2001. (Zagreb). 12. Karaman, I. (ed.) (1994): Vukovar-vjekovni hrvatski grad na Dunavu (Zagreb). 13. Kosec, B. & Perković, A. (2009): Kronika franjevačkog samostana u Vukovaru – godine progonstva i povratka (Zagreb & Vukovar). 14. Mate, S. (ed.) (1992): Croatia – Vukovar (Zagreb). 15. Pavković, M. (ed.) (2002a): Apeli dr. Vesne Bosanac (Koprivnica & Vukovar). 16. ______. (2002b): Sveto ime Vukovar – Fotografije (Zagreb). 17. Pole, S., Dudić, M., Đukić, Ž., Radoš, Z. & Dasović, I. (2008): „Jake snage MUP-a“ – Policija u obrani Vukovara 1991. (Vinkovci). 18. Rehak, D. (2007): Borovsko nebo čisto jesmo li te voljeli svi isto (Vukovar). 19. ______. (ed.) (2003): Život za domovinu (Vukovar).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

20. Stockinger, T. (2004): Vukovar-grad koji je obranio Hrvatsku. Jedan prikaz najsudbonosnije bitke hrvatske povijesti (Zagreb). 21. Šafer, M. (2009): Vukovarska elegija. Kud narodna vojska krene… (Samobor).

List 9: Vukovar 1991 personal narrations - Autobiographies

1. Fulgosi, Lj. & Vince-Ribarić, V. (eds.) (1993): Stotinu svjedočanstava – Potresni iskazi hrvatskih prognanika i logoraša (Zagreb). 2. Janjić-Tromblon, P. (2004): Žedni krvi gladni izdaje (Zagreb). 3. Jelić, D. (1997): Pogled u nepovrat u srbijansko-četničkim logorima (Pazin). 4. Jurić, Ž. (2004): Moja rijeka suza (Koprivnica & Vukovar). 5. Kiefer-Helin, I. (1993): Vukovarska balada: rat i ljubav (Vinkovci). 6. ______. (1995): Suživot, mir i dobro-lojalno i lokalno (Osijek). 7. Kovačević, M. (2002): Pseće sunce (Vinkovci). 8. Kumpf, S. (1999): Pod znakom križnog puta (Vukovar). 9. Matić-Fred, P. (2001): Ništa lažno (Zagreb). 10. ______. (2008): Ništa lažno, 5th edition (Zagreb). 11. Matiković-Lasta, I. (1998): Bogdanovci vrata Vukovara (Zagreb). 12. Međimurec, M. (2004): Piše Sunja Vukovaru. Istinite priče iz Domovinskog rata (Zagreb). 13. Majoros, S. (2004): Umrijeti kod Vukovara (Zagreb). 14. Plavšić, F. (1996): Samo nek ne bude uzalud (Vinkovci). 15. Rehak, D. (2000): Putevima pakla kroz srpske koncentracijske logore 1991… u 21. stoljeće (Zagreb). 16. Runtić, D. (1995): Tako smo branili Vukovar (Vinkovci). 17. ______. (2002): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 1 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 18. ______. (2003): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 2 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 19. ______. (2003): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 3 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 20. ______. (2003): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 4 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 21. ______. (2004): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 5 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 22. ______. (2004): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 6 (Vinkovci-Samobor). 23. ______. (2004): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 7 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 24. ______. (2005): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 8 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 25. ______. (2005): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 9 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 26. ______. (2005): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 10 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 27. ______. (2006): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 11 (Vinkovci & Samobor).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

28. ______. (2006): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 12 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 29. ______. (2007): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 13 (Vinkovci & Samobor). 30. ______. (2008): Junaci Domovinskog rata. Ratne priče iz Domovinskog rata. Knjiga 14 (Vinkovci & Šibenik). 31. ______. (2008): Vukovar i istočno bojište (Varaždin). 32. Sablić, M. (2000): Posljednja presuda „u ime naroda“ (Zagreb). 33. Slonje-Šved, I. (1994a): Ne pucaj prvi (Vinkovci). 34. ______. (1994b): Pakao Vukovara (Vinkovci). 35. Tomičić, Z. (2006): Vukovarski žuti mravi. Pripovijesti (Zagreb). 36. Vorgić, D. (1996): Sjećanja jednog logoraša (Zagreb).

List 10: Vukovar 1991 personal narrations - Diaries

1. Antunović, D. (1998): Od kalvarije do pakla: dnevnik jednog Vukovarca (Zagreb). 2. Brozović, P. (2003): Čuvari Vukovara. 2 Volumes (Cerna). 3. ______. (2008): Čuvari Vukovara, 2nd edition (Cerna). 4. Gaunt, S. (1995): Rat i pivo (Vinkovci). 5. Marić, A. (2009): Halo Mama! Ratni dnevnik i progon iz Vukovar (Vukovar). 6. Mirković, A. (1997): 91,6 MhZ Glasom protiv topova (Zagreb). 7. Mravak, I. (1993): Svjetlost Vukovara (Zagreb). 8. Nazor, A. (2008): Grad je bio meta: Bolnica, Dom umirovljenika … (agresija Srbije, odnosno JNA i srpsko-crnogorskih snaga na Republiku Hrvatsku i srpska okupacija Vukovara 1991.) (Zagreb). 9. Njavro, J. (1995): Glave dolje ruke na leđa (Zagreb). 10. Runtić, D. (1994): Rat prije rata. Vinkovci-Vukovar 11. siječnja-11. rujna 1991. (Vinkovci). 11. Smek, M. (1995): Vukovarski dnevnik Marije Smek. Dnevnik holokausta na hrvatskom Dunavu (Zagreb). 12. Steigner, J. (1997): Posljednji Vukovarac (Osijek). 13. Šarić, Z. (1995): Dnevnik jednog logoraša (Vinkovci). 14. Šimunović, Z. (1995): Vukovarski dnevnik (Zagreb). 15. ______. (2003): Vukovarski dnevnik. (Zagreb).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Appendix 2

Table 1: International popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia (List No. 1)

Reference Publication number according to the List no.1. Total

Sections 2, 9, 18, 31, 37 5

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, Pages 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 36

Table 2: Domestic popular and scholarly work on Yugoslavia’s dissolution and war in Croatia (List No.2)

Reference Publication number according to the List no.2. Total

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 27 14

6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 18 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Pages

Table 3: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia – Biographies (List No. 3)

Reference Publication number according to the List no.3 Total

Sections 2, 5, 8, 9 4

Pages 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 14

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Table 4: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia – Memoirs (List No. 4)

Reference Publication number according to the List no.4. Total

Sections 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35 14

Pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 21 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

Table 5: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Croatia – Monographic Editions (List No. 5)

Reference Publication number according to the List no.5. Total

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

Pages 9, 11, 19, 20, 27 5

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Table 6: Popular and Scholarly Work Referring to Vukovar 1991 Battle according to lists

List List List List List List List List List List Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

1991. 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

1992. 1 4 0 3 9 1 4 2 0 0 24

1993. 1 2 0 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 17

1994. 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 2 1 12

1995. 3 0 5 4 1 0 2 1 2 5 23

1996. 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 11

1997. 4 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 18

1998. 2 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 10

1999. 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 9

2000. 6 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 14

2001. 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 8

2002. 5 3 5 2 1 0 1 2 2 0 20

2003. 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 3 2 12

2004. 4 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 7 0 19

2005. 2 2 0 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 13

2006. 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 9

2007. 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 12

2008. 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 2 11

2009. 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 9

2010. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

41 32 18 35 27 12 20 21 36 16 258

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Appendix 3

Figure 1

List no.1: International Popular and Scholarly Work on Yugoslavia's Dissolution and War in Croatia

4 4

Total No. of Publications per Year 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010.

Year Figure 2

List no.2: Domestic Popular and Scholarly Work on Yugoslavia's Dissolution and War in Croatia

3,5

2,5

Total No. of Publications per 2 Year

1,5

0,5

0 1991. 1993. 1995. 1997. 1999. 2001. 2003. 2005. 2007. 2009. Year

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Figure 3

List no.3: Biographies

2 Total No. of Publications Year per

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Year

Figure 4

List no.4: Memoirs

4,5

3,5

2,5

1,5 Total No. of Publications Year per 1

0,5

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Years

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Figure 5

List no.5: Monographic Editions

3 Total No. of Publications Year per

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Year

Figure 6

List no.6: Domestic interdisciplinary scientific studies of Vukovar 1991 Battle

3,5 3 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No. of Works 0,5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1991. 1993. 1995. 1997. 1999. 2001. 2003. 2005. 2007. 2009. Year

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Figure 7

List no.7: Personal narrations and chronicles of war in Vukovar 1991 - Memoirs

4,5

3,5

2,5

2 No. of Works

1,5

0,5

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Year

Figure 7

List no. 8: Monographic Editions

2,5

1,5

No. of Works 1

0,5

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Year

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Figure 9

List no.9: Autobiographies

4 No. of Works 3

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Year

Figure 10

List no. 10: Diaries

3 No. of Works

0 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. 2010. Year

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Figure 11

Total Number of Works per Year (Lists 1-10)

2 2009. 9 11 12 2006. 9 13 19 2003. 12 21 8 Total No. Of 2000. 14 9 Works per Year 10 1997. 18 11 23 1994. 12 17 24 1991. 4

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Srećko M. Džaja: “The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croats: A Historical-Cultural Profile”

Srećko M. Džaja* Hörwarthstr. 29 D-80804 Munich, Germany [email protected]

Abstract This article provides synthetic account of history and culture of the Croats in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main aim of the study is the historical reconstruction of the genesis of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Its starting point can be found in the Early Middle Ages, to which the history of the majority of modern European nations stands in continuity. The paper further follows history and culture of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina through the Ottoman period, their positioning towards modern national movements in the nineteenth century and the ideologies of the twentieth century.

Key words: Croats, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Franciscans, ethnicity

* Historian Srećko Matko DŽAJA (*1935 Kupres, Bosnia and Herzegovina) got his degree in theology at the University of Zagreb in 1971 and in 1983 was awarded the degree in philosophy at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) in Munich. As a research affiliate at the Institut für Geschichte Osteuropas und Südosteuropas LMU and Südost-Institut in Munich in the 1980s and 1990s Džaja researched history of the south Slav region with main interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He published four books and numerous scholarly articles. Džaja is currently retired and lives in Munich.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Bosnia and Herzegovina in national narratives Three ethnic groups reside in today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina (further abbreviated to B&H or simply Bosnia) – the Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – which are defined in the Constitution of B&H as constitutive nations, and not as national majorities and minorities. Their contemporary standard languages rest on a common linguistic foundation and are mutually very close. In spite of their linguistic closeness, they are mutually differentiated by separate cultural and political identities and have different national narratives. Each one of those narratives emphasizes the originality of one’s own ethnic group on the territory of B&H and projects it into the distant past, while the presence of the remaining two ethnic groups is more or less marginalized and interpreted as an import from outside, in other words, as the product of centuries-old foreign influences in B&H. The first national narrative to arise was the Serbian. Already during the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Serbian patriarchs in their titles, and Serbian monks on their travels in Russia and other lands, proclaimed the entire South Slavic area as ‘Slaveno-Serbian’, and spoke of individual regions as ‘Serbian lands’ and of their non-Serbian population as ‘Serbs of the Roman rite’ (Catholics) and ‘Islamicized Orthodox Christians.’1 At the turn of the nineteenth century, the enlighteners and national ideologists Dositej Obradović (1742-1811) and particularly Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787-1864) in his work Srbi svi i svuda (The Serbs: All and Everywhere), provided this Pan-Serbian idea with a linguistic basis, proclaiming the majority of the South Slavic linguistic idioms as the Serbian language and their speakers as Serbs.2 After the establishment of the Principality of Serbia in 1830, Serbian politics, through its project of Great Serbia, views the western Balkans as Serbian. The Greater Serbian project received its clearest expression in the Načertanije (Outline) of Illija Garašanin in 1844,3 and in the brochure Aneksija Bosne i Hercegovine i srpski problem (The Annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Serbian Problem), published 1908 in Belgrade. The author of this brochure, Jovan Cvijić (1865-1927), the leading name of Serbian science in that period, defined B&H as “the core soil and heart of the Serbian people” in a similar manner as the “Moscow region is for Russia.”4 During the twentieth century,

1 For more on this see Džaja (1999): 115-47. 2 See the text of this Karadžić’s work in Čović et al. (1991): 81-98. 3 Šimunić (1992). 4 Džaja (2002): 196-97.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) the Greater Serbian national narrative – according to which B&H is the central province of the Serbian people – experienced, for sure, ‘Yugoslavist accommodations’, but Serbian Yugoslavism in its core retained a Greater Serbian character. This especially came to expression on the occasion of the collapse of Tito’s Yugoslavia in the late twentieth century. At that time the Serbian side imposed upon particular parts of the Yugoslav federation the option of war and the bloody breakdown of the Yugoslav state instead of a civilized separation. The argumentation of the Serbian national narrative rests on the great linguistic closeness and similar elements in folk culture of particular ethnic groups of the South Slavic world. This great linguistic similarity has been transformed into the thesis of a uniform linguistic identity, so that the Serbian side worked on the Serbianization of linguistic culture in Croatia and, in particular, in B&H from the time of Karadžić’s work Srbi svi i svuda to the breakdown of Yugoslavia. This project under the appellation of Serbocroatism also found a responsive chord in international linguistics, which even today, in considerable part, persists with its Serbo-Croatist attitudes, in the most recent time under the unitarist tinged acronym BCS, by which the Bosnian/Bosniak, Croatian and Serbian standard languages are being joined into one language.5 Efforts were made to neutralize the remaining cultural and political differences by stressing the importance of folk culture and proclaiming as foreign all cultural and political traditions which were not able to fit into the Greater Serbian project. The remaining two B&H constitutive peoples, the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims or Bosniaks, opposed the Serbian reading of the cultural and political identity of B&H with their own national narratives as antipodal projects. The Croatian national narrative on B&H as an exclusively Croatian land developed on the heels of the Greater Serbian narrative and received its final formulation at the turn of the twentieth century. The Croatian narrative did not build its argumentation upon the thesis of the sameness of the language and folk culture but rather on historic right, according to which medieval Bosnia and its population belonged, not to the Serbian, but to the Croatian cultural and political model. Owing to the Ottoman conquests, a large portion of the medieval Bosnians were Islamicized, while a numerous Serbian-Orthodox population settled in B&H at the same time. While, according to the Croatian narrative, the Islamicized Bosnians or Ottoman

5 On the history of Serbocroatism, see Auburger (2009), and Auburger (2011) further details his periodization of the Croatian language and Serbocroatism.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Bosnians preserved the consciousness of their own supposedly Croatian affiliation, the immigrant Serbs as members of the Serbian Orthodox Church retained Serbian political and cultural traditions. After the retreat of the Ottoman Empire, the four hundred year old Ottoman rule in B&H left in its wake Catholic Croats, Muslim Croats and the settled Serbs.6 In 1992 the Croatian side renounced the ‘Croats of the Islamic faith in B&H’, proclaimed the Croatian constitutive people in B&H as the diaspora of the Republic of Croatia, and toyed with the idea of political division of B&H.7 The national narrative of the B&H Muslims, officially declared as Bosniaks in 1993, was born in the shadow of the Serbian and Croatian narratives. The Bosniak side resisted the tendencies of Serbianization and Croaticization by building against these clichés its own historical picture in which a continuity was postulated between the medieval Bosnians (Bošnjani) and Ottoman Bosniaks (Bošnjaci), between the so-called Bosnian Bogomils, as the members of the medieval Bosnian Church were known in the nineteenth century, and the Islamic community in B&H and, finally, between the medieval Bosnian Kingdom and the Ottoman Bosnian eyalet founded in 1580. In the search for deeper roots, the Bosnian side did not stop at the early Middle Ages as did the Serbian and Croatian national narratives, but projected the existence of its ethnos into the Roman and Illyrian period and by doing so equated the antiquity of the Bosniaks with that of the ancient Greeks and Albanians. The presence of Croats and Serbs in B&H was interpreted as a marginal phenomenon of Bosnian history; namely, the Serbs and Croats appear in the Bosniak narrative, according to A.S. Aličić: “as small groups that dropped into Bosnia who knows under what conditions and with what aims”.8 One can see from the preceding paragraphs that all three B&H national narratives have been established on postulations regarding the antiquity and continuous settlement on Bosnian soil of one’s own ethnic group. Arguments for such historical constructs were sought after by the Serbian side, as already mentioned, above all in a common linguistic basis and similarities in the area of folk culture, by the Croatian side in the postulated political and cultural connection of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian area with Croatian regions during the Middle Ages and later. The alleged consciousness of this

6 According to the main representative of the Greater Croatian historical narrative in historiography, Mandić (1967). 7 Džaja (1994). 8 On this see Džaja (2005a): 106-29, ref. 114-26.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) community amongst the B&H Muslims survived the four hundred year Ottoman period because its rule was foreign. Their integration into the modern Croatian nation was expected as a logical consequence, because the B&H Muslims – according to this idea – through their conversion to Islam only changed their religious affiliation but not their alleged Croatian (in the Serbian reading: Serbian) cultural and political identity. The Bosnian Muslims opposed this Croatian and Serbian reading of the history of B&H through postulations about the continuity between medieval Bosnian and Ottoman political and religious institutions – between the Bosnian Kingdom and the Ottoman Bosnian eyalet and between the Bosnian Church and the Islamic community. With regard to the medieval Bosnian Church, the Bosniak side has speculated and speculates about its allegedly greater theological similarities with Islam than with the established Christian churches, in order to further separate that institution from its Christian text and context and so establish a direct continuity between medieval Bosnians (Bošnjani) and Ottoman Bosniaks (Bošnjaci). Alongside the postulation of the continuity with the distant past it is noticeable that all three narratives have pushed to the margins the profound demographic changes – above all the numerous migrations and evictions from B&H during the Ottoman wars, while the complex process of Islamicization has been reduced to a question of conversions from Bogomilism to Islam. All in all, B&H national narratives are a classic example of Benedict Anderson’s (*1936) thesis on nations as ‘imagined communities’9 and Eric Hobsbawm’s (1917-2012) thesis on ‘invented tradition’,10 and they emerged as an ideological product of political projects that were tested in B&H at the time of its entry into modern history. Historiography stands before the task of deconstructing these constructs, i.e. to make clear their imaginary character, in other words to show, through an argumentative reconstruction of history, real historical hypotheses which must be taken into consideration before creating a common political and cultural life amongst the heterogeneous communities of B&H.

Medieval Bosnia and Hum Departing from the preceding contextual problem the remaining part of this article is devoted to the historical reconstruction of the genesis of the

9 Anderson (1983). 10 Hobsbawm & Ranger (1983).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Bosnian Croats. Its starting point can be found in the Early Middle Ages, to which the history of the majority of today’s European nations stands in continuity. Only three narrative sources on the South Slavic lands in the Early Middle Ages have been preserved. The first of these, which is cited under the title De Administrando Imperio, was composed in the middle of the tenth century and ascribed to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905-959), that is three hundred years after the beginning of the settlement of the South Slavs in their new homeland. With regard to these Slavic settlers, Porphyrogenitus speaks of the Croats and Serbs under their names which they brought from the proto-homeland, while the remaining Slavs are mentioned under tribal or regional names, e.g. Zachlumoi (Zahumljani), Terbuniotes (Travunjani), Kanalites (Konavljani), Diocletians (Dukljani), Arentanoi (Neretljani or Pagani) — the Bošnjani (Bosnians) are not mentioned.11 The second narrative source is dedicated to the history of the Church of Salona (modern Solin) and later Split from Roman times to 1266. It was written by Thomas, the Archdeacon of Split (around 1200-1268) under the title Historia Salonitanorum pontificum atque Spalatensium, shortened to Historia Salonitana. Thomas calls the Croats Goths and speaks much of the relations between the autochthonous Roman and newly settled Slavic or Croatian element through six hundred years; he mentions Bosnia only in passing. Historiography dates the emergence of the third narrative source, known under the name Ljetopis popa Dukljanina (The Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea) or Barski rodoslov (The Genealogy of Bar) to the second half of the twelfth century. The text is very complex and a critical analysis of it points to a number of paradigms; the mediated information is frequently very nebulous and not one piece is dated. For this reason this source is ideal for speculation and desirable constructs of the distant past. The furthest to go in this direction on the Croatian side was Dominik Mandić (1889-1973),12 Muhamed Hadžijahić (1918-1986) on the Bosniak side,13 and Relja Novaković (1911-2003) on the Serbian,14 as well as, of course, their publicistic epigones. Each of them made a particular effort to (re)construct a

11 Katičić (1998): 214; also see Goldstein (1995): 103. 12 Mandić (1963). 13 Hadžijahić (2004). 14 Novaković (1981).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) still wider political space for their own ethnic groups (Croatian, Bosniak, Serbian) in the Early Middle Ages. The remaining historians accepted the information from the three aforementioned narrative sources as starting points for further research, but they introduced less conjecture into them and preferred to leave them as informative torsos; they filled those gaps which could be confirmed or corrected with meagre facts mediated through other sources – archaeological remains and marginal records. In recent times this approach has been applied with the scientific precision and persuasiveness craved for by the Croatian philologist, Indo-Europeanist and literary historian Radoslav Katičić (*1930). In his classical work, Litterarum studia, on which he worked for nearly twenty years,15 Katičić succeeded in reconstructing the developmental lines of early medieval Croatian cultural history. To be sure, due to the scarcity of preserved historical sources, Katičić’s synthesis also has not ceased being a torso, but the main lines have acquired clear contours. Katičić systematically follows the centuries-old cultural coalescing between, what he calls, the indigenous Roman element and the settled Slavic or Croatian element on the eastern Adriatic coast. This cultural process lasted until Humanism and the Renaissance in the fifteenth century. Even in the fifteenth century debate in the political bodies of the Republic of Dubrovnik was conducted in Ragusian, a Romanic language, while the last original speaker of the Vegliot, i.e. the Romanic idiom on the island of Krk died in 1898.16 The baptizing of the Croats began immediately after their settlement in the seventh century, issuing from the Romanic Dalmatian towns which were under the supreme political rule of Byzantium, but belonged to the Roman Church in an ecclesiastical and cultural sense. At the beginning of the ninth century, Carolingian missionaries, most probably originating from Aquileia participated in the baptizing of the Croats; they made use of popular Slavic elements in their catechisms and in doing so prepared the soil for Cyrilo- Methodian Christianization and culture, which will receive completely clear outlines from the second half of the ninth to the eleventh century.17 In that way the Croatian bilingual (Latin and Slavic) culture employing three alphabets (Latin, Glagolitic and Cyrillic) was born and further developed – a unique example in European relations. For:

15 Katičić (1998). 16 Katičić (1998): 592. 17 Katičić (1998): 220-21, 334, 365.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

“… it is not a question of the parallel existence of an erudite Latin education and the popular language of the illiterate, which is otherwise characteristic for the European West, but rather of two equally erudite and schooled literary traditions.”18

How did things stand in that respect with neighbouring Bosnia? When Bosnia is in question, in this context it should be emphasized that Bosnia was less exposed to the permanent influences of the Dalmatian Roman towns, because it was situated in the hinterland. Nevertheless, the meagre records on the influence of the Salonitan metropolitan on the ecclesiastical organization in Bosnia are confirmed by the archaeological remains of churches on the territory of today’s B&H, which derive from the period before and after the Ostrogothic rule between 490 and 535 AD19 and the Slavic-Avar political alliance during the seventh and eighth centuries. The western half of today’s Bosnia stretching to the Vrbas river was, until the Ottoman conquests in the fifteenth century, a region of Croatian ecclesiastical and political processes, while it came under the political rule of medieval Bosnian rulers only during the fourteenth century. Porphyrogenitus’ account very convincingly legitimates the situation in the tenth century. Here it is said:

“From the Croats who came to Dalmatia, a part split off and possessed themselves of Illyricum and Pannonia; they too had an independent prince, who used to maintain friendly contact, though through envoys only, with the prince of Croatia.”20

Bosnia was certainly located in this Illyricum as one of Porphyrogenitus’ ‘Sclavinias’, so named because the:

“… language, faith, legal order and (oral) literature were Slavic. The mythological, ceremonial and legal texts were delivered orally according to the Slavic tradition from generation to generation.”21

18 Katičić (1998): 658. 19 On this see Vasilj (1993): 14-28. 20 De Administrando Imperio 30.75-78, ed. Moravcsik, transl. Jenkins. For more see Katičić (1998): 300. 21 Katičić (1998): 317.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

By the eleventh century the Cyrillo-Methodian Slavicization of Christianity on the territory of today’s Bosnia was conducted in its entirety and extended to the most western parts of today’s Republic of Croatia (to Istria). The scriptorial influence of (Croatian) Glagolitic on the tablet of Humac in today’s western Herzegovina from the tenth or eleventh century,22 written in Cyrillic, is identifiable, while in the Bosnian diocese, which is first mentioned under that name in preserved sources on 8th of January 1089, the Slavic language was used exclusively at that time. Alongside the Western Cyrillic or bosančica (mentioned under that name for the first time in 1861), which will flourish in Bosnia and Hum and in the neighbouring Croatian- Dalmatian regions until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the parallel use of the Glagolitic script will continue to the beginning of the fifteenth century. Changes in the political influences on Bosnia will also lead to a change in the suffragan position of the Bosnian diocese between the metropolitans in Split, Bar and Dubrovnik. During the reign of Ban23 Kulin (ca. 1170-1204), the Bosnian diocese was a suffragan to the Archbishopric of Dubrovnik. In that period (1199/1200) the first reports of the appearance of heresy in Kulin’s Bosnia were also recorded. With that there began a new period in the political, ecclesiastical and cultural history of medieval Bosnia. With the support of the Hungarian King Emeric (Imre) I (1196-1204) and with the consent of the Bosnian Ban Kulin, the Papal Legate John de Casamaris arrived in Bosnia. On 8th of April 1203 in Bilino Polje (a locality near Zenica or Visoko?), Casamaris obliged the suspected Bosnian Christians (krstjani) to a confession of orthodoxy. The text of this abjuration has been preserved in the Latin language. The krstjani in Bilino polje accepted the abjuration without objection. After that there reigns a lull until the beginning of the second decade of the thirteenth century. At that time, inquisitorial, military and missionary actions are organized for Bosnia from Hungary with the support of Rome. The result of these actions was the proclamation of the Bosnian Church as heretical in 1233 and the simultaneous establishment of a new diocese with a Latin ritual. The Dominicans were engaged as inquisitors, missionaries and the first bishops at the time of the installation of the new Latin diocese under the political patronage of Hungary. From that time until the collapse of the Bosnian Kingdom we have two Christian churches and two alphabets in

22 Vego (1980). 23 Ban was the title of local medieval rulers in Croatia and Bosnia, equivalent to English terms lord or master.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) medieval Bosnia: the Bosnian Church, with the Slavic language, suspected of heresy and separated from Rome, and the newly established Latin diocese with the Latin language and, from 1247, the position of a suffragan in relation to the metropolitan in Hungarian Kalosca. The seat of the newly established Latin diocese was transferred from Bosnia to Đakovo in the middle of the thirteenth century, while the historical sources regarding the activity of the Dominicans after that are quiet, all the way to the arrival of the Franciscans, who will push the Dominicans out of Bosnia in the second decade of the fourteenth century. The Franciscan mission in Bosnia had a different political and social framework and achieved different results. The first recorded account on the appearance of a Franciscan monk in Bosnia originates from 1248, but the decisive step in setting up the Franciscan mission began with the arrival in Bosnia of the general of the Franciscan order, Gerard Odonis (general of the Order 1329-1342), and the establishment of the Bosnian Vicary in 1339/1340, established in agreement and cooperation with the Bosnian Ban Stephen (Stjepan) II Kotromanić (1322-1353). The administrative seat of the Bosnian Vicary was erected in central Bosnia, and due to its extension into to non-Bosnian regions, the Vicary was divided and organized into custodies (kustodije). According to the registry of Franciscan Bartolo from Pisa, composed between 1385 and 1390, in the second half of the fourteenth century the Bosnian Vicary had 7 custodies with 35 monasteries. The custodies bore the following names: Duvanjska (Dalmae/Duvno, modern Tomislavgrad), Grebenska (Greben, modern Krupa on the Vrbas), Bosanska (Bosnian, with its seat in Visoko), Usorska and Mačvanska (Usora and Mačva) in northern and north-eastern Bosnia, Bugarska (Belgrade/Alba Bulgarica) and Kovinska (Chevin/Covinum/Kovin, facing Smederevo in modern Serbia). According to the aforementioned registry, which did not encompass all the monasteries of the Vicary of that time, the following four monasteries were located in central Bosnia: Visoko, Kraljeva Sutjeska, Olovo and Lašva. The eighth custody of St. Catherine in Apulia was added to the Bosnian Vicaria in 1393. Changes will occur in the demarcation between individual custodies, in other words their separation, renaming and annexation to the Bosnian Vicary, but by the Ottoman conquest their number will come to eight. Historians who for whatever reason, diminished the accounts of Franciscan missionary successes in medieval Bosnia, stressed the great spatiality of the Bosnian Vicary and emphasized that the reports of

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Franciscan successes related to the whole area of the Vicary, so that they therefore concluded that their success in Bosnia itself was small. In contrast to such reasoning there stands the fact that the number of Franciscan monasteries and residences on the territory of today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina reached over forty during the fifteenth century, which is not a small number.24 From a social and economic perspective, the Franciscan entry into medieval Bosnia is closely tied to the development of medieval urbanization in Bosnia during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; the opening of mines and the emergence of trading and artisan settlements25 followed the erection of Franciscan monasteries and churches. The Franciscans were not only politically and socially anchored in medieval Bosnia, but they also cultivated two types of literacy in that period, i.e. the domestic literature written in Western Cyrillic and the Latin which was introduced in Bosnia before the Franciscans by the Dominicans. A similar condition existed at the court of the Bosnian kings. Alongside Cyrillic charters, on which the influence of the Serbian chancellery is recognizable – for the Bosnian kings established dynastic ties with Serbia, extended their rule over Serbian regions and brought Serbian scribes to their court – there also existed in the chancellery of the Bosnian kings a Latin section, in which charters were copied in the Latin language. In its contacts with the Balkan hinterland, the Republic of Dubrovnik had a separate Serbian chancellery and employed Western Cyrillic in its communication with Bosnia. There is no direct confirmation concerning the relation of the Franciscans toward the medieval sepulchral culture of stećci tombstones (sing. stećak or bilig) and their Cyrilic epitaphs. The century-old research of these monuments, of which there are 100,000 examples throughout medieval Bosnia and Hum, as well as neighbouring regions, brought to light that these tombstones were erected by members of all three Christian churches – Bosnian Church, Catholic Church and Orthodox Church – and that they do not reflect any separate heretical (Bogomil) theology or symbolism, but a general Christian medieval understanding of death expressed in the vocabulary and ritual of the individual Churches blended with folk conceptions.26 In the second half of the twentieth century, historical science

24 See Sorić (1988): 20 - the map Bosanska vikarija 1375. 25 See Vasilj et al. (1993): 49 - the map Gradska naselja u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni (14. i 15. st.). 26 For a significant review and commentary of past research on the medieval sepulchral culture in B&H see D. Lovrenović (2009). On the inter-confessional character of the tombstones see in particular 235-48.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) freed itself from the attempt to ‘Bogomilize’ the Bosnian Church, observing that in question was not a sect driven to rebellion by its contemporary enemies, but an ecclesiastical institution with a classic Christian dogma and integrated in the Bosnian medieval feudal society. Good evidence for this statement is the testament of Radin Butković, gost (high official) of the Bosnian Church dated in 1466, which is published in nearly all monographs on the Bosnian Church.27 Exposed to the pressures of the Roman Curia and Hungarian politics and the missionary activity of the Franciscans from the West, as well as the competitive behaviour of the Serbian Orthodox Church from the East, the Bosnian Church fell into a centuries-old defensive position and, in face of the Ottoman conquest, disappeared from the historical stage.

B&H Catholics in the Ottoman-Islamic confessional paradigm The Bosnian medieval three-confessional palette contained the Bosnian Church in central Bosnia and the eastern parts of Hum, the Catholic Church in western Hum, western and central Bosnia and the Serbian Orthodox Church on the eastern rim of today’s B&H. During the long Ottoman period it ceded a place to a new three-member and even four-member confessional paradigm, if we add to this palette the Sephardic Jewish minority which settled in Bosnia after its expulsion from Spain in 1492. As Ottoman auxiliary military units participating in the penetration toward the north and west, members of the Serbian Orthodox Church settled in large numbers not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also in Slavonia, Lika and Dalmatia, while the Serbian Orthodox Church installed itself in the new regions by erecting monasteries.28 At the same time, through the process of Oriental urbanization and Islamicization, especially in the sixteenth century, Islam becomes deep-rooted in B&H as a new and ever stronger cultural and confessional reality. Reducing the intensive Islamicization in B&H to a question of the so-called Bogomil past does not have a foothold in the historical sources, since Islamicization is the result of complex political and social factors.29 According to contemporary Ottoman and Western sources, the Bosnian Catholics entered the Ottoman period as the numerically strongest confessional group in B&H.30 Their cultural profile was very similar to the

27 See the review in Džaja (2006). 28 On this see Džaja (1999): 101-47. 29 Džaja (1999): 43-99. 30 On the low level of Islamicization until the end of the fifteenth century, see Džaja (1999): 68- 76, 102-03.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) one in Dubrovnik and the neighbouring parts of Dalmatia i.e. two alphabets – Latin and Western Cyrillic and two literatures – in Latin and in the domestic linguistic idiom, which will, during the following centuries, continuously participate under different names (Slavic, Bosnian, Illyrian etc.),31 in the development of Croatian literature and the modern Croatian linguistic standard. At the same time, under the pressure of numerous Austro-Turkish and Venetian-Turkish wars, restrictive Islamic-Ottoman regulations for non- Muslims and Islamicization, the number of Catholics and the number of Catholic churches and monasteries decreases. During the sixteenth century, the Catholics are pushed from first to second place by Muslims, while during the seventeenth century from second to third place by the Serbian-Orthodox. The Great Turkish War of 1683-1699 brought Bosnian Catholicism a numerical, social and urban catastrophe. At that time the number of Catholics in Bosnia and western Herzegovina dropped to around 30,000 and in eastern Herzegovina, i.e. the region of the diocese of Trebinje, to just 2,200. Catholic merchants disappeared almost in their entirety, while their place was taken by Orthodox merchants during the eighteenth century. Out of the numerous Franciscan monasteries founded in the Middle Ages only three in central Bosnia (Fojnica, Kraljeva Sutjeska and Kreševo) succeeded in surviving during the eighteenth century and until the middle of the nineteenth century. Owing to natural growth, and, to a lesser extent, the immigration or return of Catholics who moved to neighbouring Dalmatia and Slavonia from Bosnia during wartime, the numerical position of Catholics began to steadily improve and, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, reached the number of 100,000. Until the Austro-Hungarian occupation in 1878 the number doubled, so that the Austro-Hungarian census conducted in 1879 registered 209,391 Catholics or 18.08% out of the total population of B&H.32 The political and cultural history of confessions in B&H in the Ottoman period unfolded according to different political, cultural and social patterns. The Muslims or the Islamicized part of the population sooner or later completely integrated into the Ottoman-Islamic system and, in close correlation with this process, more rapidly abandoned and forgot the medieval Bosnian Christian political and cultural traditions. The quickest political breach occurred in regard to the institution of the medieval Bosnian Kingdom. The Ottomans conquered Bosnia and did not adopt one of its

31 See Bošnjanin (1940): 36. 32 For more on this see Džaja (1993): 67-74.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) political institutions into its system, so that talk of an alleged continuity between the medieval Bosnian Kingdom and the Ottoman Bosnian eyalet does not have a historical or legal-political basis.33 In the cultural field the Islamicized part of the population was quickest to dispense with the culture of the stećci. Amongst the first Islamic tombstones from the first century of Ottoman rule in B&H, i.e. until the middle of the sixteenth century, archaeologists have discovered, alongside 20 Islamic tombstones nišans of non-Bosnian origin with epitaphs in the Arabic language, 29 syncretic tombstones, which according to their form, alphabet and language stand in direct connection with medieval stećci. By the middle of the sixteenth century this sepulchral culture amongst the Bosnian Muslims is extinguished.34 The Muslims had already begun the transcription of Slavic or Bosnian texts in the Arabic alphabet by the end of the fifteenth century (the so-called aljamiado literature), but they continued to employ the Western Cyrillic or bosančica; for how long? The customary reference to the Cyrillic letters of the commanders of Ottoman frontier stations sent to neighbours under Venetian and Austrian rule in the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is uncertain because the Ottoman commanders in these cases also employed their Christian subjects as scribes. The question remains whether they always use them. Other examples of Cyrillic literacy amongst Muslims have not been preserved or have not been discovered, while the Muslims of B&H fought for the further use of the Arabic, and not Cyrillic, script in the Bosnian provincial parliament in 1911.35 Last but not least, one should mention that the historical writing of Bosnian Muslims began to be interested in medieval Bosnia only after the Austro-Hungarian occupation.36 The influx of members of the Serbian Orthodox Church in B&H began before the Ottoman conquest of the Bosnian Kingdom and flowed continuously until the nineteenth century. Statistics note the relative numerical predominance of the Serbs in B&H over the Bosnian Muslims or Bosniaks from the eighteenth century to the final disintegration of the Yugoslav state at the end of the twentieth century. In today’s B&H the Muslims or Bosniaks have a relative numerical majority (around 44%). The cultural pattern of the members of the Serbian Orthodox Church in B&H was

33 Džaja (2010): 432-25. 34 See Džaja (1999): 60-61; D. Lovrenović (2009): 124-27. 35 Džaja (1999): 144. 36 Džaja (2005a): 114-15.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) brought from Serbia and is not identical with the cultural pattern of the Bosnian Catholics or the extinguished Bosnian Church. On their paths toward the north and west the Serbian Church brought the political traditions of exclusively Serbian medieval rulers and cultivated the ecclesiastical Old Slavic literacy distant from the popular language. Nevertheless, the contacts with the cultural patterns found in B&H also left their traces on the practice of the Serbian Orthodox Church and its members. Thus, the Serbian Orthodox Church used the liturgical codices of the extinguished Bosnian Church, furnishing them with their own glosses,37 while the culture of the stećci was developed among the Orthodox Vlachs in eastern Herzegovina, intensively in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,38 and sporadically in the eighteenth century. The examples of Western Cyrillic on Orthodox tombstones or in the letters of Orthodox clergy sent to Western recipients place us before the same problem as in the case of the Bosnian Muslims, namely, as it is not clear who were the scribes of such texts. They were probably Catholics, as stone-cutters of epitaphs or scribes of letters, which were written in the climate of political collaboration between Western interested parties and Balkan Christians under Ottoman rule.39 In contrast to the Serbian Orthodox Church and its members in B&H, who did not cultivate any political or cultural tradition of medieval Bosnia, and the Bosnian Muslims who quickly abandoned reminiscences of medieval Bosnia, the Bosnian Catholics cultivated, within the framework and possibilities of the Bosnian Franciscan Province, Bosnian medieval political and cultural traditions throughout the entire Ottoman period. They maintained the culture of the stećci in artistically reduced forms until the beginning of the twentieth century,40 and the medieval political traditions through the further use of medieval political terminology and preserving the memory of medieval Bosnian rulers until the modern national projects and after.41 In the same period, through their bilingual literacy (bosančica and Latin), which had already emerged in the Middle Ages, the Catholics intensified their cultural ties with Croats in Dalmatia, Dubrovnik and Slavonia, in other words, they actively participate in the development of Croatian linguistic and literary culture according to Western cultural patterns from the sixteenth century onward.

37 Šidak (1975): 120-21. 38 D. Lovrenović (2009): 164-67. 39 Džaja (1999): 139-45. 40 I. Lovrenović (2010). 41 Džaja (1999): 213-15.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

They were indirectly aided in this direction by the political changes brought about by the Ottoman conquests. For, after the conquest of B&H, the Ottoman conquests stretched to the neighbouring northern and western Croatian regions. In 1463, the year of the conquest of the Bosnian Kingdom, the Bosnian Franciscans found a modus vivendi and legitimation for their spiritual activity in the Ottoman Empire through the ahd-name (charter) of the sultan Mehmed (Mehmet) II El-Fatih.42 This enabled them to install in the occupied regions their province Bosna Srebrena (Bosna Argentina), so named after the administrative centre in Srebrenica during the sixteenth century. The province was installed in the region where the former ecclesiastical organization was almost destroyed in order to once again organize spiritual activity amongst the Catholic population. In return, not only did the Catholics of Bosnia and Herzegovina enter the ranks of Bosna Srebrena, but so too did their counterparts of Dalmatia, Lika, Slavonia and the Danube basin and thus they became Bosnian Franciscans.43

Since the architectural activity of non-Islamic communities was essentially restricted by strict Islamic regulations, there was no development of Renaissance and Baroque architecture in the regions of Bosna Srebrena, as in Dubrovnik and other Dalmatian communes, but the Bosnian Franciscans intensified the bilingual literature with two alphabets. The examples of their literacy in the Latin language were preserved in continuity from the fourteenth to the nineteenth century. These are expert texts from philosophy, theology, law, history and medicine, and individuals tried their hand at poetry in the Latin language.44 Far more important for the Croatian cultural profile of the Bosnian Catholics is the literature of Bosna Srebrena written in Western Cyrillic or bosančica. In spite of various appellations during the centuries, the lingua patria and Cyrillic script of the Bosnian Franciscans carries in itself the developmental dynamic of the Croatian language. In it the Franciscans shaped their pious literary texts. The lingua patria of the Bosnian Franciscans has two sources: the living oral speech, which did not recognise confessional boundaries and literary models that originated from Croatian cultural areas and Western Latin literacy. The research of Franciscan literature in the period of Serbocroatism, under the strong influence of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić’s conception of language, placed emphasis on

42 Džaja (2009). 43 See Sorić (1988): 26 - the map Provincija Bosna Srebrena 1697.g. 44 See Pranjković (2005).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) dialectical characteristics, so that the textual models employed by the Franciscans were left to the side. After the collapse of the Yugoslav state and Serbocroatism, Croatian scholarship on language and literature starts to increasingly turn toward textual models and on that level discovers the mutual communication between Ragusian and the remaining Croatian and Franciscan literature.45 The beginnings of Franciscan religious literature are usually tied with the Reforme in the Catholic Church after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and with the name of Franciscan Matija Divković (1563-1631) as its head and the most widely-read writer of that literature. However, there is reason to link the beginnings of this literature with the so-called Šibenik Prayer (Šibenska molitva) from the fourteenth century. Palaeographic and linguistic analyses of the Šibenik Prayer, the oldest preserved example of Croatian medieval religious lyric poetry suggests an origin from a Franciscan milieu and Western Cyrillic literacy, which flourished in Bosnia, Hum and littoral Croatia.46 From Divković onward the authors of Franciscan religious literature are no longer anonymous nor did they originate only from Bosnia, but also from the Croatian regions over which the Franciscan province of Bosna Srebrena extended. They built their literature on common bookish models and mutual textual influences, in which Muslim and Serbian- Orthodox literacy, which developed according to different political and cultural models and sources, was left to the side. In that way a Croatian koine language was formed which created a network of regional dialects and culturally connected the Catholic populace between the Adriatic Sea and Danube basin until the Illyrian movement in the 1830s and 1840s, at which time there appeared new political and cultural trends in the South Slavic areas. This literature defined the separate cultural identity of the Catholics, distinct from the identity of the Orthodox and Muslims, and merged it through the medium of language and literature into a common Croatian cultural identity. The Catholic populace wholeheartedly accepted and recognized this literature as its own. Divković’s Nauk krstjanski (Christian Doctrine) underwent over 25(!) editions, while believers knew his texts by heart, so that they would protest when an individual preacher would slightly deviate from Divković’s version. The Croatian-Catholic confessional culture, controlled and actively supported by the Church as a cultural institution, imbued all spheres of life of

45 Grčević (2011) with citations of further literature. 46 Džaja (1979).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) the populace: popular literature and customs, family life, the manner of nourishment, residential spaces47 and, of course, traditional clothing.48 The Great Turkish War (1683-1699) ended with the ousting of the Ottomans from Slavonia, the Danube basin, Lika and the continental part of Dalmatia. New Franciscan provinces are established in the former Ottoman regions under Venetian and Habsburg rule, while Bosna Srebrena retreats within the borders of B&H – which further remains an Ottoman province – and struggles for the survival of its three monasteries in central Bosnia: Kraljeva Sutjeska, Fojnica and Kreševo. Nevertheless, in spite of the firm political and sanitary borders between the Ottoman Empire and its Christian neighbours, the Croatian cultural model, in other words the achieved cultural community of Bosnian Catholics with Croatian Catholics outside of B&H, does not weaken, but rather is further developed.49 In the eighteenth century, alongside the further cultivation of religious literature, the Bosnian Franciscans devote themselves to the writing of chronicles (ljetopisi). The Franciscans Nikola Lašvanin, Bono Benić and Marijan Bogdanović write these chronicles – exceptionally important for the history of the society, language, literature and culture not only of the Bosnian Croats, but also their neighbours the Bosnian Muslims and Orthodox Serbs – either in the spoken language of their milieu and their time or in Latin and Italian, and as a product not only of their education but also their political caution in unsecure Bosnia and Herzegovina. These Franciscans are joined by Filip Lastrić (1700-1783), as the first historian of Bosnia in the modern sense of the word, because he wrote his Survey of the Antiquities of the Bosnian Province (Epitome vetustatum provinciae Bosnensis) published 1776 in Ancona. It was not written as a chronicle but as a methodical work in Latin and partly in Italian in order to defend the ecclesiastical-political individuality and precedence of his province before the new established provinces that emerged after the division of Bosna Srebrena during the eighteenth century. It is significant that in his discussion Lastrić dedicated two chapters to the medieval Bosnian Kingdom – in order to additionally strengthen his defence of Bosna Srebrena. In this type of literacy the Franciscan chroniclers and the historian Lastrić had recourse to Western models, above all Croatian literacy – as was established by another Franciscan, Ignacije Gavran (1914-2009) at the time of the preparation of the

47 For more on this see Džaja (1971): 164-89. 48 See above all Martić (2006); Martić & Bagur (2010). 49 Džaja (2008).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) critical editions of Franciscan chronicles and the Bosnian Antiquities of Lastrić in the 1970s50 – but not to models from the Muslim-Bosniak or Serbian circles, amongst other reasons, because such texts emerged in these circles somewhat later.

B&H Croats and modern national movements In many publicistic texts, particularly Bosniak, it can be read that Croatdom and Serbdom were introduced into B&H only in the nineteenth century by the national and nationalist propaganda from neighbouring Croatia and Serbia. However, this article has shown that such assertions are incorrect. It is more likely to state that the neighbouring national movements of Croats and Serbs provided a new momentum and a new secularist tone to the already existing Croatian-Catholic and Serbian Orthodox cultural structures. This process endeavoured to stop the Ottoman reformist politics of the nineteenth century, as well as the Austro-Hungarian modernizing policies, which succeeded the Ottoman, and which prohibited the Croatian and Serbian names in B&H and introduced bošnjaštvo (Bosniak-ness) as the national appellation for all the inhabitants of B&H, but which in the final analysis did not succeed.51 Until the Austro-Hungarian occupation the cultural and political leadership of the Bosnian Croats remained in the hands of the Franciscans. Their schooling in Slavonia and Hungary under Austrian rule from the end of the eighteenth century awoke an interest for national, cultural and political movements amongst individuals. These movements – which sought not only cultural and political emancipation from foreign rule (the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires), but also to politically overcome confessionalism and to construct a modern secular culture – attracted the participation of a considerable part of the Croatian clergy, particularly the lower clergy. It included the Franciscan Illyrians in B&H such as Martin Nedić (1810-1895),

50 The second edition of Gavran’s editing and commentaries on Franciscan chronicles of the eighteenth century and Lastrić’s works was published in 2003 in four volumes by the publishing house Synopsis (Zagreb & Sarajevo), while from the perspective of modern literary understandings of texts, the narrative manner of the chronicles was elaborated on by Iva Beljan in her dissertation, published as Beljan (2011). 51 The negative relation of Ottoman reformist politics in B&H in the second half of the nineteenth century toward national movements is most clearly reflected in the tragic fate of Franciscan Ivan Frano Jukić (1818-1857), the first modern enlightener of Bosnia, political writer and sufferer because of his modern political opinions and activities. For more on Austro-Hungarian policies toward the national movements of the Serbs and Croats in B&H see Džaja (2002): 52-5, 102-08. Today the most complete monograph above the Austro-Hungarian policies in B&H is Okey (2007).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Grga Martić (1822-1905), Ivan Frano Jukić (1818-1857) and others. Individual Franciscans, such as Martić and Jukić, attempted to cooperate with the Serbian national movement, by publishing their texts in Serbian journals, the editors of which Serbianized their texts. This was, nevertheless, just one episode. In the 1860s Martić recognised the Greater Serbian character of Serbian propaganda in B&H and ahead of the Congress of Berlin in 1878 accepts the Austro-Hungarian, and not Serbian and Montenegrin, occupation of B&H, which some Croatian Yugoslavists and other representatives of the Croatian cultural and political public resented due to their ignorance, more or less, of the real state of affairs in B&H or their own opportunism.52 Until the Austro-Hungarian occupation of B&H the cultural and political activity of the Bosnian Franciscans unfolded within the framework of Illyrianism and Yugoslavism in the manner of a Croatian federalist and not Serbian unitarist interpretation of these national movements and ideologies. Naturally, the opening of the Franciscans toward secular political and cultural movements was reflected in their mutual relations, especially in the so-called Barišić affair in the 1830s and 1840s. This affair caused a deep division amongst the Bosnian Franciscans and resulted in the administrative detachment of Herzegovina from Bosna Srebrena in 1846 and the establishment of a separate Apostolic Vicariate for Herzegovina. The mutually bitter polemics led the Apostolic Vicar Rafo Barišić (1797-1863) and his supporters, who mainly studied in Italy and were imbued with the contemporary ecclesiastical conservatism, to reproach their opponents, educated in Slavonia and Hungary, for being imbued with an anti-Roman secularist spirit, that they had absorbed revolutionary ideas and that, with the help of Ljudevit Gaj, they were intending to raise a rebellion and establish the Illyrian Kingdom.53 With the Austro-Hungarian occupation in 1878 there begins a new period for both Bosnian Franciscans and for the Bosnian Croats as a whole. From a legal perspective, Christians were granted equality with Muslims. But the situation in a cultural and political sense for all three Bosnian confessions – Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox – became more complex. Namely, the migration of 100,000 qualified workers, technicians, civil servants and teachers from the Habsburg Monarchy to B&H did not only bring cultural and technical modernization, but also competition, which led

52 On this see Džaja (1996). 53 Jelenić (1990): II.47.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) to dissatisfaction, particularly amongst the Bosnian Muslims.54 With the migration of new muscle from the Monarchy, especially after the disbandment of the Military Frontier in Croatia in 1881, the B&H Croats were numerically strengthened, so that their percentage rose from 18.08% to 22.87% from 1879 to 1910, but there also developed a unfavourable competition between the autochthonous and newly-settled Croats, particularly after the introduction of an established Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in 1881, which decided to gradually displace the Franciscans from the Church and public life; this introduced a conflict between the secular clergy and the Franciscans that has not been resolved to the present day.55

B&H Croats and the ideologies of the twentieth century After the Austro-Hungarian occupation in 1878 the cultural and political development of the Bosnian Croats flows in a reinforced communication with the cultural and political processes in Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia in spite of the efforts of Benjamin von Kállay (Béni Kállay de Nagy-Kálló) (1839-1939), Austro-Hungarian minister of finances in charge for Bosnia and Herzegovina and his associates to isolate B&H from the national movements of Serbs and Croats. With the growth of Greater Serbianism in the 1880s and under the influence of Croatian settlers, the Franciscans convert from Yugoslavism to the Greater Croatian ideology, according to which B&H is an exclusively Croatian territory. On the other hand, a significant number of Franciscans nevertheless showed an interest in political cooperation with other confessions-nationalities in B&H and thus retained some openness toward Yugoslavism. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Franciscans find political allies in the first generation of Croatian higher-education graduates from B&H who completed their education at European universities and returned to their homeland. Together with their compatriots from Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia they brought liberal understandings on culture and politics from the universities at which they studied. This will introduce a new dynamic in the organization of cultural and political life in B&H and provoke ideological and political divisions amongst the Bosnian Croats. In the first decade of the twentieth century, at the time when the modern political life of the Bosnian Croats begins with the formation of cultural and social organizations and then political parties, the ideological-political spectrum included: on one side, the Archbishop of Sarajevo Josip Stadler (1843-1918) and his supporters with ‘a clerical program for the 20th century’ and an

54 Džaja (2002): 189-94. 55 Gavran (2012).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) uncompromising Greater Croatdom, and, on the other side, the Croatian liberal secular intelligentsia, more open to political and ideological compromises, which are supported by the Franciscans, not because of liberalism, but due to their conflict with Archbishop Stadler. Stadler strove to displace both the Franciscans and liberals from public life, but he was unsuccessful, especially when it was a question of political parties.56 The Bosnian Croats entered the First World War with this ideological- political paradigm – on the one hand, the liberals and Franciscans with a readiness for political compromises and a soft Greater Croatian conception of B&H, and on the other, Stadler and his supporters with a rigid clericalism and Croatdom. After the military defeat of the Habsburg Monarchy and the resuscitation of political activities in the spring of 1917, Stadler’s clericalism and rigid Croatdom in B&H caves in. Not only do the liberal intelligentsia and Franciscans in Bosnia, and then in Herzegovina, declare themselves in favour of Yugoslavism, but so too do a part of Stadler’s supporters. Archbishop Stadler, as the last Mohican of clerical Greater Croatdom, signs a circular of the Catholic episcopate from 29th of November 1918, which welcomed the establishment of the Yugoslav state under Serbian aegis, and dies on 8th of December 1918.57 In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1941) B&H lost the status it had as a corpus separatum, or to use a modern term, a third entity or condominium of the dualist Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. The legal continuity with the former state of affairs was abolished and from 1929 B&H was administratively blended with neighbouring non-Bosnian territories. The political life in the first Yugoslavia unfolded above all in the struggles between the unitarists and federalists, who also did not intercede on behalf of the separate status of B&H. The unitarist concept of state was implemented as a political practice until 1939. From the Croatian-Serbian Agreement of 26th August 1939 until the collapse of the First Yugoslavia in 1941, the concept of the three-member federation, founded on the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as nations on defined territories (the Croatian Banovina, the Drava Banovina, i.e. Slovenia, and the so-called Serbian lands) was briefly implemented. B&H was divided between Serbs and Croats, while the Bosnian Muslims remained unrecognized as a separate ethnic group.58 The political life of the Bosnian Croats in the First Yugoslavia flowed in an intensive communication with Croats in Dalmatia and Slavonia chiefly through the Croatian Peasant Party as the dominant Croatian political organization. The main bearer of cultural development was The Croatian Cultural Society Napredak, which was founded in Sarajevo in 1904 and

56 For more on this see Džaja (2002): 200-09, 220-26. 57 Džaja (2002): 226-28. 58 Džaja (2004): 182-88; cf. Džaja (2005b): 143-46.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) became the society of all Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croats in 1907. In the first Yugoslavia, Napredak extended its educational and social activities amongst Croats outside of B&H and represented the main force in the cultural life of the Croats in the same way that the Croatian Peasant Party was the main force in political life.59 After the fall of the First Yugoslavia and the establishment of the puppet Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska - NDH, 1941-1945), in which B&H found itself as a component part, the leading role in the creation of the political and cultural reality during the Second World War fell into the hands of collaborator (Serb royalist Chetniks and Croat Ustasha) and communist organizations. The communists emerged as the victors out of this bloody war, which left hundreds of thousands of victims and deep traumas. They succeeded in displacing the former civic culture (political parties and cultural associations) and establishing the Second Yugoslavia (1945-1991) as a communist one-party federal state, in which B&H received the status of one of the six federal republics. Contemporary historiography is only at its beginnings in its efforts to reconstruct a more or less objective picture of this very complex period, because both sides – fascist and communist – committed crimes which are very difficult to face openly. The communists and their descendants have great difficulty recognizing that the communists committed mass crimes against their enemies and ideological opponents during and immediately after the final military operations. They probably committed more crimes numerically speaking than the fascists against members of the Croatian nation, albeit with different motives and consequences. For that reason, the undertaking of measures that intend not to juxtapose Bleiburg, as a metaphor of communist crimes, and Jasenovac, as a metaphor of Ustasha crimes, can only be counterproductive for historical science. It is true, to be sure, that “Jasenovac and Bleiburg are not the same”, as Goldstein and Goldstein60 point out, but their comparison is unavoidable if historical memory is to obtain its actual context and anchorage in truth – in place of tempting and untruthful slogans according to which only the fascists fought ‘on the side of Evil’ while their opponents, the communists, exclusively ‘on the side of Good.’ Bearing in mind this observation on the crimes that were built into the foundations, not only of the NDH, but also Tito’s Yugoslavia – for at the time of establishing their rule the Communists squared accounts with their enemies and ideological opponents in a bloody and brutal manner and on a mass scale. Only after this had occurred did their state employ milder forms

59 Džaja (2004): 222-35. 60 Goldstein & Goldstein (2011).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) of oppression and never developed into a democratic state. I will finish this text with some notations on the political and cultural conditions of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croats in the communist Socialist Republic of B&H and, after the collapse of Yugoslavia, in so-called Dayton B&H. Three facts influenced, in various ways, the cultural development of the ethnic groups in B&H – Muslims or today’s Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – under Communist rule:

1. The status of B&H as a federal republic. 2. Tito’s break with Stalin in 1948 and the political link-up with the so-called Third World, to which the majority of Islamic countries belonged. 3. The linguistic policy of Serbocroatism with its explicit predominance of the Serbian language over the Croatian.

These three facts taken together influenced the favourable development of the Bosnian Muslims into a modern nation at the end of the twentieth century: namely, the republican status of B&H removed the potential Croatian and real Serbian pressure to which the Muslims had been exposed to in the First Yugoslavia. Tito’s political association with the Islamic world opened the possibility of the cultivation of the Islamic cultural identity; and the Serbocroatism that was consistently implemented was wholeheartedly accepted by the Islamic religious press. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Bosniaks (Muslims) in today’s B&H are constructing their modern linguistic standard on a Serbo-Croatian basis, while one can observe a reinforced Serbianization among the Bosnian Serbs and a return to Croatian linguistic traditions among the Croats.61 Though the Croatian-Serbian Agreement from 1939 brought the Greater Serbian project into question and was nominally kept at bay in the Second Yugoslavia, a latent Serbianization of the linguistic culture in the educational system and public life was nevertheless implemented. The cultural contacts between Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croats with the Socialist Republic of Croatia were admittedly not rendered impossible but they were made ever more difficult. The Croatist linguistic policies of the Fascist NDH was used as an excuse to declare all Croatisms as an Ustasha language and therefore their use was prevented. The practical consequence of such a situation was that the language of the Bosnian Croats who were schooled in B&H and published their texts in Sarajevo and other Bosnian towns was considerably Serbianized. Only the organizations of the Catholic Church successfully resisted Serbianization in their professional work and press and tacitly followed the linguistic processes in the Republic of Croatia.

61 For more on the Muslims during the Second World War and in the Second Yugoslavia see Džaja (2004): 243-71.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

The establishment of Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina in the autumn of 1995, with its division of B&H into the so-called two entities – Republika Srpska (The Republic of Srpska) and the Bosniak-Croat Federation of B&H – reminds one of the division of Bosnia and Herzegovina through the Croatian-Serbian Agreement of 1939; in that period it was the Bosnian Muslims who found themselves in a sandwich between the Croats and Serbs. This time, i.e. in Dayton B&H that fate fell upon the Bosnian Croats. The Croats in both entities have been exposed to majority rule, on the one side from the Serbs, and from the Bosniaks (Muslims) from the other.62 The very complicated Dayton constitution has so far proved itself damaging for the economy of B&H and its culture in general. It has divided the Croats into a Croatocentric group with its centre in western Herzegovina, which builds its politics on the accentuation of the Croatian component of the identity of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Croats and opportunism toward Republika Srpska, and a pro-Bosniak group, dispersed in central Bosnia, which stresses the Bosnian specificity of the identity of the Bosnian Croats and volens-nolens inclines toward the Bosniak majority in the Bosniak-Croat Federation. At the time of the establishment of the Dayton constitution in B&H a key role was played by international politics. After this politics has shown itself to be damaging, a new initiative of international factors is necessary in order to open an effective path to the construction of B&H as a modern democratic state with equal individual and collective (ethnic) rights for all its citizens.

Bibliography Anderson, B. (1983): Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London). Auburger, L. (2009): Hrvatski jezik i serbokroatizam (Rijeka) (originally published as Die kroatische Sprache und der Serbokroatismus [Ulm & Donau, 1999]). ______. (2011): ʻDie Gliederung der Geschichte der kroatischen Literatursprache in drei Epochen und acht Serbokroatismus-Perioden’, Filologija HAZU 56: 1-21. Beljan, I. (2011): Pripovijedanje povijesti. Ljetopisi bosanskih franjevaca 18. stoljeća (Zagreb & Sarajevo). Čović, B. & Brandt, M. (1991): Izvori velikosrpske agresije (Zagreb). Bošnjanin, H. (alias of Krunoslav Draganović) (1940): Hrvati i Herceg-Bosna (Povodom polemike o nacionalnoj pripadnosti Bosne) (Sarajevo). Džaja, S.M. (1971): Katolici u Bosni i zapadnoj Hercegovini na prijelazu iz 18. u

62 The political problems of Dayton Bosnia have until now been most systematically elaborated on by Kasapović (2005), while the Mostar journal Status: Magazin za političku kulturu i društvena pitanja offers the most complete insight into the entire discourse on the arrangement of B&H as a contemporary state.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

19. stoljeće. Doba fra Grge Ilijića Varešanina (1783-1813) (Zagreb). ______. (1979): ʻTlo nastanka i protubogumilska komponenta „Šibenske molitve“?’, Croatica Christiana Periodica 3: 80-91. ______. (1993): ʻOd bana Kulina do austro-ugarske okupacije’. In: Katoličanstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini, eds. S. Vasilj, S. Džaja, M. Karamatić & T. Vukšić (Sarajevo): 37-78. ______. (1994): ʻBosna i Bošnjaci u hrvatskom političkom diskursu’, Erasmus. Časopis za kulturu demokracije 9: 33-41. ______. (1996): ʻPolitički profil fra Grge Martića’. In: Fra Grgo Martić i njegovo doba. Zbornik radova znanstvenog skupa [8.–9. studenoga 1995] (Zagreb): 33-43. ______. (1999): Konfesionalnost i nacionalnost Bosne i Hercegovine. Predemancipacijsko razdoblje, 2nd ed. (Mostar) [1st ed., Sarajevo 1992] (German ed. published as Konfessionalität und Nationalität Bosniens und der Herzegowina. Voremanzipatorische Phase 1463–1804. Südosteuropäische Arbeiten 80 [Munich, 1984]). ______. (2002): Bosna i Hercegovina u austrougarskom razdoblju (1878–1918). Inteligencija između tradicije i ideologije (Mostar & Zagreb) (Croatian translation of Bosnien-Herzegowina in der österreicisch-ungarischen Epoche (1878–1918). Die Intelligtentsia zwischen Tradition und Ideologie. Südosteuropäische Arbeiten 93 [Munich, 1994]). ______. (2004): Politička realnost jugoslavenstva (1918 – 1991). S posebnim osvrtom na Bosnu i Hercegovinu (Sarajevo & Zagreb) (Croatian translation of Die politische Ralität des Jugoslavismus (1918–1991).Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Bosnien-Herzegowinas. Untersuchungen zur Gegenwartskunde Südosteuropas 37 [Munich, 2002]). ______. (2005a): ʻBosnian Historical Reality and its Reflection in Myth’. In: Myth and Boundaries in South-Eastern Europe, ed. P. Kolstø (London). ______. (2005b): Eseji, razgovori, polemike, prijevodi (Munich). ______. (2006): ʻSrednjovjekovna Crkva bosanska u procijepu suprotstavljenih kontekstualizacija. U povodu i o knjizi Pejo Ćošković, Crkva bosanska u XV. stoljeću, Sarajevo 2005, 559 pp.’, Status 10: 250-255. ______. (2008): ʻBosanski franjevci između Mediterana i Podunavlja kroz 18. stoljeće’. In: Zbornik o Marku Dobretiću, ed. M. Karamatić (Sarajevo & Dobretići): 51-63. ______. (2009): ʻFojnička ahdnama u zrcalu paleografije, pravne povijesti i politike. Kontekstualizacija Ahdname bosanskih franjevaca’, Bosna Franciscana 31: 103-128. ______. (2010): ʻBosna i Hercegovina kao politička kategorija kroz povijest’. In: Stoljeća Kraljeve Sutjeske. Zbornik radova u povodu 100. obljetnice izgradnje

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) samostanske i župne crkve u Kraljevoj Sutjesci održanog 17. i 18. listopada 2008, ed. M. Karamatić (Kraljeva Sutjeska & Sarajevo): 413-438. Sorić, A. (ed.) (1988): Franjevci Bosne i Hercegovine na raskršću kultura i civilizacija blago franjevačkih samostana Bosne i Hercegovine/Franciscans on the crossroad of cultures and civilizations: the treasures of the Franciscan monasteries of Bosnia and Herzegovina, exhibition catalogue. (Zagreb). Gavran, I. (2012): Lucerna lucens? Odnos Vrhbosanskog ordinarijata prema bosanskim franjevcima (1881–1975). Dossier „Dobri Pastir“. Rasprave i polemike o Udruženju katoličkih svećenika, (Sarajevo). Goldstein, I. (1995): Hrvatski rani srednji vijek (Zagreb). Goldstein, S. & Goldstein I. (2011): Jasenovac i Bleiburg nisu isto (Zagreb). Grčević, M. (2011): ʻJezik Marina Držića prema jeziku Biblije Bartola Kašića i Dubrovačkoga misala’, Filologija HAZU 56: 23-49. Hadžijahić, M. (2004): Povijest Bosne u IX. i X. stoljeću (Sarajevo). Hobsbawm, E. & Ranger, T.O. (1983): The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge). Jelenić, J. (1990): Kultura i bosanski franjevci, 2 Vols., 2nd ed. (Sarajevo) (First edition published 1912-1915). Kasapović, M. (2005): Bosna i Hercegovina: podijeljeno društvo i nestabilna država (Zagreb). Katičić, R. (1998): Litterarum studia. Književnost i naobrazba ranoga hrvatskog srednjovjekovlja (Zagreb) (published in German as Literatur- und Geistesgeschichte des kroatischen Frühmittelalters [Vienna, 1999]). Lovrenović, D. (2009): Stećci. Bosansko i humsko mramorje srednjeg vijeka (Sarajevo). Lovrenović, I. (ed.) (1982): Književnost bosanskih franjevaca. Izbor tekstova iz starije hrvatske književnosti (Sarajevo). ______. (2010): Bosanski križ. Kršćanski nadgrobni spomenici u razdoblju turske vlasti (Sarajevo). Mandić, D. (1963): Rasprave i prilozi iz stare hrvatske povijesti (Rome). ______. (1967): Etnička povijest Bosne i Hercegovine (Rome). Martić, Z. (2006): Tradicijska odjeća i nakit Hrvata Bosne i Hercegovine iz zbirke samostana i duhovnog centra „Karmel sv. Ilije“ Buško jezero / Traditional Attire and Jewerly of the Croatian People of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Collection of the St. Elias Carmelite Monastery and Spiritual Center Buško Jezero (Zagreb). Martić, Z. & Bagur, V. (2010): Vila bana zvala priko Vrana. Tradicijska odjeća, pjesme i plesovi Hrvata u Bosni i Hercegovini u 21. stoljeću / A Fairy Called the Viceroy over the Mountain of Vran. Traditional Clothing, Songs and Dances of Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 21th Century (Zagreb).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Novaković, R. (1981): Gde se nalazila Srbija od VII. do XII. veka. Istorijsko- geografsko razmatranje (Belgrade). Okey, R. (2007): Taming Balkan Nationalism. The Habsburg ,Civilizing Mission, in Bosnia, 1878-1914 (Oxford). Pranjković, I. (ed.) (2005): Hrvatska književnost Bosne i Hercegovine od XIV. do sredine XVIII. stoljeća. Hrvatska književnost Bosne i Hercegovine u 100 knjiga Vol. 6 (Sarajevo). Šidak, J. (1975): Studije o „Crkvi bosanskoj“ i bogumilstvu (Zagreb). Šimunić, P. (1992): „Načertanije“. Tajni spis srpske nacionalne i vanjske politike, 2nd. ed. (Zagreb) (1st edition published in 1944). Vasilj, S. (1993): ʻOd rimskog osvajanja do bana Kulina’. In: Katoličanstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini, eds. S. Vasilj, S. Džaja, M. Karamatić & T. Vukšić (Sarajevo): 5-36. Vasilj, S., Džaja, S.M., Karamatić, M. & Vukšić, T. (eds.) (1993): Katoličanstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini (Sarajevo). Vego, M. (1980): ʻHumačka ploča. Najstariji ćirilski pisani spomenik (X ili XI stoljeća) u Bosni i Hercegovini’. In: M. Vego, Iz historije srednjovjekovne Bosne i Hercegovine (Sarajevo): 97-120 (= Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, n.s. 11 [1956]: 41-61).

Sažetak Ova studija sintetizira povijest i kulturu Hrvata u Bosni i Hercegovini. Njezin glavni cilj je povijesna rekonstrukcija geneze Hrvata u BiH. Polazišna točka geneze Hrvata u BiH se može locirati u rani srednji vijek, otkuda se i povijest većine europskih nacija može pratiti u kontinuitetu. Rad dalje slijedi povijest i kulturu Hrvata u BiH kroz Otomansko doba, te njihovo pozicioniranje prema modernism nacionalnim pokretima devetnaestog stoljeća i ideologijama dvadesetog stoljeća.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Jasna Čapo: “The world is my oyster: Well-educated Australian-Croatian citizens in the era of global mobilities”

Jasna Čapo Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research Zagreb, Croatia [email protected]

Abstract By pointing to the limitations of “the teleology of the homeland return” and ‘ethnicity’ in explaining the post-migration generations’ move towards the country of their ancestors, the paper attempts to give mobility per se a place within interpretations of migration processes. Specifically, it addresses the case of the relocation of the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia to the country of their parents, Croatia. Mobility (hi)stories of the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia do not speak in favour of the thesis that by coming to Croatia they respond to existential longing or diasporic yearning for home in today’s unstable world. Nor do they indicate that ethnic/national belonging is at the core of their motivation to relocate to Croatia. They point out that their prime motivation embraces travelling — given shape by both the regional and global mobility patterns of their peers, specifically by the culturally shaped tradition of ‘overseas experience’ or ‘working holiday’ practiced by young Australians. Since travelling of the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia takes place against a background of transnational ways of being and belonging sustained across generations between Australia and Croatia, it has eventually brought them to a decision to relocate to Croatia. Therefore, rather than motivating the relocation itself, ethnic ancestry appears as its facilitator.

Key words: migrants, post-migration generations, return, mobility, Australians, Australia, Croatians

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

No matter whether it is categorized as migration for economic or political reasons, migration is usually viewed as a kind of involuntary move imposed upon an individual on either of the above-mentioned grounds, rather than as a personal choice. We frequently think about migration as an act that nobody would have undertaken had he/she not been forced to do so, either for lack of economic resources or for want of political and/or religious freedom, and the like. With widely documented migrant nostalgia for the abandoned homeland, the dream of eventually returning and the plan of an idealized future in the homeland regained, migrants themselves are contributing to such a view of migration. Adventure, travel, the wish for change and freedom, for getting to know different worlds, escape from family control, search for individuation, and similar, are rarely mentioned as motives for migration. They are attributed to exceptional individuals, elite groups, those that can indulge in such an ‘unmotivated’ mobility. It is quite inconceivable that people would want rather than be coerced to migrate. The rhetoric of sedentarism1 that underlies such views is fairly widespread and familiar; even contemporary transnationally mobile elites cannot escape the widespread narrative that everyone eventually has to find (or to return to) one’s harbour, refuge, or “a tree on which to lean”.2 Sedentarist logic might explain why migration scholars tended to dwell more on the migrants’ “homing desire”,3 than on their mobilities as such. Within such a conception of migration, return to the country of origin, also referred to as “homecoming”4 or even “profound homecoming”5 is viewed as ‘desirable’ and ‘normal’; it is the final act of closing the migration cycle by returning to the starting point.6 Return is conceptualized as an antipode to the (presumably) mobile life that a person has led.7 Migration literature even suggests that, if not achieved by the migration generation, the closure is deferred to post-migration generations8 who realise by this act the

1 Comp. Malkki (1992); Brettell (2000); Stefansson (2004). 2 Čapo Žmegač (2010a). 3 Brah (1996). 4 Markowitz & Stefansson (2004). 5 King & Christou (2010): 111. 6 Čapo Žmegač (2010b). 7 Wessendorf (2007); King & Christou (2010). 8 I will be using this term to indicate that I am dealing with people who were born to the (im)migrant cohorts in the countries of immigration. They themselves do not have a migration history (at least until they resettle themselves). I include under this term people who migrated with their parents while still very young children, but have barely any memory of the life before migration.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) unfulfilled dream of their parents.9 This implies that return to the homeland — but also coming to a “reconstructed homeland” where one has never actually lived10 by the post-migration generations — is not only ‘normal’ but also ‘natural’. It is assumed to be natural because of the seemingly natural, self-evident and strong tie between a person and her/his homeland: the land of origin — or the land of ancestry for post-migration generations, in which encounter that tie will be confirmed and strengthened, or, re-discovered among post-migration generations. That presumed tie is part of taken-for- granted ways of thinking, which root personal identities in particular places and thereby naturalise the relationship between people and the soil of their birth.11 The presumption of the lasting link with the homeland is also due to approaching and understanding migrants with an ‘ethnic gaze’, i.e. taking ethnicity as the central lens for analyses of migrant identities and behaviour.12 This is the line of thought that was widely criticised as exhibiting methodological nationalism13 or methodological ethnicity.14 It assumes that migrants primarily belong to their community of origin, with which they share ethnicity, culture and identity. This belonging is allegedly transferred onto post-migration generations, who, like their parents, are also analysed within this essentialising paradigm. The ethnic gaze has been criticized for neglecting ways of being as opposed to ways of belonging.15 It also underestimates other aspects of people’s incorporation into the society in which they live: e.g. the emplacement of both migration and post-migration generations in their places of residence, in the spaces which go beyond the narrow “ethnic bubble”16 that migrants are sensed to create. Discussions of the hybridity and multiple belonging of post-migration generations have questioned the received viewpoint of stable, unitary, straightforward and exclusive conceptions of their (ethno-national) identity, which bind them to the ancestral country, showing that the actors themselves might reject any ethnic/national labelling.17 Authors like Floya Anthias have warned that

9 King & Christou (2010). 10 Oxfeld & Long (2004): 4. 11 Gupta & Ferguson (1992); Malkki (1992); see also Čapo Žmegač (2010b). 12 Glick Schiller (2005); (2006); (2008); Levitt & Glick Schiller (2004). 13 Wimmer & Glick Schiller (2003); Glick Schiller (2005); (2006). 14 Glick Schiller (2008). 15 Levitt & Glick Schiller (2004); Povrzanović Frykman (2010). 16 Colic-Peisker (2008). 17 Čapo Žmegač (2005); King & Christou (2010).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) ethnic essentialism remains residual even in the idea of fragmented and multiple identities and have proposed operating with the notions of location and positioning rather than identity.18 It is therefore surprising that the ethnic factor reappears surreptitiously in academic writings explaining the post- migration generations’ settlement in the country of their ancestors as a kind of ‘return’, ‘roots’ or similar type of mobility. This paper is a contribution to anti-ethnicised explanations of post-migration generations’ mobilities. It suggests that the mobility of the post-migration generations can be seen as part of “the new map of global mobility”19 rather than as a type of ‘ethnic(ised) return’. By pointing to the limitations of “the teleology of the homeland return” and ‘ethnicity’ in explaining the post-migration generations’ move towards the country of their ancestors, it attempts to give mobility per se a place within interpretations of migration processes. Specifically, it addresses the case of the relocation of the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia to the country of their parents, Croatia. The argument is based on considering the life histories of several such individuals, with university diplomas, more or less experience in the Australian and/or British business world, prone to travelling and discovering new worlds, who upon repeated visits to Croatia – and after submitting it to careful scrutiny – decided to move there, independently of their parents who remained in the country of their immigration. The paper is then about Australian-Croatians or Croatian- Australians, the citizens of both Australia and Croatia, who consider “the world to be their oyster”, the place of opportunity that they are invited to explore and take advantage of.

‘Return’: ancestral, roots, deferred and/or counter-diasporic migration How should we conceive of the relocation of the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia to the country of origin of their parents? Rare qualitative analyses dealing with European migrants and diasporas, consider such a move to be “the somewhat unusual circumstance of the ‘return’ of the second generation to the land of their parents”20 and an “extreme case” of migration.21 Scholars have named such a relocation ‘return’ and ‘ancestral’ or ‘roots migration’.22 These labels imply that descendants of migrants settle

18 Anthias (2002). 19 King & Christou (2010). 20 King & Christou (2010): 104. 21 Wessendorf (2007): 1084. 22 King (2000); Christou (2006); Wessendorf (2007).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) in their parents’ (or more broadly ancestors’) homeland, in which they have never lived before, but which they reconstruct and imagine as their own homeland and place in which roots can be discovered and unravelled. Specifically, Wessendorf accounts in the following way for the decision of the descendants of Italian immigrants in Switzerland to come and live in Italy: “notions of belonging and homeland can have a powerful influence on the choices members of the second generation make regarding their place of residence.” They were forged through transnational and trans local practices by way of which the descendants were regularly exposed to contact with their parents’ country of origin; they were also nurtured by 23 “their parents’ longing for, and fantasies about, Italy”. A third explanatory factor for the relocation to Italy is suggested to be a reaction to the intensely mobile lifestyle of their childhood and adolescence.24The latter interpretation gives another layer of meaning to the label ‘roots migration’: it not only reflects that migrants ‘return’ to where their parents come from but also their aspiration to settle in just one place, to ‘root’ themselves and cease to lead mobile lives.25 I suggest that these explanations contain a sedentarist bias, equate the ways of belonging and ways of being of post-migration generations, as well as they misunderstand the conceptions of ‘homeland’ and belonging of the descendants of migrants.26 Another relocation, that of Greek diaspora offspring to Greece, has been interpreted as a “cross-generational deferral of return”.27 Since it is in ‘the second generation’ — among those that can be called ‘the children of diaspora’ — that the migrant dream of return is fulfilled the authors suggest what they deem to be a more appropriate label for such mobility — “counter-diasporic migration”.28 However, occasionally they still call it

23 Wessendorf (2007), the quotes from 1084 and 1088. 24 Wessendorf (2007): 1091. This is a surprising statement when applied to Italians in Switzerland, reiterated by King & Christou (2010) for the Greeks in Germany. My experience and research with Croatians in Germany does not allow for a similar conclusion, and yet there are a lot of similarities among these migration cases. The migrant generation emigrated and stayed in Germany for more than 30 or 40 years; together with their descendants they became emplaced in the German setting (they would rarely change it at some point in their life), although they regularly visited the migrant generation’s homeland once or twice a year for more or less extended periods. Only those migrants who had family (e.g. wife and children) in the homeland might be termed highly mobile, for they visited the family at regular intervals, sometimes as frequently as twice a month. 25 Wessendorf (2007): 1091. 26 See e.g. Čapo Žmegač (2005). 27 King & Christou (2010): 116. 28 The language of the ‘first’, ‘second’ or ‘subsequent’ generations, though most widely used to describe the descendants of migrants, can be misleading, Gardner (2012): 900. While it may be

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

‘second-generation return’. Their argument revolves around notions such as ‘belonging’, ‘identity’, ‘place’, and ‘search for home’ and involves finality, ethnic essentialism and sedentarism in understanding both the ‘returns’ in question and the implications of the above-mentioned notions for the mobile people. This is exemplified in the suggestions that “second generation returnees” seek “a final resting-place against their existential anxiety about their in-betweenness and where they belong” and that theirs is “an act of resistance against hypermobility and dislocation.”29 Interestingly, individual voices, which intersect the authors’ interpretations, seem to speak in favour of more complex analyses of their experiences. With the help of Jill Ahrens, the same authors have somewhat extended their argument in another paper.30 They identify three main motivations for the relocation of persons with Greek ancestry to Greece. The first — “emotional attachment to Greece and the Greek way of life” resonates with an essentialised presumption of “strong ethnic-community identity”, which creates an “affective bond with the Greek homeland ”, while the third — high education-seems to be rather a ‘facilitator’ than a ‘driver’ for the relocation.31 By recognizing another possible factor — a life-course event or “the wish to detach from an oppressive family situation” — the authors step out of the current mode of interpreting the post-migration generations’ relocation to the country of their ancestors as a kind of “ethnic return”32 and ‘rooting’. This short review more or less sums up existent ethnographic approaches to the phenomenon of the relocation of post-migration generations to the country of their ancestors in the European context. Significantly, none mentions global mobilities and adventure, or considers that the country of ancestral origin might be chosen as a place to live after other places had been given a try. This paper argues that what has brought a number of Australians and South Africans with Croatian ancestry to Croatia controversial to what generation a person exactly belongs (for an explanation, see Gardner, ibid.), I find it more problematic that this label describes young people who are native-born, raised and educated — and maybe have never even moved out of their country of birth — first and foremost as the descendants of immigrants and thus a sort of migrants themselves, the label which has derogatory and exclusionary societal overtones. By using such a vocabulary the scholars are unintentionally contributing to the tagging of native-born individuals as a special group of people, indeed as a group that needs special study and attention. 29 King & Christou (2010): 109-10. 30 King et al. (2011). 31 King et al. (2011): 499. 32 The notion of ‘ethnic return’ also appears with regard to the mobility of the descendants to the ancestral country. See Tsuda (2004) and my critique Čapo Žmegač (2010c).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) is a mixture of the desire to travel, search for adventure and contemporary global mobilities. At the core of their relocation to Croatia is not their ethnic ancestry and belonging. That country is made available as a destination for their relocation by the coincidence that the parents or grandparents, or even great-grandparents were born there. This fact brought them to Croatia in the first place, among other travel and living arrangements that they undertook in various countries. This does not mean that they did not have any emotional tie to Croatia; they did have a sense of Croatian ancestry — and felt ‘foreign’ in an Australian context — but rather than accepting this as a given that would drive them to Croatia, they took it as an opportunity to check if their wish to move could be satisfied in Croatia. That is why they compared the lifestyle and opportunities it offers with other countries and that is why they tried living there before eventually deciding to settle in Croatia. I do not claim that these persons are in any way typical of young people with Croatian ancestry who relocate to Croatia, or of any other diaspora group. Admittedly, those individuals of post-migration generations, who relocated earlier in the 1990s to participate in the Croatian war for independence and building of the State, had other major motives for doing so: they came out of a mix of motives: attachment to Croatia, curiosity, a sense of adventure, by accident, etc.33 A myriad of motives, themselves in different relationships and hierarchies, were guiding their decision to become combatants in the war taking place in the country that they knew only from their parents’ narratives. However, to decipher theirs and the motives of those who have arrived within the last decade uniquely within an ethnic lens would be deceitful. I suggest that we need to pay heed to the complexity and heterogeneity of the individual subject positions and realities of the relocation of post-migration generations at different times and in different contexts, allowing for the presence of an ethnic factor but not neglecting others. In tune with these remarks, I do not use the language of ‘return’. The denomination ‘counter-diasporic migration’ is no more appealing, because it

33 This paper is part of an ongoing project on documenting the migration trajectories of migrant- returnees and their descendants who, independently of their parents or with them, relocated to Croatia after it proclaimed independence in 1991. The idea is to document ethnographically their motives for resettlement, ideas held about Croatia prior to and after resettlement, future plans, ways of integration in the society, etc. Due to its long-established and worldwide diaspora, Croatia provides a laboratory for comparative research into migration and settlement (more extensively see Čapo Žmegač (2010b). The project presumes that heterogeneous articulations of the Croatian diaspora worldwide breed equally complex and divergent experiences of relocation processes to Croatia.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) implies the finality of relocation and the cessation of the diasporic condition. Neither the first nor the second can be substantiated by the data discussed here. In addition, when speaking of the diasporic condition, it is legitimate to ask which diaspora are we talking about: the Croatian or the Australian one? If speaking from the Croatian point of view, the relocation under discussion qualifies as ‘counter-diasporic migration’; but from the equally relevant Australian viewpoint, it results in an emergent Australian diaspora in its own right. The subjects of this paper are Australians/Croatians — the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia who have come to live in Croatia. It is the stories of six such persons, one of whom re-migrated to Australia, as well as meetings with several other persons in Zagreb and in Melbourne with Australian-Croatian backgrounds that are the basis of this paper. I met my interview partners on several formal and informal occasions and I used Skype to talk to the person who re-migrated to Australia. All interviews were done in Croatian, which my interlocutors speak very well, though sometimes with a foreign intonation and occasionally making a mistake or two or introducing an English word or expression. Croatian — or better, a dialect thereof spoken by parents — was the language used at home in Australia, so that upon arrival in Croatia they had a rather good knowledge of it. Occasionally, I shall refer to two persons with Croatian ancestry who come from South Africa.34 These grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Dalmatian emigrants to South Africa share similar circumstances and motivations for settling in Croatia as do their Australian counterparts.

Mobility and location My Australian interlocutors are five women and one man, between the ages of 30 and 50. Four were born in Australia to parents of Croatian origin: two came to Australia with their parents as very young children.35 They are architects (two), an electronics engineer, a social scientist, a language teacher, and a communications specialist by occupation; they all finished university education in Australia (Sydney, Melbourne, Perth). Except for one person who, after 12 years spent in Croatia relocated to Australia in 2011, they have all lived in Zagreb between three and fifteen years. They came to

34 In distinction to the Australian-Croatians, the interviews were carried out in English; in one case the person did not speak Croatian, in another the conversation spontaneously started — and remained — in English, with occasional Croatian insertions. 35 In migration research, there are referred to as the ‘1.5 migrant generation’.

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Croatia in their late twenties or early thirties. One person has a family, one is divorced with a grown-up child, and the others are single. The parents of my interlocutors—four of whom belong to two sibling sets — originate from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia; except in one sibling case where the parents had university degrees, they belong to the post-WW II workers’ cohort of Croatian immigrants to Australia.36 In one case, the father fled Yugoslavia via Austria in the 1960s and became politically active in Australia. Visits to Croatia or Herzegovina were practically inexistent (it could have been once in a lifetime, during the Yugoslav period, that part of or the whole family would go for a visit), but contacts with relatives were kept up in spite of the distance and, before the introduction of the Internet, quite expensive means of communication. The parents would tell the children about their birthplaces overseas, some would convey an image of modest village life, which seemed romantic and hard to fathom to my interlocutors; allegedly none of the parents dwelled on the idea of returning, though there were some hints at it after Croatia gained independence. As is often the case, it was the father who wanted to return to Croatia, while the mother wanted to stay where the children and grandchildren were.37 None of the parents has returned; in one case it is the children who have been a catalyst for the parents’ decision to envisage the return. The children grew up knowing they were Croatians and recognizing that, because of their ancestry, they were in some way different from their schoolmates; this was especially the experience of those who attended private schools (five of them). The transnational experience of my interlocutors was an integral part of their growing up, but rather than being corporeal and direct, it was mediated by parental narratives and visual materials, such as pictures. The interviewees visited Croatia for the first time at the end of their teenage years or in their early twenties. The first visit might have been a family trip undertaken by the whole family before or after Croatia became independent. Or it might have been an individual one, as when a then-young Australian-Croatian won a competition to attend a course of Croatian language in Croatia and decided that, in spite of the war, she would take this opportunity to get to know the parental country. Another person was engaged as a journalist in the early days of the foundation of the Croatian state. That brought her to Croatia for the first time in 1992, at the age of 22. Since the

36 Comp. Colic-Peisker (2008). 37 Comp. Čapo Žmegač (2004).

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) first visit to the parental homeland came rather late, impressions were stark and unforgettable.38 Except in one case, in which coming to Croatia was linked with the person’s engagement in ‘the building of the State’, it was the perception of the geographical isolation of Australia (“It’s far away, you feel trapped, you can’t get out”) and a desire for travelling that brought the interviewees to Croatia later, either as part of a backpacking tour39 across Europe or maybe as part of attending a football championship somewhere in Europe. During high school or university education, they were working part-time and saving money that would enable them to travel to Europe; during university studies they were more flexible in arranging travel:

“When I started the university, I started working and calculating about how to travel. I was not only attracted to Croatia, I wanted to travel everywhere. I was interested in travelling. (...) At the end of the second year of university, in 2002, I came. It was summer over there. I stayed for two months. I travelled to Ireland, Germany and Croatia for Christmas and New Year, also Bosnia and Herzegovina, and then went to Canada where my dad has an aunt.”

Securing a job in England was another way of getting to the travelling goal — Europe. The interviewees either held jobs in Australia which enabled them to work in England, or they looked for a job over there in their capacity as Commonwealth citizens.40 While in some cases this was linked to a plan of moving to Croatia, or at least of being close enough to visit it more often and travel around Europe, working in the UK was for some a project in itself, with the goal of gaining more work experience or being exposed to interesting and exciting professional projects. An architect claims that one has to leave Australia in order to enhance professional knowledge in one’s

38 Comp. Vathi & King (2011): 504. 39 Backpacking as a way of landing in Croatia appeared in several conversations. In one, it served as a metaphor of how one comes to Croatia and eventually stays. However, except in the case of a male from South Africa who indeed came with a backpack to see what it was like — and stayed — people more often decided to settle in Croatia after rather long deliberations and careful preparations (see below). 40 Due to historical ties between Australia and the UK, young Australian citizens are entitled to privileged, albeit temporary (one year), working stays in that country.

100

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) field.41 With no previous plan of moving to Croatia, after regular visits to it from England where he came on a working visa in order to gain professional experience, he saw work opportunities in Croatia, started a project there and has been living there for more than ten years. The decision to move from England to Croatia was different for another person: she and her husband, also of Croatian origin, decided that Croatia would be a better place to start a family than England, where they had been living for two years. The person who had been engaged in Croatia since the early 1990s and who settled there some seven or eight years later, claims that her basic motive for both was “the adrenalin involved in this adventure.” Most of my interlocutors had been deliberating on settling in Croatia, and did not make this decision abruptly, but took their time. The attractive summer aura encouraged them to make repeated visits to Croatia every second year, if they still lived in Australia or more frequently if they were already in the UK. After each visit the country appealed to them more and more. However, realising that the summertime might not be representative of life in Croatia, some undertook visits at other times of the year. One person was visiting Croatia from Australia every two years, staying for a month or two, and every time “it would not be enough”, that is, she wanted to stay longer and would ask her boss in Australia for permission to prolong her vacation. One year she stayed for seven months, and since, again, “it was not enough” she stayed for another five and then decided that she would come to live in Croatia. Here is how she explains what attracted her to decide to relocate to Zagreb after a year of living there:

“I’m obviously the type of person who loves something new, now I don’t know any more, I like that it is… What was is that I liked in that first year? I don’t know, I fell one hundred per cent in love with Zagreb, with Europe. I like the fact that the cities have a history, I love it that the city is so small that I can get almost everywhere on foot, I love it that when a city is small you can live more easily, whatever you are doing you end up having coffee, that’s what I love. That social way of life has not been lost here. It’s healthy for me … people here carry somewhat fewer burdens because they can sit and talk more often. I liked

41 Compare with the Australian and New Zealand concept of ‘cultural cringe’, whereby things done or achieved overseas are necessarily better than those done at home, Wilson et al. (2009): 170.

101

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

the fact that I could walk around alone at night and not be scared. Sometimes in Sydney I used to run from the car to the house! (…) I had the feeling during that year here that I could walk to my flat at 10 and 11 o’clock [at night]. There’s always time to have a coffee, not that the people are lazy but that it is sufficiently important in life that everyone finds the time to do that. I loved it that already at five o’clock in the afternoon you could see children in town with their parents. You can’t manage that in Sydney, it’s a large city. I have almost a day extra here per week because I don’t have to spend time travelling the way I used to [in Sydney].”

Her sister also visited the country at regular intervals until she was sure she liked it better than living in Australia. After leaving Croatia and returning to Australia, she would start comparing life in the two places, and at one point she realized that “I was living there, while thinking about the life here” and that this was not good for her:

“Back in Australia and again I would feel that something was missing, I did not like the feeling that I was living there, and thinking only of this here. It’s not a healthy life to be yearning for something. I realised that it was not good for me. When you live somewhere then you have a responsibility towards that country, that you love that country. When I am there, I loved this [Croatia] more, that’s not fair to Australia, to live somewhere, while your heart is elsewhere.”42

That is how she made the decision to start looking for a job in an Australian firm that would have an office in England to which she would apply, and that would bring her closer to Croatia where she wanted to live. Both women took time to get to know Croatia and making a decision to live there — though they are siblings they made their decisions independently; the process of decision-making lasted for about six to eight years; today they do not regret their decisions. In sum, the decision to leave Australia — for travelling and eventually also (temporarily) living somewhere abroad — was brought once university

42 This is probably a parental narrative. A researcher frequently hears from migrants that that is how they live: “with the body in one place, and the heart in another.” Only some of them manage to reconcile this rift.

102

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) education had been finished, opportunities for a good job in Australia exhausted or deemed better in England (or elsewhere), or when interest in living elsewhere won over living in Australia. The prerequisites for eventually making a decision to move to Croatia were gaining work experience, saving money and/or checking if Croatia was a liveable place. When they arrived in Croatia, some had already found a job — outside or within their profession, others had not yet done so but lived off savings while looking for one. They were prepared to take any job offered, even if it did not match the university degree that they held. Often, this implied teaching English in one of the private language schools in which Zagreb abounds, free-lance translation, taking care of children with whom they would speak English, working at the Australian Embassy, etc. For some, finding a stable, long-term job is still pending, while some are unsatisfied with their current job. Trying to keep up their standard of living, or improving it, some have started private businesses, which have sometimes ended badly. Precarious, unsatisfactory or non-existent employment, together with expensive apartment rental, possibly also family or personal matters, are the main reasons for contemplating or effectuating relocation to Australia. While experiencing almost all of these, the young woman from South Africa who arrived a year ago is still intent on staying and starting her own business. Those whose preparations to settle in Croatia included the provision of an apartment are somewhat more at ease in today’s difficult economic situation and less prone to consider leaving. None of the persons chose the parental region or town of origin as her/his residence in Croatia; those range from the Dalmatian islands and coastal towns to small villages or townships in Slavonia or Herzegovina. For these well-educated professionals settling there was not at all an option, no matter how much those places appealed to them in terms of natural beauty or as an extended family abode: if one was to come to live in Croatia, the capital city was perceived as the only viable solution for finding a job. Zagreb has an additional appeal, for it is “neither big nor small”, fulfilling a desire for urban living and a certain lifestyle. All the interviewees like living in Zagreb and enumerate long lists of positive aspects about it and the life in Croatia in general.43 The common

43 This does not mean that they are satisfied with broader societal developments; they are critical about political and economic decisions, doubt the usefulness of Croatia’s entry into the EU, wonder at the (dys)functional legal system and a widespread disrespect of law, the use of politics in the service of economic gain, reliance of the country on import in all domains, etc. Most of their comments and opinions on such issues come from having lived in a western-European style

103

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) denominator of attractions that made them come and stay, some of which are detailed in a quote above, is the (leisurely) lifestyle, sometimes referred to as ‘European’, sometimes as ‘Croatian’: less necessity for time management, more free time, people taking time to meet and talk (“drink coffee”), a possibility to live in the “middle” – neither homeless and unemployed nor coerced to running after ever higher salaries, which do not leave one a spare moment for oneself, possibilities for travelling, proximity of other countries, safety, and similar. Fear of a “monetary shock” was replaced by a “positive shock” because of a more relaxed life that they have. A Croatian South African said that nowhere in the world can one find such a good balance between the quality of life and the amount of money earned; that, coupled with safety issues and an excellent setting for raising a child, are for this and other persons the main reasons for remaining in Croatia. Definitely, settling in Croatia did not bring them material gain (“Had I been interested in money, I wouldn't have come here”, said one person); actually if anything, they have a lower economic standard compared to the one they had or would have had in Australia. Since the crisis started, some say that they “are managing”. A somewhat lower material standard is compensated for by other factors mentioned above, which they prioritise and value more highly than monetary gain:

“Although I still have some of what I saved in London, it’s not much. And I have changed, too, I realise that I do not have to buy everything that appeals to me, one lives in a smaller flat and as far as money is concerned, yes — I have less, but my [living] standard is still good. (…) The objective differs here from the one there, it is more highly thought of there that you have a permanent job, that you are promoted and have the money to travel more or buy a house, or a new car, blah blah, that doesn’t interest me. I don’t regret that, but I am still thinking a bit about the future, one day I shall need something more significant…”

Having lost her job and judging that her potential was not being put to full use in Croatia, one person recently went back to Australia after 12 years spent in Croatia. Together with her husband and children, another one is contemplating such a move. This is a difficult decision to make, because they

of democracy, i.e. Australia, but are nevertheless shared by other Croatian citizens without migrant backgrounds.

104

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) have lived in Zagreb for the past eight years and like it very much. But their inability to secure their own apartment during that time and the unemployment of one spouse, as well as some private issues, might force them to reverse mobility. At the moment of our encounter, the spouses were weighing the pros and cons of such a move. The woman is afraid that that might be a very “final move”, because Australia is “such a far-away country” and because she and the husband are around 40, an age after which she thinks it might become more difficult to migrate and start anew. That couple chose to live in Croatia to found a family; they did not know whether they would stay for good or not. After long deliberations, another woman claims that once she had made the decision, it was definitive. After three years she has not changed her mind. The others are open-minded regarding whether they would stay in Croatia or not and where they could live in the future. The person who went to Australia said: “I knew that I could always go back, perhaps that is also why I stayed so long, to see how long I could stick it out in Croatia!” Another one had the following to say:

“Mother and Father don’t believe that we will stay, they think we will change our minds, now they see that we won’t. My sister told me that she won’t, she has been in Australia, has experienced that, now it’s time for something new. I never know where I shall end up! I can see that I am a better and healthier person here than I was in Australia and that suits me. Perhaps I shall not live here my entire life, but I think that this way of life in Europe suits me better than life in Australia.”

JČ: “But that doesn't mean that you are going to stay here for good?”

“I am not that sort of person by nature, perhaps I shall [stay] but I shall never tell myself that. I like to think that I have a million options, the world is my oyster [bolded part spoken in English]. So far, I don’t see anywhere else beyond this. It really suits me.”

Like the person who did go back, she keeps open the option of returning to Australia — “the land of opportunity” as another person said — and thinks that if she remains jobless in Croatia she can always go to Australia and find a job. If that were to happen, she wants to be able to show potential Australian employers that the time spent abroad was used for the benefit of learning: “You can’t return with a blank CV.” Actually, precisely for that

105

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) reason, three persons have been enrolled in long-distance graduate programs in Australia or the UK. The issue as to where he will end up living appears somewhat different for the man in this sample. He has already arranged to live in both countries, with “one leg” in each place: the company that he owns operates in both locations, and once or twice a year, for the sake of developing a project, he spends several weeks in Australia. This ‘double base’ has the function of spreading out the business risk (“You have to ensure yourself, you can’t be on just one market, I can also go to Dubai, to China.”), but also of keeping in touch with both places and the family who live in both places. Another woman could not “make the clean cut” (meaning to leave Croatia and go to Australia): when the economic situation squeezed her in 2011, she decided to stay and enhance her earnings by opening a private business, while retaining her regular job. Her hope is that this will enable her not only to remain in Croatia, but also to spend several months of the year in Australia, visiting her aging parents. Both individuals are thus planning or already realising double emplacement, practicing a transnational style of living, while others keep their options open, and count on going to Australia if economic needs should become a pressing factor. As mentioned, one person has already done this.44 The prospects of staying or leaving seem to be open for these people: while Australia appears as a safety net for the Australians, South Africa is not a wishful destination, mostly for security reasons. But this does not mean that South Africans are stuck in Croatia: they choose to live there at the moment, and if need be, can move elsewhere. Having lived in the United States, Korea, Ireland, Italy, etc. they already have a rich mobility history.

Australian/Croatian diaspora makes use of a cultural tradition Mobility (hi)stories of these descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia do not speak in favour of the thesis that by coming to Croatia they respond to existential longing or diasporic yearning for home in today’s unstable world.45 Nor do they indicate that ethnic/national belonging is at the core of their motivation to relocate to Croatia. They point out that their prime motivation embraces travelling — given shape by both the regional and global mobility patterns of their peers. Since travelling takes place against a background of transnational ways of being and belonging sustained across

44 After the paper was written I found out that the couple contemplating leaving for Australia had indeed left. 45 Winland (2007).

106

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) generations between Australia and Croatia, it has eventually brought them to a decision to relocate to Croatia. These young, well-educated individuals have a desire for travelling and getting to know the world beyond their country of birth, itself a far-away and isolated continent-island. It is the European continent — part of which is Croatia, the country of origin of their parents — that exerts special attraction, not only to them, but also to other young Australians and the neighbouring New Zealanders.46 The historical colonial ties of these two countries with the United Kingdom and special provisions for their young citizens allowing them to live and work temporarily in the country “which not long ago they called the home country” have given rise to a form of migration by young urban professionals toward the UK, especially to London as a global city.47 In New Zealand, this ‘working holiday’, which lasts for two to three years and combines both elements of work and leisure, has evolved into a cultural tradition which is known under the name ‘overseas experience’.48 As Australian citizens — and as part of the Australian multicultural middle class49 — the persons with Croatian ancestry who settle in Croatia are not only part of today’s Australian emigration toward the UK and Europe — in legal terms, they belong to today’s Australian diaspora overseas, but they also replicate the mobility patterns of the Australian multicultural middle class to which they belong. Mobility of this class is selective for young, well- educated and/or high-earning urban professionals, who have become a globally mobile group of people.50 Their search for work experience and adventure beyond the familiar home country space has components of a rite of passage51 and/or personal individuation.52 This rite of passage embraces a physical passage, the crossing of a border and living elsewhere; this is also true for well-educated Croatian-Australians who, after a prolonged period that sometimes extends over several years of travelling back and forth and living in at least three countries (Australia — England — Croatia), make a

46 Conradson & Latham (2005); Hugo (2006); Wilson et al. (2009). 47 Hugo (2006). 48 Wilson et al. (2009). The working holiday also works in the other direction since Australia has arranged for a working holiday programme that enables young citizens of arrangement countries to holiday and work in Australia for up to 12 months, Clarke (2005). 49 Colic-Peisker (2010). She suggests that the descendants of Croatian immigrants to Australia have managed to outgrow the parental ‘ethnic bubble’ and enter the Australian mainstream society. 50 Hugo (2006): 110. 51 Hugo (2006); Wilson et al. (2009). 52 Conradson & Latham (2005).

107

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) decision to settle in Croatia. This concludes the passage from one to another life stage in a real and metaphoric sense. The relocation — which at least for some time appears more permanent — makes them different from their New Zealand or Australian peers who do not settle overseas at the end of their travels, but return to their countries of origin. Had it not been the country of origin of their parents, Croatia would not have shown up on the overseas roadmap of these young Australians. Ancestral ties were indeed a motive and an argument for visiting Croatia, but there is no convincing hint that ancestry and ethnicity played a decisive role in their decision to settle in Croatia. If anything, they opened up the possibility for another destination country in which they could satisfy their desire for travel, exploring the new, gaining experience and living an adventure. These people took advantage of the opportunity to get to know the country, and only once they had familiarised themselves with it and checked whether they liked living there, did they make the decision to settle. Economic considerations do not seem to have had a prominent place at the moment of decision-making, but could become important when the economic situation deteriorates and the person sees no other way out but to re-migrate to Australia or elsewhere. Such a prospect is kept open and actively supported by continuing long-distance education either at Australian or British universities. All the persons in question exhibit a strong will to ‘manage the risk’53 involved in moving to Croatia. The risk is mitigated to a certain extent by their having Croatian citizenship, which entitles them to settling and working in Croatia for an unlimited period, unlike in other European countries, and facilitates the solving of specific locally defined situations and issues. As we have seen, it is also made less severe by their liking the ‘Croatian lifestyle’. I suggest, therefore, that migration by these Croatian Australians to Croatia is the result of a combination of the above-mentioned factors, with the desire to travel and the culturally shaped ‘working holiday’ experience occupying the first rank, with ethnic ancestry opening up the possibility rather than motivating the relocation itself. Their mobility and relocation were made possible by the individuals’ high potential for mobility,54 which stems from their age, education, belonging to the urban multicultural middle

53 An interlocutor spoke of risk management: “I came to try it here, it's like risk management. My father prepared me that I would be somewhat different here, that I would not be received with open arms, but he told me I should be patient. So it was!“ 54 Sometimes called ʻmotility’, Hannam et al. (2006); King et al. (2011).

108

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) class and integration into Australian cultural practices, and transnational ties with Croatia.55 Though these people are not in any statistical sense representative of Australian-Croatian citizens who relocate to Croatia — statistical representation is not a methodology suited for anthropological interpretations in any case — the attitudes regarding relocation to Croatia that they share together with their peers from South Africa are not just idiosyncratic and highly individualistic. They reflect worldviews and opportunities of middle- class, well-educated, young people, regardless of nationality whose very characteristics allow for mobile lifestyles in an era conducive to such lifestyles. The existence of such a class of Australian-Croatian citizens of post-migration generations calls for transcending the usual interpretation of their move to Croatia as a response to ‘homeland calling’ and opens up a possibility for its understanding within the present day global mobilities. In this case, they are embedded in certain cultural traditions linking the global South with the North.

Bibliography Anthias, F. (2002): ‘Where do I belong? Narrating collective identity and translocational positionality’, Ethnicities 2(1): 491-514. Brah, A. (1996): Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities (London). Brettell, C.B. (2000): ‘Theorizing Migration in Anthropology’. In Migration Theory. Talking across Disciplines, eds. C.B. Brettell & J.F. Hollifield (New York & London): 97-135. Christou, A. (2006): ‘American Dreams and European Nightmares: Experiences and Polemics of Second-Generation Greek-American Returning Migrants’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 32(5): 831-845. Clarke, N. (2005): ‘Detailing Transnational Lives of the Middle: British Working Holiday Makers in Australia’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31(2): 307- 322. Conradson, D. & Latham, A. (2005): ‘Friendship, Networks and Transnationality in a World City: Antipodean Transmigrants in London’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31(2): 287-305. Colic-Peisker, V. (2008): Migration, Class, and Transnational Identities. Croatians in Australia and America (Chicago).

55 Along with all of these factors, except for the last one, parents’ empowerment for mobility is very low, which, among other things, might explain why they do not initiate the relocation.

109

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

______. (2010): ‘The Croatian community in Australia in the early 21st century: a demographic and socio-cultural transition’, Croatian Studies Review 6: 53-68. Čapo Žmegač, J. (2004): ‘Transnationalität, Lokalität, Geschlecht: kroatische Transmigranten in München’. In Zuwanderung und Integration. Kulturwissenschaftliche Zugänge und soziale Praxis, eds. C. Köck, A. Moosmüller & K. Roth (Münster): 125-140. ______. (2005): ‘Transnationalisation and Expressions of Identity among Youth of Croatian Origin in Germany’, Narodna umjetnost 42(1): 9-24. ______. (2010a): ‘Bosansko-hrvatski migranti u Münchenu’, Hrvatski iseljenički zbornik 2011: 123-135. ______. (2010b): ‘Različiti pristupi povratnim migracijama: primjer Hrvatske’, Studia ethnologica croatica 22(1): 11-38. ______. (2010c): ‘Introduction: Co-ethnic Migrations Compared’. In: Co-ethnic Migrations Compared. Central and Eastern European Contexts, eds. J. Čapo Žmegač, C. Voss & K. Roth. Munich: 9-36. Gardner, K. (2012): ‘Transnational Migration and the Study of Children: An Introduction’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(6): 889-912. Glick Schiller, N. (2005): ‘Transnational social fields and imperialism: Bringing a theory of power to Transnational Studies’, Anthropological Theory 5(4): 439-461. ______. (2006): ‘Introduction: what can transnational studies offer the analysis of localized conflict and protest’, Focaal: European Journal of Anthropology 47: 3-17. ______. (2008): Beyond methodological ethnicity: Local and transnational pathways of immigrant incorporation. Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers 2/8 (Malmö). Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. (1992): ‘Beyond “culture”: space, identity, and the politics of difference’, Cultural Anthropology 7(1): 6-23. Hannam, K., Sheller, M. & Urry, J. (2006): ‘Editorial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings’. Mobilities 1(1): 1-22. Hugo, G. (2006): ‘An Australian Diaspora?’, International Migration 44(1): 105- 133. King, R. (2000): ‘Generalizations from the History of Return Migration’. In: Return Migration: Journey of Hope or Despair?, ed. B. Ghosh, Geneva: 7-55. King, R. & Christou, A. (2010): ‘Cultural Geographies of Counter-Diasporic Migration: Perspectives from the Study of Second-Generation ‘Returnees’ to Greece’, Population, Space and Place 16: 103-119. Ki, R., Christou, A. & Ahrens, J. (2011): ‘”Diverse Mobilities”: Second- Generation Greek-Germans Engage with the Homeland as Children and as Adults’, Mobilities 6(4): 483-501.

110

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Levitt, P. & Glick Schiller, N. (2004): ‘Conceptualizing Simultaneity: a Transnational Social Field Perspective on Society’, International Migration Review 38: 595-629. Malkki, L. (1992): ‘National Geographic: The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of National Identity among Scholars and Refugees’, Cultural Anthropology 7(1): 24-44. Markowitz, F. & Stefansson, A.F. (eds.) (2004): Homecomings: Unsettling Paths of Return (Lanham MD). Oxfeld, E. & Long, L.D. (2004): ‘Introduction: An Ethnography of Return’. In: Coming Home? Refugees, Migrants, and Those Who Stayed Behind. Long, eds. D. Long & E. Oxfeld (Philadelphia): 1-15. Povrzanović Frykman, M. (2010): ‘Materijalne prakse bivanja i pripadanja u transnacionalnim društvenim prostorima’, Studia ethnologica Croatica 22(1): 39- 60. Stefansson, A.H. (2004): ‘Homecomings to the Future: From Diasporic Mythographies to Social Projects of Return’. In: Homecomings: Unsettling Paths of Return, eds. F. Markowitz & A.H. Stefansson (Lanham MD): 2-20. Tsuda, T. (ed.) (2009): Diasporic Homecomings. Ethnic Return Migration in Comparative Perspective. (Stanford). Vathi, Z. & King, R. (2011): ‘Return Visits of the Young Albanian Second Generation in Europe: Contrasting Themes and Comparative Host-Country Perspectives’, Mobilities 6(4): 503-518. Wessendorf, S. (2007): ‘”Roots Migrants”: Transnationalism and ‘Return’ among Second-Generation Italians in Switzerland’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33(7): 1083-1102. Wilson, J., Fisher, D. & Moore, K. (2009): ‘Reverse Diaspora and the Evolution of a Cultural Tradition: The Case of the New Zealand “Overseas Experience”’, Mobilities 4(1): 159-175. Wimmer, A. & Glick Schiller, N. (2003): ‘Methodological Nationalism, the Social Sciences and the Study of Migration: An Essay in Historical Epistemology,’ International Migration Review 37(3): 576-610. Winland, D.N. (2007): We Are Now a Nation: Croats Between ‘Home’ and ‘Homeland’ (Toronto).

Sažetak

Upućujući na ograničenost čimbenika kao što su ‘teleologija domovinskog povratka’ i ‘etničnost’ pri tumačenju kretanja poslijemigracijskih generacija prema zemlji njihovih predaka, ovaj

111

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) radi želi dati mobilnosti per se mjesto unutar interpretacija migracijskih procesa. Konkretnije, bavi se preseljenjem potomaka hrvatskih imigranata u Australiju u zemlju njihovih roditelja — Hrvatsku. Rad se bazira na razmatranju životnih priča nekoliko takvih individua, sa sveučilišnim diplomama, s manje ili više iskustva u australskom i britanskom poslovnom svijetu, osoba sklonih putovanjima, koje su se nakon ponovljenih posjeta Hrvatskoj — i nakon što su je podvrgli strogoj procjeni — odlučile u nju doseliti, neovisno o svojim roditeljima koji i nadalje žive u Australiji, zemlji u koju su imigrirali prije nekoliko desetljeća. Priče i povijest mobilnosti potomaka hrvatskih imigranata u Australiju ne govore u prilog tezi da ti ljudi dolaze u Hrvatsku potaknuti ‘egzistencijalnom čežnjom’ za domom i domovinom, čežnjom za koju se pretpostavlja da gaje dijaspore u današnjem nestabilnom svijetu. One ne potvrđuju ni tezu da je etnička/nacionalna pripadnost u središtu njihove motivacije da se nastane u Hrvatskoj. Želja za putovanjem i upoznavanjem novih svjetova, posebice onih u Europi, pokazuje se kao primarni čimbenik mobilnosti ovih osoba. Njihova su putovanja između ostaloga oblikovana regionalnim obrascima mobilnosti, posebice kulturnom tradicijom tzv. ‘prekooceanskog iskustva’ ili ‘radnog odmora’ — koju prakticiraju njihovi australski i novozelandski vršnjaci uslijed povijesnih veza koje imaju s Ujedinjenim kraljevstvom. Budući da se putovanja potomaka hrvatskih useljenika u Australiju odvijaju u sjeni njihovih transnacionalnih načina bivanja i pripadanja što su generacijama održavani između Australije i Hrvatske, razumljivo je da su putujući u Europu posjetili i Hrvatsku, te da su se neki od njih tamo odlučili naseliti. No, autorica smatra kako je ta činjenica sekundarna u odnosu na glavni motiv njihove mobilnosti — putovanje.

112

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Saša Božić: “Is There a Croatian Diaspora in Europe? From ‘Gastarbeiters’ to Transmigrants and Ethnics”

Saša Božić Department of Sociology University of Zadar Zadar, Croatia [email protected]

Abstract The aim of the article is to explore the types of diasporan action and practices and to compare the findings with the existing types of activities, orientations and collective actions of the Croatian migrants and their descendants in Europe in order to determine what types of social forms are generally present and prevail among Croatians in Europe. During the war in Croatia from 1991 to 1995 the practices of Croatian migrants resembled closely the ideal-typical diaspora. However, the intensity and extent of migrants’ activities and engagement for the homeland declined in the last decade. The majority of Croatian associations in Europe are focusing presently on the preservation of Croatian identity among Croatian migrants and institutionalisation of Croatian ethnicity as well as ethnic gathering and cultural events in the form of interaction rituals. Croatians in Europe, particularly younger generations, are latent diasporans and only socially and politically important processes in the homeland can reawaken the Croatian diaspora in the new host societies.

Key words: diaspora, Croatian diaspora, Croatian migrant organisations, Croatia, Croatian migrants

113

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Introduction: diaspora vs. numbers The question in the title might seem dubious considering the number of Croatians in the European countries that is usually mentioned in articles, books and official documents. The Strategy for the relations of the Republic of Croatia with Croatians outside of the Republic of Croatia1 mentions 350,000 members of the Croatian minority in 12 European countries, 400,000 Croats in Bosnia Herzegovina and 3 million Croatian expatriates among which 2 million live overseas. Simple official calculation assumes that there are at least a million Croatian expatriates and at least 1.7 million individuals with Croatian identity in European immigration countries. Yet the question remains – can we count all Croatian migrants and their descendants, members of minorities, as members of a diaspora? Do they consider themselves to be diasporans? Do they gather around typical diasporan platforms and programmes dedicating their time, activities and resources to the homeland or do they have other priorities and act accordingly? Journalists, social scientists and politicians in Croatia apparently see all members of Croatian minorities in Europe as well as all migrants and their descendants as part of a single Croatian national entity. Such views are usually shared among the communally active who engage in ethnic networking and institutionalisation of Croatian organisations. Within such views the nation evolved into a trans-nation,2 i.e. a nation that grew beyond its own state and that now has two major sectors – homeland and diaspora. A simplified view of the nation, homeland and diaspora tends to reify identities and overlooks the complexity of self-identification of Croatian migrants and their descendants, as well as the self-identification of members of Croatian ethnic minorities in the European countries. Even if all migrants and their descendants retained a strong ethnic and national identity it is hardly possible that they all imagine a global Croatian trans-nation as an integrated community. Their activities, or the lack of activities, as well as the scope of ties on a transnational level do not confirm the existence of a Croatian trans- nation.3 Members of Croatian national minorities in the European countries, such as the Burgenland Croats in Austria,4 often perceive themselves as a linguistic minority and as ‘distant relatives’ to Croatians, while Croatia as a

1 MVPEI (2011): 1. 2 Tölölyan (2001); Laguerre (1999). 3 Božić (2005). 4 Božić (2000).

114

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) nation-state is not seen as a homeland. Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not migrants who left the homeland but a constitutive nation of Bosnia and Herzegovina who (still) might believe5 that Bosnia and Herzegovina, as their homeland, is or should be a part of the Croatian state. The public actors who proclaim a programmatic division of the Croatian nation into homeland and diaspora sectors and hypostasize a Croatian trans-nation also do not take into consideration the actual orientation and activities of migrants and their descendants. They do not verify whether migrants and members of the Croatian minority in European countries engage in typical diasporan or other types of joint action. Consequently, the mentioned Strategy of the Republic of Croatia presumes active participation of diasporans in the social and political life in Croatia6 without any reference to the actual goals and activities of the ‘targeted’ population, or their capacity to organize and (re)orientate themselves towards the homeland. The Strategy was officially ‘upgraded’ to a law in July 2011. Official presumptions about the nature of migrant action and the ambitions of Croatian expatriates lack a clear insight into the form of organisation of collective action among Croatians in European countries. The aim of this article is to explore the types of diasporan action and practices and to compare the findings of these explorations with the existing types of activities, orientations and collective actions of the Croatian migrants and their descendants in Europe in order to determine what types of social forms are generally present and prevail among Croatians in Europe. In order to fulfil this aim it is necessary to try to determine the boundaries of diaspora as a social form towards other types of social action and social organisation of migrants and their descendants and to extract clear indicators for the typical diasporan action. It will then be possible to determine whether joint action on the part of Croatian migrants and their descendants in Europe really fits the typical diasporan projects and actions or whether Croatians in Europe chose another strategy for the whole group and engage in other types of activities such as, for example, simple preservation of Croatian identity, social rituals for the fulfilment of basic social needs or political action for the recognition of ethnic minority status from the institutions of the ‘receiving society’.

5 This stance is not present within the programmes or public discourse of the Croatian political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, nevertheless it might be present among Croatian population in general. 6 MVPEI (2011): 7.

115

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Diaspora: condition, population or practice? Although the number of academic publications dealing with the diaspora phenomenon was extremely low in the mid 1980s, in the 1990s the situation changed and the number of studies on diaspora rose dramatically.7 In fact, the proliferation of publications on diaspora created a situation in which the academics could not refer to clear definitions, concepts and theories because the term ‘diaspora’ became ambiguous and oversaturated with different meanings.8 Already by the late 1990s at least three different meanings of diaspora were widely spread and included in the existing publications. Steven Vertovec established three connotations of the term: diaspora as a social form, as a type of consciousness and as a mode of cultural production.9 Diaspora as a social form refers to specific kinds of social relationships determined by special ties of history and geography, which include engagement of specific actors and collective associations that become politically active in the international political arena but also to economic strategies that result in great economic achievements of certain groups through pooling of resources, transfer of credit as well as investment of capital and provision of services among family and co-ethnic members.10 Diaspora as a type of consciousness is conceived as a specific awareness which is generated in transnational communities and described as a state of mind and a sense of identity. Individuals who are described as diasporans are aware of decentred attachments and of being simultaneously ‘home away from home’ or ‘here and there’. Fractured memories of diaspora consciousness may produce a multiplicity of histories, communities and selves.11 Finally, diaspora as a mode of cultural production is described as involving the production and reproduction of transnational social and cultural phenomena.12 It comes as no surprise that academic writers are far from reaching a consensus about the limits and boundaries of the phenomena they describe as ‘diaspora’. Within public and academic discourse in Croatia it is also possible to differentiate three notions of diaspora.13 Beside the notion of trans-nation, which is a single entity with two component parts – homeland and diaspora,

7 Brubaker (2005). 8 Riggs (2000). 9 Vertovec & Cohen (1999). 10 Vertovec & Cohen (1999): xviii. 11 Vertovec & Cohen (1999): xviii. 12 Vertovec & Cohen (1999): xix. 13 Božić (2012).

116

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) there is a widely spread notion of diaspora as a condition of an individual or a population which retains strong feelings for the real or imagined homeland which had to be left behind. The condition itself is seen as problematic because the individual or group perceive their dwelling in the new environment as ‘unnatural’. The very fact that there is a discrepancy between the physical space presently occupied and the real homeland causes the state of ‘diaspora’. To be in diaspora becomes almost a synonym for being ‘out of place’ and being in long lasting distress which can be resolved only through movement back to the homeland. Sometimes, such a state is portrayed as an opportunity for the individuals and the homeland to be presented in a favourable light to the world. Diasporans are proud ambassadors of their homeland in the global arena. Yet, the experience of many individuals who would describe themselves as diasporans is mostly not a troubled one or filled with negative emotions such as the feeling of uprootedness or debilitating nostalgia. One can feel quite well at home away from home(land) and use this position to forge new types of identities and experiment with different cultural contents. The final notion of the term ‘diaspora’ in Croatian public and academic discourse refers to diaspora as an integrated group or an entity in itself. From such a perspective diaspora is a closed community whose members are culturally, socially and politically near to each other even when they are geographically apart. The Croatian diaspora is imagined as a coherent group with a strong and thick social fibre of closely knit individuals who have the same history and the same destiny. Such an approach suffers from what Rogers Brubaker14 terms ‘methodological groupism’, i.e. a tendency to take homogeneous and delimited groups as fundamental ‘ingredients’ of social life, as the main protagonists of social conflict and as the main units of social analysis. Social groups are, within this perspective, unique and united collective actors.15 However, diasporas cannot and do not act as such entities.16 The right to represent and to act on the behalf of the whole group is always contested and it is always very difficult to mobilise socially and geographically scattered diasporans for a singular collective action. Diaspora is not an integrated group with a clear social position nor is it an unified entity with clear boundaries, capable of autonomous social and political action. This is why Rogers Brubaker tries to radically redefine diaspora as an

14 Brubaker (2002). 15 Brubaker (2002): 164. 16 Riggs (2000).

117

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) idiom, a stance or a claim – a category of practice which is used to articulate projects, formulate expectations and mobilise energies and appeal to loyalties.17 Such practice aims at changing and not describing the world. Scholars should therefore leave the notions of diaspora as entities, bounded groups, ethno-demographic or ethno-cultural facts behind and concentrate on research of diasporic stances, projects, claims, idioms, practices etc.18 Nevertheless, while some migrants and their descendants cannot be described as organised groups who have clear boundaries, representation and the ‘division of labour’ in the organisation,19 some migrants and their descendants are involved in highly structured collective action and may still fit the criteria posed by authors who believe in a ‘classical’ notion of the term and who posit more structured concepts of diaspora as a social form. Even when the majority of the migrant population of the similar or same ethno-demographic descent do not engage in diasporic stances, projects and practices there are still many migrants who feel, imagine and act according to the criteria of diaspora as a social form. Actually, it is impossible to differentiate diaspora from other types of social phenomena without clear differentiation markers.20 Orientation towards the homeland is a marker that helps to determine whether a particular practice is diasporan and whether individuals who are engaged in such practices primarily belong to the diaspora or participate in other types of collective action. The sense of membership in a diaspora as a group can also be present among a migrant population for generations.21 The level of their organisation also gives us a good indicator whether diaspora exists only as an occasional grouping around specific projects or as a durable social form. Therefore it would be premature to completely discard the existing concepts even when they sometimes ‘suffer’ from ‘methodological groupism’. Concepts and taxonomies of diaspora developed by William Safran,22 Robin Cohen23 and Fred Riggs24 emphasise important features of diaspora that can always be helpful in determining whether the population in focus can be described and researched as a diaspora. William Safran emphasises

17 Brubaker (2005): 12. 18 Brubaker (2005): 13. 19 E.g. Armenians in the US who gradually distanced themselves from diasporic projects, Tölölyan (1996). 20 Božić (2001). 21 Morawska (2011). 22 Safran (1991). 23 Cohen (1997). 24 Riggs (2000).

118

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) six elements that have to be present in a migrant population in order to describe it as a diaspora.25 The first precondition is that there has to be a dispersion of the population from their centre to two or more foreign regions. This dispersed population has to retain a collective memory of the homeland which includes its history and location even when based on myth. A further precondition is that they cannot be fully integrated in the host society, i.e. they feel estranged from the environment that they presently occupy. Consequently there has to be a widely spread idea that they, or at least their descendants, will eventually return home when the opportunities for the return are ripe. They believe that they should be dedicated as a collective to the service of their homeland, its reconstruction and/or its prosperity. Finally, the homeland is constituent of their internal relations and it enables group consciousness and solidarity. Cohen’s features are very similar to Safran but he stresses additional moments such as actual return movement among diaspora members, even when such a movement is not particularly successful.26 He also accentuates the troubled relationship with the host society which additionally re-orients the diaspora population to its internal relations and towards the homeland. Both authors basically agree on the most important characteristics of diaspora as a distinct social phenomenon. Without dispersion, usually traumatic in some way, there would not be a need for joint action and there would not be a myth of an ancestral homeland which has to be re-taken or re- inhabited. On the other hand, without the reference and orientation to homeland and the dedication to ‘the cause of the homeland’, there would not be strong internal relations and a group consciousness as well as solidarity. All the above elements are intertwined and give a picture of an integrated collectivity with a high capability for collective mobilisation and durability of internal social ties. The majority of networks, associations and populations that are currently described as diasporas do not display these features. They are too loose and their action is fleeting, while the majority of ‘diasporans’ are quite well integrated in the host society and do not pose the goals of return to themselves nor to their children. While the criteria given by Safran and Cohen might seem too rigid considering the importance and scope of homeland oriented collective action in different empirical cases, without these features it would be impossible to differentiate between diasporas and other social forms such as ethnic minorities, transnational networks and

25 Safran (1991). 26 Cohen (1997).

119

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) communities without primary reference to homeland. The solution for this conceptual and classification problem could be found in simple change of perspective. Diaspora, as described by Safran and Cohen is an ideal type and in all migrant groups it is possible to find more or less orientation towards the homeland, more or less traumatic experiences with the emigration process, and more or less integration in the host society. All migrant groups are more or less, or not at all, diasporas depending on their orientation as well as intensity and durability of particular kind of practices. This kind of perspective with a more ‘quantitative’ dimension also resolves the issues of latency, i.e. the fact that a diaspora can emerge, disappear and re-emerge after a prolonged period of time. Diasporans can be active in certain periods of time and dormant27 in others, or their practices may resemble more diasporic ones in certain periods and other types of migrant collective action in other periods of time. In order to determine whether there is a Croatian diaspora in Europe it will be necessary to at least demonstrate that the majority of Croatian migrants and their descendants still strongly believe that Croatia is their original homeland; that they have strong positive emotions regarding their origin and homeland; that there is considerable organisation of collective action with clear diasporic goals concentrated on the well-being of the homeland; that there is a troubled relationship with the host society;28 and that the diasporic practices are not fleeting and occasional but intense and durable.

Emergence of Croatian organisations and diasporic practices in Europe Typical diasporan history includes the traumatic experience of the dispersal and emigration caused usually by upheavals and political conflict in the homeland. The majority of the post-World War II Croatian refugees and political migrants left Europe by the 1950s and settled in Canada, USA, Latin American countries and Australia. Nevertheless, emigration caused by economic hardship can also be a part of traumatic diasporan experience and mass Croatian emigration since the beginning of the 1960s is the consequence of a failing economy that could not absorb hundreds of thousands of unemployed persons regardless of high economic growth in the

27 See Riggs (2000) and Shuval (2001): 46. 28 Weak integration in the host society is a good predictor that the migrants will develop diasporic orientation and practices (Safran 1991; Cohen 1997), although there are other possibilities such as insulation and withdrawal (Berry 1992).

120

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) late 1950s. The political prosecution that occurred after the breakdown of Croatian national movement in 1971 produced additional waves of emigration towards European immigration countries particularly those that already hosted significant numbers of Croatian labour migrants such as Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Sweden. The economic and political circumstances in the homeland were favourable for the creation of the typical diasporan organisations, while the numbers of Croatian migrants grew in the European immigration countries and the prospects for return were not favourable, which transformed Croatian ‘guest workers’ into permanent immigrants. Yet typical diasporan organisations and activities, including radical political action, were limited mainly to small groups of the post- WWII political migrants, while greater diasporic platforms could not attract typical Croatian labour migrants. It seems that the emergence and activities of diasporan social organisation among Croatian migrants was highly correlated with the political situation in the homeland. The number of exclusively Croatian (i.e. non-Yugoslav) migrant associations and groupings rose at the beginning of the 1970s and 1990s when the national movement and national emancipation in Croatia were widely spread and seemed to have prospects for success. Although micro-diasporic organisation, such as home-town associations, was present among Croatian migrants, they were usually active in the Yugoslav clubs or not active at all. The only typical diasporic setting emerged within the Croatian Catholic churches and parishes across Europe but they also lacked a clear political mission towards the homeland. There are indications that point to the fact that Croatian diasporic action and organisations would have emerged in the European immigration countries had they had the same conditions for the free social and political organisation as the Croatian migrants overseas. They tried to organise freely and on an exclusively ethnic basis already by the 1970s but the intervention of the authorities in the immigration countries, subtly (or in many cases less subtly) undermined free diasporic organisation and action.29 The majority of active Croatian migrants experienced intimidation by the Yugoslav embassies and institutions in the European countries and many members of Croatian associations were exposed to open prosecution when they visited 30 their hometowns. Tito’s regime had a lot of support within social- democratic governments across Europe and it seems that they not only

29 Even Croatian students’ and poets’ associations were pressured and closed (Božić, 2000). 30 Francesco Ragazzi (2009): 152 calls this practice long ʻdistance policing’.

121

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) allowed Yugoslav institutions to take over the organisation of all migrants from the former Yugoslavia but also enabled the Yugoslav secret service to operate in their countries without much opposition. Although the majority of migrants probably strongly believed that Croatia was their original homeland and experienced strong positive emotions towards their homeland there was no considerable organisation of collective action with clear diasporic goals concentrated on the well-being of the homeland. Furthermore, the relationship with the host society was largely undefined because the majority of migrants were considered to be guest workers31 and their status was not clarified until the 1980s. The diasporic practices among Croatian migrants were therefore fleeting and occasional and not intense and durable. This, however, changed by the beginning of the 1990s. Croatian clubs, soccer teams, cultural associations and even political parties emerged in all European immigration countries. The interviews with the engaged Croatian migrants as part of the research that was conducted several years ago confirmed that 1990 was the year of proliferation of Croatian organisations across Europe.32 The social and political processes in the homeland were a strong trigger for the networking and political engagement of Croatian migrants at that time. The goals were clearly focused on differentiation from other ethnic groups from the former Yugoslavia, expansion of Croatian identity and culture, but more importantly, on political help to the homeland.33 The war in Croatia enabled wide mobilisation of Croatian migrants and their descendants across Europe. During the 1991-1995 war in Croatia the practices of Croatian migrants closely resembled the ideal-typical diaspora. The expansion of Croatian migrants’ organisations with clear diasporic goals overlapped with the widely spread idea that they or at least their descendants will eventually return home when the opportunities for the return are ripe. The majority believed that they should be dedicated as a collective to the service of their homeland, its recognition, reconstruction and its prosperity. The homeland was constituent of their internal relations and it enabled group consciousness and solidarity. The flow of diasporic platforms

31 Many migrants engaged and still engage in weekly and monthly visits to their homes and hometowns in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. They actually behaved as guest workers and transmigrants regularly circulating between two places as described in migration literature (Basch et al. 1994). 32 Thrity expert interviews were held with the leaders of Croatian associations in Germany, Switzerland and Sweden as a part of the research Croatian migrant communities: multiculturalism and belonging funded by the Croatian Ministry of Science. The leaders answered 70 questions about the foundation, structure, goals and plans of their associations. 33 Božić & Kuti (2012): 86-7.

122

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) and practices was, however, soon replaced by the ebb of wide-spread activities on the behalf of the homeland. In the early 1990s the Croatian state and its territorial sovereignty was recognised. Moreover, it was politically stable and political consensus was achieved on the main strategic goals, such as accession to the European Union. The need for a wide mobilisation of Croatian migrants within a diasporic platform weakened. This is why the question in the title is valid and ever more relevant.

Croatian organisations in Europe today – diaspora or ethnic minority? The intensity and extent of migrants’ activities and engagement for the homeland declined dramatically in the last decade. Beside the affirmation of the Croatian state, there are other factors that influenced the decline of the diasporic platforms and practices among Croatian migrants. Cheap travel and communication technology enabled many migrants to develop strong ties and build transnational social spaces34 on a micro-level with friends and family in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina pluri-locally. Consequently, this weakened the social ties in the places of dwelling. The need to build networks and ties on the local level is no longer a necessity anymore, not only for the migrants, but also for the majority populations of the immigration countries.35 Engagement in the typical migrant association is time consuming and demands a lot of sacrifice while occasional gatherings, ethnic cafes and migrant sporting events offer fast consumption of ethnic cultural contents and emotionally fulfilling ethnic socialising without costs. The vast majority of Croatian migrants are well integrated in the host societies and their descendants experience at least some social upward mobility. Croatian migrants and their descendants in Europe do not have a troubled relationship with the host society but rather are an integral part of it. The social and political forces in emigrant and immigrant countries that (could) curb diasporic activities are increasingly weaker. In such circumstances, Croatian migrant organisations are preoccupied with issues different from the agenda of the 1990s. One of the main goals today is to ensure the sustenance of the clubs and associations and the leaders are preoccupied with bringing the new members of the second and third generation to participate in the work and gatherings of the associations.36 This proves to be a very difficult task

34 See Faist (2000); Pries (2001). 35 Urry (2007). 36 Božić & Kuti (2012): 93.

123

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) because the young descendants of Croatian migrants have to establish their careers, form their own families, which does not leave much space and time for communal and diasporic activities. The main task of the Croatian migrant associations is therefore to enable the continuation of their work or simply to ‘survive’. The focus on the homeland in such circumstances becomes less important. Today, Croatian networks and associations have to offer different leisure activities and contents in order to attract new members. Intensive work on behalf of the homeland, which is now an established state entering the European Union, is not an appropriate motivator any longer for the second and third generation. Their engagement is therefore only occasional and fleeting. The majority of Croatian associations in Europe are focusing presently on the pure preservation of Croatian identity among Croatian migrants and its institutionalisation through school curricula. An important part of these activities is reserved for the recognition of the special status for the Croatian language and Croatian ethnic group, i.e. some form of ethnic minority status in the immigration societies on the local and regional levels. These activities are a strong indicator that the active Croatian migrants fight primarily for the ‘survival’ of Croatian identity and the sense of ‘groupness’ among Croatians in the European immigration countries. Furthermore, the organisation that would surpass local and regional levels is almost non-existent. Croatian associations in Europe are not inter-connected nationally and transnationally and joint action is the exception rather than the rule.37 Although the cooperation with Croatian embassies and consulates is relatively well developed, co-operation with the institutions in the homeland is limited to only a few foundations established to develop relations between Croatian migrants and their descendants with the homeland. It seems that the engaged migrants, almost exclusively members of the first generation, are having great difficulties in securing the continuation of their associations and projects but also feel that Croatian identity in the host society might be lost in the not so distant future. Members of the second and, especially, the third generation develop ‘symbolic ethnic identity’, as well as hybrid identities38 which cannot be a strong basis for the typical diasporan engagement and organisation. Symbolic ethnicity is a form of ethnic identity, yet it does not require functioning ethnic groups and networks because the feelings of identity can be developed by allegiances to symbolic groups that

37 Božić & Kuti (2012): 89-90. 38 Gans (1979).

124

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) never meet or meet only occasionally. The culture itself does not have to be practiced but some circulating symbols are necessary for the preservation of identity and the idea of ‘groupness’. Immigration societies where Croatian migrants in Europe reside are not civic nations but have a strong ethnic component which makes assimilation and upward social mobility very difficult. Symbolic ethnicity in such circumstances is not restricted to the third generation but might persevere for a longer period of time. Interestingly, Croatian migrant associations are already adapting to the new situation even if the leaders are not aware of Herbert Gans’ account that most ethnic organisations will eventually realise that in order to survive they will deal mainly with symbols.39 Leaders of Croatian migrant associations are not satisfied with the engagement of the new generations but they manage to preserve a platform for gathering and cultural events that are constituents of interaction rituals,40 which are vital in producing collective symbols and ethnic solidarity. Sporting activities, music, dance, picnics etc., are not just ‘leisure activities’ but important rituals that produce collective effervescence and strong positive emotions that are connected with symbols of the whole group.41 These symbols can be re-evoked when needed and their circulation will ensure that the idea of the Croatian ethnic group is still alive among Croatian migrants in Europe. Although joint action of any kind and particularly joint action for the homeland are scarce and occasional, new forms of social relations and new social and cultural phenomena are emerging among Croatian migrants in Europe. They do not fit the criteria for diaspora as a social form but the present activities and the struggle to preserve Croatian ethnic identity, along with strong micro-ties of Croatian migrants and their descendants with the people in the homeland, and the emergence of symbolic ethnicity within younger generations show that Croatian migrants can be mobilised if needed. Croatians in Europe are latent or dormant diasporans42 and greater upheavals in the homeland can revive the Croatian diaspora in the new host societies.

Conclusion The aim of this article was to explore the types of diasporan action and practices and to compare the findings with the existing types of activities,

39 Gans (1979). 40 Collins (2004). 41 Božić & Kuti (2012): 87. 42 Riggs (2000).

125

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) orientations and collective actions of the Croatian migrants and their descendants in Europe in order to determine what types of social forms are generally present and prevail among Croatians in Europe. The boundaries of diaspora as a social form towards other types of social action and social organisation of migrants are determined by several markers but the most important one is durable social organisation based on orientation towards and engagement for the homeland. All migrant groups can be diasporas depending on their orientation as well as intensity and durability of particular kind of practices. Diaspora as a specific social form can emerge, disappear and re-emerge after a prolonged period of time. Croatian clubs, soccer teams, cultural associations and even political parties emerged in all European immigration countries in the last several decades. At the beginning of the 1990s there was an expansion of Croatian organisations across Europe. The social and political processes in the homeland were a strong trigger for the networking and political engagement of the Croatian migrants at that time. The goals were clearly focused on differentiation from other ethnic groups from former Yugoslavia, expansion of Croatian identity and culture but more importantly on political help to the homeland. The war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina enabled wide mobilisation of Croatian migrants and their descendants across Europe. During the war in Croatia 1991-1995 the practices of Croatian migrants resembled closely the ideal-typical diaspora. However, the intensity and extent of migrants’ activities and engagement for the homeland declined in the last decade. The majority of Croatian associations in Europe are focusing presently on the preservation of Croatian identity among Croatian migrants and institutionalisation of Croatian ethnicity through school curricula as well as for the recognition of the special status for the Croatian language and Croatian ethnic group on the local and regional levels. Croatian associations in Europe are not inter-connected nationally and transnationally and joint action is the exception rather than the rule. Nevertheless, ethnic gathering and cultural events organised by Croatian associations are constituents of interaction rituals that produce collective symbols and ethnic solidarity. These rituals produce collective effervescence, strong positive emotions that are connected with symbols of the whole group. They can be re-evoked when needed and their circulation will ensure that the idea of the Croatian ethnic group is still alive among Croatian migrants in Europe. Croatians in Europe, particularly younger generations, are latent diasporans and socially

126

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) and politically important processes in the homeland can reawaken Croatian diaspora in the new host societies.

Bibliography: Basch, L., Glick Schiller, N. & Szanton Blanc, C. (1994): Nations Unbound, Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation States (London & New York). Berry, J.W. (1992): ‘Acculturation and Adaptation in a New Society’, International Migration 30(1): 69-85. Božić, S. (2000): Kroaten in Wien. Immigranten und Integration im Zusammenhang mehrschichtiger ethnischer Beziehungen (Zagreb). ______. (2001): ‘Uloga dijaspore u procesu transnacionalizacije’, Revija za sociologiju 32(3-4): 117-131. ______. (2005): ‘From Diaspora to Transnation and Back: Croatian migrant institutions and the (re)making of Croatia’. In: Beyond the Territory within the Nation. Diasporic Nation Building in South Eastern Europe, ed. H. Riegler (Baden- Baden): 33-57. ______. (2012): ‘Društveni oblici dijaspore’. In: Institucionalizacija hrvatske dijaspore. Oblici migrantskog udruživanja – primjeri iz Europe, Južne Amerike i Australije, ed. S. Božić (Zagreb): 9-25. Božić, S. & Kuti, S. (2012): ‘Hrvatske migrantske organizacije u Europi’. In: Institucionalizacija hrvatske dijaspore. Oblici migrantskog udruživanja – primjeri iz Europe, Južne Amerike i Australije, ed. S. Božić (Zagreb): 79-96 Brubaker, R. (2002): ‘Ethnicity Without Groups’, Archives Européennes de Sociologie 43(2): 163-189. ______. (2005): ‘The “diaspora” diaspora’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 1- 19. Cohen, R. (1997): Global Diasporas. An Introduction (Seattle). Collins, R. (2004): Interaction Ritual Chains (Princeton). Faist, T. (2000): ‘Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of Citizenship and Culture’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 23(2): 189-222. Gans, H.J. (1979): ‘Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(1): 9-17. Laguerre, M. (1999): ‘State, Diaspora and Transnational Politics: Haiti Reconceptualised’, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 28(3): 633-651. Morawska, E. (2011): ‘”Diaspora” diasporas’ representations of their homelands: exploring the polymorphs’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 34(6): 1029-1048.

127

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

MVPEI (Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs) (2011): Strategija o odnosima Republike Hrvatske s Hrvatima izvan Republike Hrvatske (Zagreb) Pries, L. (ed.) (2001): New Transnational Social Spaces. International Migration and Transnational Companies in the Early Twenty-first Century (London) Ragazzi, F. (2009): ‘The Croatian “Diaspora Politics” of the 1990s: Nationalism Unbound?’. In: Transnational Societies, Transterrtorial Politics. Migrations in the (Post-)Yugoslav Region 19th-21st Century, ed. U. Brunnbauer (Munich): 145-167. Riggs, F. (2000): ‘Diasporas: Some Conceptual Considerations’ http://www2.hawaii.edu/~fredr/diacon.htm#dimensions, last access 5/04/2013. Safran, W. (1991): ‘Diasporas in Modern Socities. Myths of Homeland and Return’, Diaspora 1(1): 83-99. Shuval, J. (2001): ‘Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical Paradigm’, International Migration 38(5): 41-55. Tölölyan, K. (1996): ‘Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment’, Diaspora 5(1): 3-36. ______. (2001): ‘Elites and Institutions in the Armenian Transnation’, Diaspora 9(1): 107-135. Urry, J. (2007): Mobilities (Cambridge). Vertovec, S. & Cohen, R. (1999): ‘Introduction’. In: Migration, Diasporas and Transnationalism, eds. S. Vertovec & R. Cohen (Cheltanham): xiii-xxviii.

Sažetak Cilj članka je prikazati opće tipove dijasporske akcije i praksi te ih usporediti s postojećim tipovima aktivnosti, orijentacija i kolektivne akcije hrvatskih migranata i njihovih potomaka u Europi kako bi se utvrdilo koji postojeći tipovi aktivnosti, orijentacije i kolektivne akcije hrvatskih migranata i njihovih potomaka dominiraju među Hrvatima u Europi te jesu li u skladu s tipičnim dijasporskim akcijama. Granice dijaspore kao društvenog oblika se određuju pomoću nekoliko indikatora među kojima je najvažniji trajna društvena organizacija temeljena na orijentaciji prema i angažmanu za domovinu. Sve migrantske grupe mogu biti dijaspore ovisno o njihovoj orijentaciji kao i proširenosti i trajnosti specifičnih vrsta praksi u različitim periodima. Dijaspora kao poseban društveni oblik može nastati, nestati i ponovo se pojaviti nakon dužeg vremena. Hrvatske udruge, nogometni klubovi, kulturna društva, pa čak i političke stranke nastale su u svim europskim imigracijskim zemljama u posljednjih nekoliko desetljeća. Na početku 1990-ih godina došlo je do ekspanzije hrvatskih organizacija diljem Europe. Društveni i politički procesi u domovini

128

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) bili su snažan poticaj za umrežavanje i politički angažman hrvatskih migranta u to vrijeme. Ciljevi su bili jasno usmjereni na diferenciranje od drugih etničkih grupa iz bivše Jugoslavije, širenje hrvatskog identiteta i kulture te posebice na političku i materijalnu pomoć domovini. Rat u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini omogućio je široku mobilizaciju hrvatskih migranata i njihovih potomaka širom Europe. Tijekom rata u Hrvatskoj 1991.-1995. prakse hrvatskih migranata su se preklapale s praksama tipičnim za dijaspore. Međutim, intenzitet i proširenost migrantskih aktivnosti i angažmana za domovinu su opali u posljednjem desetljeću. Većina hrvatskih udruga u Europi trenutno se fokusira na očuvanje hrvatskog identiteta među hrvatskim migrantima i institucionalizaciju hrvatskog etniciteta kroz školske programe kao i priznanje hrvatskog jezika i hrvatske etničke grupe na lokalnim i regionalnim razinama. Hrvatske udruge u Europi nisu povezane ni transnacionalno niti na nacionalnoj razini, a zajednička akcija je prije iznimka nego pravilo. Usprkos tome, etnička okupljanja i kulturni događaji koje organiziraju hrvatske udruge su temelji za interakcijske rituale koji produciraju kolektivne simbole i etničku solidarnost. Ti rituali proizvode kolektivno vrenje, snažne pozitivne emocije koje se povezuju sa simbolima cijele grupe. Oni se mogu prizvati kada su potrebni, a njihovo kruženje osigurava opstanak ideje hrvatske etničke grupe među hrvatskih migrantima u Europi. Hrvatski migranti u Europi, posebice pripadnici novih generacija su latentni pripadnici dijaspore, a društveno i politički važni procesi u domovini uvijek mogu probuditi hrvatsku dijasporu kao poseban društvenih oblik u novim društvima primitka.

129

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Rebeka Mesarić Žabčić: “The importance of the Croatian Diaspora for the development of the Republic of Croatia: Examples from Australia and the USA”

Rebeka Mesarić Žabčić Institute for Migrations and Ethnic Studies Zagreb, Croatia [email protected]

Abstract This paper discusses attitudes, experiences and investment opportunities for Croatian emigrants and their descendants in the United States and Australia in Croatia, both at local and regional levels, aimed at prosperity and the general development of the country. The ʻpush’ and ʻpull’ factors contributing to the emigration of Croats to these two locations will not be discussed. A few prominent examples of successful Croatian people living in these two geographically distinct locations, will be used to express their opinions and views about the existing and future collaboration between the transatlalantic Diaspora and Croatia. The entire study is based on the available literature, interviews with representatives of the Catholic Church, Croatian immigrants and their descendants, which took place in 2009 during my field work in Australia and the United States. It is also based on current research, analysis of news articles, information obtained from the General Consulates of the Republic of Croatia in Sydney and New York, and data collected through the Internet.

Key words: Australia, Croats overseas, Diaspora, development, migration, USA

130

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Introduction Migration is nothing new. The need to escape conflict and persecution or a desire to seek new and better opportunities elsewhere has always led people to migrate. Throughout human history, migration has been a courageous expression of the individual’s will to overcome adversity and to live a better life, often forced by circumstances. Each year, millions of women and men leave their homes and cross national borders in search of greater security and many other things for themselves and their families. Since 1945, however, migration has become increasingly global in character, involving all regions of the world. Technological advancements have made it easier to move between countries and many states have seen an increase in the percentage of their population that is foreign-born. As societies are becoming increasingly diverse, with a rising number of people holding loyalty to more than one state, and as states strive to retain control over migratory flows across their borders, issues of migration and their impact on nation state sovereignty gain political salience. This background serves as a starting point for Castles and Miller’s eminent introduction to the topic of international migration and its effects on societies.1 A large number of migrants are motivated by the quest for higher wages and better opportunities, responding to the demand for their skills abroad, but many are forced to move because of a lack of decent work, famine, natural disaster, and violent conflict or persecution. The Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) describes the driving forces in international migration in terms of 3Ds: Development, Demography, and Democracy.2 Labour migration has increasingly become a livelihood strategy for women and men because of the lack of opportunities for full empolyment and decent work in many developing countries. Most of the world’s migrants are migrant workers - those who migrate for employment with or without their famillies. There is an increasing recognition of the links between migration and development, partly triggered by the significant rise in migrant remittances. A number of global initiatives by the ILO and other institutions have contributed to exploring these links. The ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration has recognized this association in its Principle 15:

“The contribution of labour migration to employment,

1 Castle & Miller (2009). 2 Global Comission on International Migration (2005): 3.

131

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

economic growth, development and the alleviation of poverty should be recognized and maximized for the benefit of both origin and destination countries.”3

The United Nations High Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development held on 14th-15th of September 2006 in New York and the Global Forum on Migration and Development held on 10th-11th of July 2007 in Brussels can be considered milestones in promoting the issue at the global level. There is a broad international consensus that migration issues need to be integrated and mainstreamed into national employment, labour market and development policies. Diaspora and labour migration have the potential to serve as an engine of growth and development for all parties involved - host and source countries, and the migrant workers themselves. In destination countries, it has rejuvenated workforces, rendered economically viable many traditional sectors like agriculture and services, promoted entrepreneurship, supported social security and welfare schemes, and met the demand for skills by emerging high technology industries. In the development regions where most migrants come from, positive contributions of migration are reflected in high remittance flows, and transfer of investments, technology and critical skills throught return migration and transnational communities (diasporas).4 The Croatian Diaspora throughout the world is significant, not only economically and financially, but also as a human resource. Through an outline of basic indications, trends and forecasts, Šterc5 confronts the scientific, professional, political, social and general public with the large demographic problems Croatia is facing, problems which act as a limiting factors of its economic, regional and social development. As possible solutions, he suggests a possible revitalization of the domicile population through immigration or combined variant. He emphasizes the impossibility of renewal without serious, responsible and targeted population policies. Šterc also provides estimates of demographic revitalization potential, which despite the negative demographic situation in Croatia, is still there, and stresses the importance of the demographic problem for the development and survival of contemporary Croatia. All analyses have confirmed the distinct negativity of all parameters and the inability to stop the negative processes without serious intervention by the state, through stimulating

3 International Labour Office (2006): 29. 4 International Labour Office (2006). 5 Šterc (2012).

132

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) population policy and the inclusion of the Croatian diaspora in the economic, political and revitalization processes in the country. The most important result of the consideration of the issues is the realization that, despite years of negative trends of demographic processes, Croatia still has demographic potential, especially in the Diaspora, and should be encouraging a population policy to stop demographic extinction through rapid aging of the population, as well as initiating the revitalization of its population in the interests of economic development and its own future. There is an awareness of the historical responsibility for the existence of the Croatian state, and active engagement in the internal and external processes that led Croatia closer to Europe before formally entering the EU. The Croatian diaspora is concerned with the fact that there is no adequate agreement on the core economic issues which is the primary responsibility of the government and political parties. The aim of this paper is to answer the following questions: how much is the Croatian Diaspora ready to invest in the home country, and whether these investment opportunities might enable progress, development and prosperity, taking into account today’s world crisis and globalization. During my field work in the year 2009 in Australia (New South Wales) and the United States (the city of New York), two major questions are discussed. One of them reads: in what way is it possible to enable interested Croats and their descendants to invest long term in the home country, and ensure that these investments are used by the Republic of Croatia? The second important question is the following: can the Croatian diaspora be considered a significant driver of the Croatian economy and development? Global economic, social, political and demographic trends clearly indicate that international labour migration is likely to increase in the future and thus, the challenge is how to ʻmanage’ migration in such a way that its positive effects are maximized, making it a win-win situation for all concerned Croats outside of Croatia. For this reason, we encourage the Croatian Diaspora to invest their money, knowledge and experience in the Republic of Croatia.

A note about methodology The methodology is based on one-to-one interviews with older and younger generations of Croatian immigrants in the State of New South Wales, Australia (February 2009) and in New York in the United States (April 2009). The entire study consisted of the following phases:

133

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

 1st phase - Preparation of interviews for field work in Australia and USA  2nd phase - Field research: interviews with younger and older generations of Croatian immigrants, February 2009 Australia, April 2009 USA  3rd phase - Analysis of results.

The methods used in the research were: analysis of the existing Croatian and Anglo-Saxon literature, statistical records, Internet, interviews and discussions. In addition, the works of other scientific fields and disciplines have been consulted, such as history, sociology, political science, psychology, and anthropology, since the issue of the article has imposed the need for an interdisciplinary approach.

ʻPull’ and ʻPush’ factors Migrants tend to migrate to countries in which they can meet their goals and desires, and where the social organization is preferably similar to the one they come from. In regard to immigration, significantly different social systems can be expected and the migrants can live in a parallel and compartmentalized world, form a migrant organization to bridge cultural gaps or become fully integrated into a new social system.6 The position of the Croatian Diaspora in the host society is well depicted by the often heard variation of the nostalgic theme ʻthe heart belongs to the homeland and the head is committed to the new state’. The migration process is very complex, from its beginning to its end. Since it is affected by a large number of factors, it can be said that the migration process is multi-causal. It is difficult to clearly separate the complicated mix of objective and subjective factors that cause the decision to migrate. Ravenstein’s gravity model was the first attempt at a clearer definition of the behavior of migrants and migration flow transfer. This is analogous to physical gravitational fields i.e. push factors pushing migrants, and attracting a pull. Everett S. Lee tied push factors to the country or place of emigration, such as wars, insecurity, poverty, unemployment, etc., and pull factors to the immigration country or place, such as stability, good economic conditions, migration policy, etc. The migration system, i.e. the role of the state, determines the size, direction, composition, and duration of the migration flow. Of less importance are personal decisions, and several structural features, which are linked to migration trends. Lee’s model states:

6 Pokos (2004).

134

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

“... we can never specify the exact set of factors that cause or inhibit the migration for a given person, but we can generally predict several factors that seem especially important and determine the general or average response of significant groups.”7

Lee has upgraded the basic model of attracting and forcing the introduction of intervening barriers (state migration policy, tradition, etc.). Furthermore, Lee suggests that we view migration within the framework of the factors associated both with the area of origin and destination area, as well as intervening difficulties and personal factors that influence the decisions of individual migrants.8 In fact, the typical push and pull factors are the following: economic reasons (reduced demand for a particular type of work reducing the total resources, reduced employment, modernization of production), political (political discrimination in regard to religious and ethnic minorities), cultural (alienation from community, family breakdown) and environmental (natural disasters or catastrophes created by man). On the other hand, attractive factors are the following: better economic opportunities, better wages, better working conditions, specialization, finding work in the profession, and a good environment for living. With regard to emigration from Croatia, it can be said that it is a historical process that began in the second half of the 19th century and continued into the 20th and 21st century. In this context four major waves of emigration from Croatia can be discerned:

 Overseas emigration from 1880 until World War I connected to political and economical factors.  Immediately after World War II emigration was caused by insufficient development, agrarian overpopulation and poverty of the country, but also by the political and geographical situation in the former Yugoslavia9  Emigration in the 1960s was possible due to the liberalization of government policy (in 1963 emigration took the form of so called temporary work abroad. In Western countries, this emigration wave was economic in nature, caused by the poor state of the labor market in Croatia and demand for labor in the labor market in Western countries)  In the 1990s emigration due to the aggression against Croatia and the

7 Lee (1966): 50. 8 Lee (1966). 9 Josipovič (2006).

135

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) forced migration of a number of Croats from the territory of most of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.10 Regarding the migration linked to the Croatian area, it can be said that in the past hundred or more years, people from all parts of Croatia have been moving, mostly from Dalmatia, the islands, the Dalmatian hinterland,as well as from the mountainous and lowland parts of Croatia.

Migration was selective in terms of gender and age. In the beginning, young males of working age and the most capable people in a vital and reproductive sense, originating mainly from villages, were increasingly moving and represented the main source of labor for employment abroad. Later, women, children and entire families would join them.11 As to the question of what definitely affects the decision of each individual to leave the home country, it is rather difficult to give a precise answer. The same is valid for the causes of emigration in the crucial moment of departure. In most theories of migration, factors that cause migration may be classified into two main groups. These are attractive ʻpull’ and ʻpush’ factors. The area of interconnectedness of the ʻpush’ and ‘pull’ factors is often the place where migration takes place. ‘Push' factors are economic and social, i.e. they may be of a socio-economic nature (the great economic crisis, the impossibility of family nutrition, wine crisis, the crisis of shipping, surplus labor in agriculture, the inability of the city and surrounding area to employ the surplus rural population, general underdevelopment, a lack of jobs in the area of residence, inadequate local and social conditions, etc.), but also of a political nature (unacceptable political situation in the home country, the Communist Party and the effect of Communist rule in the former Yugoslavia, two world wars, the political crisis of late communism and the Homeland War 1991-1995).12 In this context, Pokos13 distinguishes the following reasons for the emigration of Croatian citizens in the period from 1991 to 2000: a. Economic reasons: migration triggered by loss of employment in Croatia, the crisis of late capitalism, finding the first or most suitable work abroad, etc. b. Political reasons: motivated by the rejection of the newly formed Croatian

10 Akrap (2003); Čizmić & Živić (2005) ; Mesarić Žabčić (2007a); (2007b). 11 See more in Nejašmić (1991a); (1991b); Mesić (2002). 12 See more in Kosovich (2001); Čolić-Peisker (2004/05); (2009); Mesarić Žabčić (2012). 13 Pokos (2001)

136

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) state, and partly by Serbian dominance in the former so-called Military Frontier. c. Psychological reasons: critical for the migration of persons who faced the fear of personal or family security due to the threat of war and were not given refugee status. In this group there were mostly inhabitants of the villages. Furthermore, at the peak of the Serbian aggression (during 1991- 1992) people moved from relatively safer areas. In some cases, the migration was caused equally by two or even three reasons.14

Band on their empirical research, Gelo, Akrap and Čipin15 argue that Croatian immigrants and most of the migrants in the world exhibit the following characteristics:

 On average they are younger than the population from which they originated - many studies have shown that the number of dominant groups includes ages from 20-40 years.  On average they are more educated than the population from which they originated. It is logical that the majority of Croatian expatriate labor emigration was better educated since they went to work in the countries with more developed economies i.e. they had to develop their skills and educate themselves if they wanted to work and live better than at home).  On average they represent the fittest segment of the host population in terms of vitality and work capability.

According to the relevant literature, it is estimated that at the beginning of the 21st century, there were about two million Croats on these two countries, which means that Croats and their descendants constitute significant ethnic communities in Australia and the United States.16

Basic information about the procedure for investment and desirable geographical destinations for investment in Croatia The Croatian Diaspora seeks ways of investing capital in Croatia. The Investment Promotion Act regulates the promotion of investment of domestic and foreign legal entities or persons who perform economic activities and participate in the trade of goods and services in order to stimulate economic growth, development and implementation of Croatian

14 Pokos (2001). 15 Gelo et al. (2005). 16 Akrap (2004); Čuka (2009); Mesarić Žabčić (2007a); (2008); (2010); Škvorc (2005); Šutalo (2004); Tkalčević (1999); Čizmić et al. (2005).

137

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) economic policy, its involvement in international trade flows and the strengthening of competitiveness of the Croatian economy. Encouraging investment in terms of this Act is a system of incentive measures for investment in economic activities in Croatia and creating new jobs associated with these investments. Incentives are classified into three groups:

 The first group of incentives involves lease, right to build, sell, or use of property or other infrastructure facilities owned by the Government, local government and administration under commercial conditions.  The second group of measures are applicable to help create new jobs. To create new jobs and retraining of employees, grants may be given to cover the cost of employment in the one-time amount of 15,000 HRK (Croatian kunas, roughly US$ 2,500-2,600) per employee. Financial incentives can only be used for new employment, provided that during the period of three years the number of employees is not reduced.  The third group refers to incentive measures that would help in vocational training or retraining. If an investor invests in vocational training or retraining of employees, he may be approved the fees that would cover costs up to 50%.17

When asked about the most desirable geographic destinations in Croatia for Investment and Development of immigrants, the interviewees from Australia and USA highlighted the following geographical locations: Lika, Gorski Kotar, County of Zagreb, Dalmatia, Croatian Islands, Međimurje, Zagorje and Istria. It is supposed that these are areas of special attractiveness for tourists but also for the local population living in these areas. The following question was which sector they would invest their money in. The majority opted for the tertiary sector activities such as restaurants, golf courses and hotels. Construction activity and agricultural sector activities aroused less interest. It may be concluded that the majority of the Croatian Diaspora from the USA and Australia is interested in investment projects in the sectors of environmental management and ecology, the construction of tourist capacities, including marinas, golf resorts and residential villages for the elderly population.18

17 Croatian parliament (2012). 18 Kero (2013); HINA/t.portal.hr (2011); Z.S. (2013); Bartulović (2010); Anonym. (2012).

138

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Problems associated with investments in Croatia There are many technical issues concerning the nature of the investments of Croatian immigrants in the Republic of Croatia. Here I will list the main observations of Croatian immigrants. The last immigrant investment capital arrived to Croatia in 2004, when a U.S. group of enthusiasts in ‘Group 100’ in Cleveland organized a meeting to discuss more efficient investment of the Croatian diaspora. Afterwards, more than 400 Croats who live outside of Croatia formed a foundation and expressed their willingness to invest US$ 1.5 billion in specific projects in Croatia. Their main concerns were the business climate in Croatia, corruption, bureaucratic obstacles, taxes on labor, labor law and disordered land Registry. “Croats from the Diaspora are ready to invest in Croatia, and the question is whether Croatia will be ready for them,” said Frank Bilaver then of Cleveland, one of the initiators of the first world conference. In fact, Marin and Frank Bilaver Jurčev from Canada and Jure Francetic from Argentina carried out a survey in 2003 among leading business people of Croatian origin in the United States, Canada, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Germany, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Bilaver Jurcev and Francetic found that those Croats owned US$ 30 billion of capital (which is more than the Croatian GDP) and employed about 378,000 workers.19 Among them were multimillionaires like George Sole, whose computer company in California employs 45,000 workers, as well as Steve and Anthony Bubalo Maglica, also from the United States, and Andronico Luksic of Chile.

Just a few more important words about Stephen Steve Bubalo Three years after he migrated to the United States, Stephen Steve Bubalo, a native of Ljubuški, Bosnia and Herzegovina, founded a construction company in California in 1958. The Company soon became one of the leading construction companies in California. Bubalo began with investments in Croatia in 1993 when he became a shareholder of the Dalmatian Bank and the owner of three construction companies Bumes Split, Crocal and Geoprojekt. Bubalo allocated US$ 8,000,000 to invest in the construction company Lacus, bottling water from Vrlika, at the source of the river Cetina. One of Bubalo’s investments was the purchase of agricultural goods Vrana near Biograd.

19 Personal communication.

139

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Slavko Bošnjak He was born in Sydney, after his parents had left the poor Dalmatian hinterland, from Hrvace near Sinj. His father Šimun went to Australia in 1938, and his mother Đula joined him ten years later. In 1955 in Sydney he purchased five buses and headed for the carrier business:

“... We established the family company Bosnjak Bus Service, which later changed its name to Westbus. When I was 18 years old, my father told me to quit school and start work … I have been in this business for 40 years now.”

In these 40 years, Bosnjak Bus Service has created an international empire with 1,400 buses and 2,700 employees in Australia, Asia and Europe. In London, his company engaged in tourist transport with 38 buses. In Australia he has maintained urban transport in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. For twenty years, Bošnjak was the largest Australian company in the city’s transportation. In Malaysia, the factory has 200 employees with which it annually produces 200 city buses for the Australian market. Bošnjak sold the family business in 1999. He first came to Croatia in 1968 as a boy at the age of nineteen years in order to stay for a three-month vacation. He says: “... I fell in love with Dalmatia and decided to invest money in Croatia ...” As regards issues related to investments in Croatia, Slavko Bosnjak said: “If I thought of returning to Croatia at earlier times ... instead of building the 5-star hotel “Lav” in Split ... I would have invested in a shipping company in Sinj ...”20 At the same time he urged the government of the Republic of Croatia to help him motivate the 250,000 Croatian immigrants in Australia to come and invest their money and open up new jobs in Croatia. Although the Croatian emigrants living in the two different geographical locations (Australia and the United States) ‘have two parts in their hearts’, it is especially important that they want to invest their money earned in the new land in the country of origin, in our case, in the Republic of Croatia.

Possible sugestions and messages We define the Croatian Diaspora as a key factor or ‘development agents’ with the potential to mobilize human, economic, social and cultural capital (which was accumulated in the countries they migrated to) in the country of

20 Rogošić (2006)

140

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) their origin and destination, through projects, programs and policies. A ʻgood practice’ in the Diaspora and development initiative is, therefore, any kind of action that proves to be successful in: a. Promoting and enhancing the mobilization of the Diaspora regarding economic, human, social and cultural capital in order to achieve a more inclusive and balanced process of development, firstly in the countries of origin and secondly in the transit and host country. b. Contributing to the establishment of the pre-conditions that allow this process to occur by integrating factors related to human mobility into national development strategies. c. Improving the management of the Diaspora of individuals responsible for managing, the mobilisation of Diaspora resources, as well as the deployment of all potentialities of human mobility and circulation as a tool for economic and human development, which is the key factor for enhancing the developmental dimensions of migration.

The Diaspora possess at least four types of capital that can constitute resources for development. These are the following:

1. Economic capital: monetary remittances of savings accumulated during the migratory process. 2. Human capital: tehnical and entrepreneurial skills improved abroad, and cross-cultural assets enriched through migration. 3. Social capital: ties, networks, associations, and trust developed during the migration process that increase the migrants' access to relevant information, facilities and resources, making them a possible transnational junction between cultures, economies and societies. 4. Cultural capital: ideas, attitudes, values and artistic expressions that are present in the Diaspora communities and that are important elements for bridging the gap between different cultures, so that migration is perceived not only as a way to improve economic situations but as a way to encourage cultural diversity.

In this framework, the inclusion of human mobility in the agenda of development cooperation does not require any major change in the current approaches of international cooperation ʻactors’. It does, however, require the embracement of an innovative approach to addressing human mobility and Diaspora resources at the local, national and also international levels to

141

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) complement their current investments, etc.

Conclusion The paper discusses the Croatian emigrants and their descendants in the United States and Australia, as well as their existing preferences and investment opportunities in the country at local and regional levels, aimed at the prosperity and the development of the Republic of Croatia. The paper shows ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors that influenced the emigration of Croats to these two locations. Two successful persons of Croatian origin who now live in two geographically distinct locations, presented their opinions and views regarding the existing and future collaboration between the transatlantic Diaspora and Croatia. The aim of this paper is to answer the following questions: how much is the Croatian Diaspora ready to invest in the home country and whether such investment opportunities could enable Croatian progress, development and prosperity in today's world of crisis and globalization. The ‘diaspora model’ is important for the Republic of Croatia and for Croatian immigrants who have the opportunity to contribute to the development of their country in many areas and fields under the condition that procedures that they regard as major negative factors are solvable. The Republic of Croatia should use the skills, knowledge and ideas of the Croatian Diaspora and provide them with simple procedures when investing in their homeland for their mutual benefit. If the procedure around the paperwork associated with investment were simplified for Croatian immigrants, maybe the Diaspora would return home with ideas and knowledge, and not only the desire but the actual investment in new projects and activities that the Republic of Croatia at this moment needs. The main conclusion of this study is to call the Croatian Diaspora to return home with new ideas, knowledge and experience which they have gained, to invest their capital in new businesses in Croatia, and thus strengthen their influence in the country from which they originate. In that way the Croatian diaspora would help the Republic of Croatia to overcome the economic crisis that has engulfed the whole world. This article is just the beginning of a larger study on the potential of the Croatian diaspora, which is under preparation, which will end up quoting our longtime emigrants in Australia and respected by both the Croatian and Australian academic community.

142

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

“... Croatians in Australia and elsewhere in the world, know what and how much they can do for their country, they are her best, most honest and most profitable partners and ambassadors around the world. Only 2011 Croatia has received more than a billion and a half dollars from its diaspora through international bank transfers. This of course does not include the amounts that relatives and family members send every year to Croatia in cash, or the money spent by Croatian migrants in Croatia on their holidays. According to these data, Croats living outside Croatia are not only Croatian immigrants, they are sturdy and reliable partner of Croatia. There are no partners, allies or friends in the world that would do for Croatia what Croatians living outside its borders are ready to do. Only the relationship and cooperation should be set to sound and equitable basis ...”21

Global economic, social, political and demographic trends clearly indicate that international labour migration is likely to increase in the future and, therefore, the challenge is how to manage migration in such a way that its positive effects are maximized, making it a win-win phenomenon for all who are concerned. For this reason, we encourage the Croatian Diaspora to invest their money, knowledge and experience in the Republic of Croatia. Finally, we come to the conclusion that the Republic of Croatia should use the skills, knowledge and ideas of the Croatian Diaspora and provide them with simple procedures when investing in their homeland, for mutual benefit. If the administrative procedures associated with investment were more simple for Croatian immigrants, the Diaspora would return home with ideas and knowledge and would invest in new projects and activities that the Republic of Croatia at this moment needs very much.

Bibliography Akrap, A. (2003): ʻMigracija Hrvata u posljednjem desetljeću 20. stoljeća’. In: Hrvatska dijaspora u Crkvi i domovini. Zbornik radova, ed. P.J.Klarić (Frankfurt am Main): 23-55. ______. (2004). ʻZapošljavanje u inozemstvu i prirodna depopulacija seoskih naselja’, Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja 13 (72/73): 675-699.

21 Luka Budak in Dijanović (2012).

143

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Antić, Lj. (2002): Hrvati i Amerika, 2nd ed. (Zagreb). Anonym. (2012): ʻKonferencija “Mogućnosti ulaganja u Republiku Hrvatsku i Splitsko-dalmatinsku županiju”, Split’, Croatian Chamber of Economy website http://www.hgk.hr/sektor-centar/centar-za-investicije/konferencija-mogucnosti-ulaganja-u- republiku-hrvatsku-i-splitsko-dalmatinsku-zupaniju-split-05-i-06-listopada-201222 Bartulović, S. (2010): ʻIseljenici iz Australije žele ulagati u Hrvatsku’, Poslovni Dnevnik website, published 1/9/2010. http://www.poslovni.hr/vijesti/iseljenici-iz-australije-zele-ulagati-u-hrvatsku-156898 Castles, S. & Miller, M.J. (2009): The age of Migration (New York). Čolić-Peisker, V. (2004/05): ʻAustralian Croatians at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Changing Profile of the Community and its Public Representation’, Croatian Studies Review 3-4: 1-26. ______. (2009): Migration, Class, and Transnational Identities; Croatians in Australia and America (Urbana & Chicago). Croatian Parliament (2012): ʻAct on Investment Promotion and and Development of Investment Climate’, Ministry of Entrepreneurship and Crafts of Republic of Croatia website, dated 21/9/2012 http://www.minpo.hr/UserDocsImages/Investment%20Promotion%20and%20Development %20of%20Investment%20Climate%20Act.pdf Čizmić, I. & Živić, D. (2005): ʻVanjske migracije stanovništva Hrvatske-kritički osvrt’. In: Stanovništvo Hrvatske - dosadašnji razvoj i perspektive, eds. D. Živić, N. Pokos & A. Mišetić (Zagreb): 55-70. Čizmić, I., Sopta, M. & Šakić, V. (2005): Iseljena Hrvatska (Zagreb). Čuka, A. (2009): ʻHrvati u SAD-u prema novijim američkim popisima stanovništva’. In: Migrantske zajednice, udruženja i društvene aktivnosti u Sjevernoj i Južnoj Americi: komparativni prikaz Hrvatska-Slovenija. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zagrebu 3. travnja 2009, ed. R. Mesarić Žabčić (Zagreb): 45-58. Dijanović, D. (2012): ʻLuka Budak: Hrvati u Australiji razočarani su hrvatskom politikom’, Portal Hrvatskog kulturnog vijeća website, published 2/4/2012. http://www.hkv.hr/razgovori/11164-l-budak-hrvati-u-australiji-razoarani-su-hrvatskom- politikom.html Gelo, J., Akrap, A. & Čipin, I. (2005): Temeljne značajke demografskog razvoja Hrvatske-bilanca 20. stoljeća, Ministarstvo obitelji, branitelja i međugeneracijske solidarnosti (Zagreb). Global Comission on International Migration (2005): ʻSummary of the Report of the Global Commission on International Migration’ (New York).

22 Last access to all cited websites 25/04/2013.

144

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/fourthcoord2005/P09_GCIM.pdf Hannerz, U. (1996): Transnational Connections. London and New York. HINA/t.portal.hr (2011): ʻU Hrvatsku se isplati ulagati, ali uz veliku upornost’, tportal.hr website, published 27/5/2011. http://www.tportal.hr/biznis/gospodarstvo/130284/U-Hrvatsku-se-isplati-ulagati-ali-uz- veliku-upornost.html International Labour Office (2006): ʻILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration: Non-binding principles and guidelines for a right-based approach to labour migration’ (Geneva). http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/--- migrant/documents/publication/wcms_178672.pdf Josipovič, D. (2006): Učinki priseljevanja v Sloveniju pri drugi svetovni vojni, ZRC (Ljubljana). Jureško Kero, J. (2013): ʻMinistar Maras iseljenicima u SAD-u: Investirajte u Hrvatsku’, Večernji list website, published 21/4/2013. http://www.vecernji.hr/biznis/ministar-maras-iseljenicima-sad-u-investirajte-hrvatsku- clanak-542305 Kosovich, S. (2001): ʻThe Conditions of Croatians’. In: The Australian People: An Encyclopedia of the Nation, Its People and Their Origins, 2nd ed., ed. J. Jupp (Cambridge, New York & Oakleigh): 235-250. Lalich, W. (2012): ʻUporišta hrvatskog transnacionalnog prostora u Sydneyu; u: Institucionalizacija Hrvatske dijaspore’. In: Oblici migrantskog udruživanja - primjeri iz Europe, Južne Amerike i Australije, ed. S. Božić (Zagreb): 201-236. Lee, E.S. (1966): ʻA Theory of Migration’, Demography 3(1): 47-57. Mesić, M. (2002): Međunarodne migracije tokovi i teorije (Zagreb). Mesarić Žabčić, R. (2007a): ʻNačin življenja hrvatskog iseljeničkog korpusa u Australiji: iskustva, mišljenja i stavovi mladih australskih Hrvata’, Dve domovini/Two homelands 25: 271-287. ______. (2007b): ʻTemeljne značajke iseljavanja hrvatskog stanovništva s posebnim naglaskom na iseljavanje u proteklih petnaest godina’, Dve domovini: razprave o izseljenstvu/Two homelands: migration studies 26: 97-115. ______. (2008): ʻHrvatska emigracija prema Australiji’. In: Vinišćarski Zbornik, ed. I. Pažanin (Vinišća): 455-468. ______. (2010): ʻOpći pregled iseljavanja Hrvata u Sjedinjene Američke Države od 1880 do danas’. In: Migrantske zajednice, udruženja i društvene aktivnosti u Sjevernoj i Južnoj Americi: komparativni prikaz Hrvatska-Slovenija. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog u Zagrebu 3. travnja 2009, ed. R. Mesarić Žabčić (Zagreb): 29-44.

145

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

______. (2012): ʻPovijesni pregled, geografski smještaj i primjeri djelovanja hrvatskih udruga u Australiji’. In: Institucionalizacija Hrvatske dijaspore, Oblici migrantskog udruživanja - primjeri iz Europe, Južne Amerike i Australije, ed. S. Božić (Zagreb): 135-166. Muršič, R. (1997): ʻRazkrijte krinke: O lokalno-globalizacijskih identifikacijah’, Traditiones 26: 223-236. Nejašmić, I. (1991a): ʻIseljavanje iz Hrvatske-brojčani aspekt stoljetnog procesa’. In: Političko-geografska i demografska pitanja Hrvatske. Savez geografskih društava Hrvatske: Special editions 8, ed. I. Crkvenčić (Zagreb): 61-83. ______. (1991b): Depopulacija u Hrvatskoj, korijeni, stanje, izgledi (Zagreb). Pokos, N. (2002): ʻIseljavanje iz Hrvatske u posljednjem desetljeću’, Hrvatski iseljenički zbornik 2002: 25-38. Rogošić, Ž. (2006): ʻSplitski pothvat autobusnog magnata iz Sydneyja: “Sagradili smo najluksuzniji hrvatski hotel”’, Nacional 577 (12th of April, 2006). http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/29588/sagradili-smo-najluksuzniji-hrvatski-hotel Šakaja, L. & Mesarić, R. (2001): ʻNeke kognitivne pretpostavke migracija iz Hrvatske u druge europske zemlje’, Hrvatski geografski glasnik 63: 43-65. Škvorc, B. (2005): Australski Hrvati, Mitovi i stvarnost (Zagreb). Šterc, S. & Komušanac, M. (2012): ʻNeizvjesna demografska budućnost Hrvatske - izumiranje i supstitucija stanovništva ili populacijska revitalizacija...?’, Društvena istraživanja: časopis za opća društvena pitanja 21(3): 693-712. Šutalo, I. (2004): Croatians in Australia, Pioneers, Settlers and Their Descendants (Adelaide). Tkalčević, M. (1999): Povijest Hrvata u Australiji (Melbourne). Z.S. (2013): ʻHrvatski iseljenici predlažu: Predsjedniče, dajte nam popust na neobrađene njive i vratit ćemo se!’, Dnevno.hr website, published 15/2/2013. http://www.dnevno.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/78703-hrvatski-iseljenici-predlazu-predsjednice- dajte-nam-popust-na-neobradene-njive-i-vratit-cemo-se.html

Sažetak U radu se raspravlja o hrvatskim iseljenicima i njihovim potomcima u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama i Australiji te o postojećim sklonostima i mogućnosti ulaganja u Hrvatsku na lokalnoj i regionalnoj razini, s ciljem prosperiteta i razvoja Republike Hrvatske. Rad ističe push i pull faktore koji su utjecali na iseljavanje Hrvata u dvije prekooceanske zemlje. Iznimno uspješne osobe hrvatskog podrijetla koje danas žive u dvije različite geografske prostorne lokacije (Australija i Sjedinjene Američke Države), iznijele su svoja mišljenja i stajališta u vezi s postojećom i budućom suradnjom s

146

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) matičnom domovinom. Cilj ovog rada je odgovoriti i na sljedeća pitanja: koliko je hrvatsko iseljeništvo spremno investirati u Republici Hrvatskoj i može li Hrvatska kroz takve mogućnosti ulaganja postići željeni napredak, razvoj i prosperitet u današnjem svijetu krize i globalizacije. Globalni, ekonomski, socijalni, politički i demografski trendovi jasno pokazuju da će se međunarodna migracija radne snage sigurno povećavati i u budućnosti te se zbog tog razloga, savjetuje hrvatskom iseljeništvu da ulažu svoje znanje, iskustvo i novac u Republiku Hrvatsku. Može se zaključiti da bi Republika Hrvatska trebala koristiti vještine, znanja i ideje hrvatskog iseljeništva i pružiti im jednostavnije procedure prilikom investiranja u svojoj domovini, na obostranu korist. Smatra se važnim naglasiti da ukoliko bi se administrativne procedure vezane uz ulaganja hrvatskih iseljenika u Republici Hrvatskoj pojednostavile, pojedini iseljenici će se vratiti u Hrvatsku s idejama, znanjem, voljom, željom i spremnošću za ulaganjem u nove projekte i aktivnosti koji su Republici Hrvatskoj u svijetu globalizacije, pred ulazak u EU, u ovom trenutku osobito važni i potrebni!

147

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

148

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Book Reviews

149

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

150

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Danijel Dzino: “Dissecting ‘Balkanist’ discourse in the present and the past: Review of N. Raspudić, Jadranski (polu)orijentalizam and V. Drapac, Constructing Yugoslavia”

Danijel Dzino Department of Ancient History Macquarie University Sydney, Australia [email protected]

Nino Raspudić, Jadranski (polu)orijentalizam: Prikazi Hrvata u talijanskoj književnosti. Zagreb: Naklada Jurčić, 2010; pp. 433, bibliography; hbk 130 HRK, ISBN: 9789532450477 Vesna Drapac, Constructing Yugoslavia: A Transnational History. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010; pp. xv + 335, 5 maps, index, hbk £55; pbk £18.99, ISBN: 9780333925553.

Understanding the past is today not only limited to understanding and interpreting historical events, but also on the study of knowledge, understanding how and why we know what we know about the past. The ideas of Michel Foucault about the close relationship between discourse and power and, even more, Said’s Orientalism and the ways the cultural ‘Other’ is perceived in literature, represent the most significant foundation-stones of contemporary postcolonial discourse. Postcolonial readings of early modern and 19th/early 20th century Western literature related to Eastern and Southeastern Europe show very specific literary techniques used to describe and perceive these regions as European internal ‘Others’. Such accumulated ‘knowledge’ about Eastern Europe and the ‘Balkans’ significantly affected the ways these regions were perceived, not only in literature, but also in politics and historiography.1 Both books reviewed here are firmly rooted in bodies of works and ideas developing from these initial works. More specifically, they explore two distinct and attractive topics, which both belong in the wider context, famously called ‘Balkanist’ discourse by Todorova.2 Raspudić’s study focuses on the perception of the Croats in early modern and modern Italian literature, while Drapac deals with the origins and changing perceptions of Yugoslavia from outside perspectives, focusing on Anglophone and francophone writing. Nino Raspudić is lecturer of Italian studies at the University of Zagreb, and is

1 Wollf (1994) (Eastern Europe); Todorova (1998); Goldsworthy (1998) (‘Balkans’), also see earlier works of Bakić Hayden & Hayden (1992); Bakić Hayden (1995) on internal ‘Balkanizing’. 2 Todorova (1997): 10-11. On developments in research of a ‘Balkanist’ discourse, which increasingly diversifies analysing external and internal ‘Balkanisms’, see e.g. Fleming (2000); Bjelić & Savić (2002); Blažević (2007): 87-94, etc.

151

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) also known in the Croatian media as a columnist and social activist. His second book, which can be translated into English as: The Adriatic (Semi)Orientalism: Representations of the Croatians in Italian Literature, is the outcome of his PhD thesis, passed recently with accolades at the University of Zagreb. As it appears quite clearly from the title, the book is concerned with literary stereotypes and enduring models in the Italian representation of the Croats, covering the period from the Enlightenment to the late 20th century. Both coasts of the Adriatic present good examples of a discrete and well-defined geographical unit, which is shown in the network of cultural and political interactions detectable in each historical period. However, their relationship through history has not always been placed on equal grounds. Raspudić’s thesis makes a strong point about this inequality, clearly exposing its origins and aspects. Historical circumstances resulted in political powers from the Italian peninsula (Rome in antiquity, papacy in the Middle Ages and Venice in the early modern era) all exercising political and cultural domination over the eastern Adriatic coast. For that reason, Italy and her parts were perceived as the political and cultural centre by the inhabitants of the Eastern Adriatic in different historical periods. For the same reasons the Italians consistently perceived the eastern Adriatic coast as a periphery, an unstable border region ‘infected’ by various ‘barbarians’, Slavs, Turks, communism and ‘Balkanism’ of the post-communist period (pp. 9-11). The first three chapters of Raspudić’s book are focused on defining its methodology and positioning within the wider context of recent research on Orientalism and especially the earlier mentioned discourse on ‘Balkanism’ (pp. 5-60). Raspudić defines the relationship between the Adriatic coasts and discourse on Croats in Italian literature as ‘semi-Orientalism’. In his words, it is a perception of “something close, but not equal to Said’s Orientalism – almost identical to [the] Balkanism of Todorova.” I am not fully convinced that Raspudić’s ‘semi-Orientalism’ is really so much different from the ‘Balkanism’ of Todorova (pp. 34-37).3 For me personally, they both appear fairly identical, certainly defining ‘Balkanism’ as a much wider concept, and trans-Adriatic ‘semi-Orientalism’ as one of its well-defined regional variants. I do agree, however, with Raspudić’s criticisms of Todorova (pp. 36-37). He points out, quite rightly, that her view of the ‘Balkans’ as a geographically defined area is not necessarily the most precise definition, because the geographical Balkan Peninsula and the discursive, imagined textual ‘Balkans’, do not always correspond.4 Also, he points out that ‘Balkanism’ is not only limited to the Ottoman inheritance, but its continuing life in Western perceptions shows that the ‘Balkans’ is firmly formed as a distinct ‘cultural’ unit. In this context, it is also worth mentioning that the analysis of 18th century Venetian writings, and especially Fortis’ travel diaries, does not play a prominent place in Todorova’s study, which makes Raspudić’s study an even more important contribution to the study of the

3 Todorova goes to considerable length in order to distance ‘Balkanism’ from Said’s ’Orientalism’ – Todorova (1997): 7-20, see also Bjelić (2002): 6-7. Similar to Raspudić, Berber (2010) sees the discourse on Bosnia and Herzegovina in British travel literature as different from ‘Balkanism’ and ‘Orientalism’. 4 Todorova (1997): 11 “There is historical and geographical concreteness of the Balkans ...”

152

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) developments of the ‘Balkanist’ discourse.5 The theoretical section is a bit too long for my taste, making the book appear too much as an original PhD thesis. This is nevertheless understandable, and, I am afraid, an unavoidable strategy, because Raspudić is primarily addressing a Croatian (and South Slavic) audience, which is not necessarily entirely familiar with his theoretical foundations. Following the theoretical section, Raspudić discusses actual literary perceptions of the Croats. Late medieval and humanist perceptions of the eastern Adriatic were not well shaped in Italian literature, which lacked real interest in the eastern Adriatic (pp. 61-74). However, the change of political circumstances in the late 17th and 18th century brings about Venetian political expansion in former Ottoman possessions on the eastern Adriatic coast, but also its immediate hinterland (pp. 75- 90). It is not surprising that the most important part of the book is devoted to the Venetian Alberto Fortis and his Viaggo in Dalmatia (Travels in Dalmatia) from 1774 and polemical response to Fortis made by Ivan (Giovanni) Lovrić (pp. 91-142). Fortis has become a focus of research over the last decades. In Anglophone literature this is certainly due to the influential study of Larry Wolff, entitled The Discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment, from 2001. Raspudić represents a new - I could even dare say - ‘rebellious’ stream in Croatian scholarship, not unlike Markulin who published a paper from similar positions at the same time.6 Raspudić and Markulin both rebel, with good reason, against the acceptance of the colonial narrative in Croatian, but also wider South Slavic scholarship, which perceived Fortis as a ‘friend’ who opened Dalmatia to the world. In contrast to this prevalent view, they both show the existence of almost all structural elements of Orientalism in Fortis’ descriptions of inhabitants of the Dalmatian coast and its hinterland. Raspudić presents the context of Fortis’ work, his audience and his deep impact on future Italian literary perceptions of the eastern Adriatic coast. The enormous importance of Fortis on these later perceptions, and even the very foundations of the ‘Balkanist’ discourse, cannot be overestimated. His work was quickly translated into German (1776), English and French (1778), serving as a literary and ‘ethnographic’ model of ‘knowledge’, not only to Italian but also to other travelers. He is undoubtedly the key foundation-stone in the development of Balkanist discourse, although Fortis rarely receives credit in modern studies of travel literature in southeastern Europe.7 The importance of Fortis and his perceptions is well-shown in relation to the discourse on Morlacchism (pp. 143-54).8 Raspudić, after Fortis, analyses further developments in Italian literature, and the development of what he sees as two literary models for the perception of the Croatians.9 The first one is a ‘good savage’, such as depicted in Goldonni’s play La Dalmatina (pp. 155-64) from 1758, or the works of Niccolo Tommaseo (e.g. Scintille) and the series of newspaper articles by Giuseppe Mazzini (pp. 193-236). The model of ‘bad savage’ develops in the Memoari of Carlo

5 She discusses earlier Venetian travellers, but not Fortis, Todorova (1997): 65-66. 6 Wolff (2001): 76 ff.; Markulin (2010), see also McCallam (2011). 7 For Fortis’ impact on French perceptions of the region, see the recent study by Sajkowski (2012): 161-86 and McCallam (2011): 132-41. 8 Morlacchi: Christian Slav-speaking inhabitants of the immediate Dalmatian hinterland, mostly of the Orthodox religion, see in English Wolff (2001): 126 ff. 9 Goldoni and Gozzi are also analysed in Wolff (2001): 25-40.

153

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Gozzi (pp. 165-80). They are also shaped in the context of Austro-Hungarian conflicts with the Italians in the 19th century with the construction of cruelty committed by Croatian soldiers serving in Austrian-Hungarian armies (pp. 181-92). This model becomes dominant during and after the Second World War, when it becomes part of ‘common knowledge’ in Italian discourse (pp. 297-332). Raspudić’s book clearly shows that Italian literary discourse about the Croats is inter-textual, and the earlier authors strongly influence later writings. It also shows that Italian literary discourse is founded on unequal grounds, presenting the eastern Adriatic population on a lower civilizational level, child-like, animal, emotional, faithful or cruel and savage.10 There is not much to add to this book, except perhaps that it could be more deeply embedded into scholarship on ‘Balkanist’ discourse, as a few general works are missing from the impressive bibliography, such as Inventing Ruritania by Vesna Goldsworthy. As said before, I am slightly at unease with the term ‘Semi-Orientalism’ because what Raspudić defines under that name is nothing more than a distinctive sub-species of outsider ‘Balkanism’. The writing style is fine and easy to read, and the scholarly breadth of research is nothing but impressive. The cover page illustrating a plastic lamb on a spit (a recognizable visual symbol of ‘Balkanism’) made in China, the artwork of Marko Vekić, is quite an original and appropriate addition to the book. The significance of Raspudić’s book extends to two levels – the first being the recognition and definition of discourse on Croats in Italian literature. Nevertheless, it is also undoubtedly important in ‘local’ scholarship as Croatian scholars in general steer clear of engaging more deeply in ‘Balkanist’ debates. This attitude is certainly partly driven by the Croatian discursive self- perception of belonging to the ‘West’, making Croatian scholars less perceptive to detect and analyze Croatian inclusions in outsider ‘Balkanist’ perceptions and discourses.

X X X

While Raspudić focuses on Italian trans-Adriatic perceptions, an Australian scholar of Croatian origin, Vesna Drapac, in her second monograph, analyzes the literary mechanisms in which Yugoslavia, as a common state of South Slavs, was conceived and projected in Western imagination. This book deals with much more sensitive matter, because Yugoslavia is a political project that only, relatively recently, ended in total failure with significant loss of human lives, accompanied by huge material and emotional damages. Drapac’s main thesis is that the history of Yugoslavia is, in essence, transnational and cannot be observed in isolation, i.e., that taking the Yugoslav political structure and its inhabitants as a unit of analysis provides just one part of the picture.11 For that reason, she decided to focus on influential outsiders’ perceptions of Yugoslavia, from its conception to its collapse in the early 1990s. This book explores a different range of sources, most importantly academic and other prominent commentators, but also uses popular magazines, memoires and personal

10 Certainly, we should not forget that the Croatians formed their own discourses about the Italians, see for example Bešker (2011). 11 It is very useful to compare it with Džaja (2002). Those two studies have different focus but do share similar ideas.

154

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) correspondences, illustrating both popular and private perceptions. The emphasis is placed on Anglophone sources (mostly English and American), but the author also makes good use of francophone sources. Throughout the book Drapac makes the important point that the history of Yugoslavia should be viewed integrally, from the time when the ideas of a common state for the South Slavs was constructed, in the mid-19th century to its demise, rather than focusing only on the Kingdom and socialist federation as two distinct units of analysis (pp. 9-10, 17, etc.). The first chapter (pp. 22-62) shows quite clearly how the whole discourse on the common ‘origins’ of the South Slavs and the idea of a common state came into existence. She recognizes how much it was rooted in the racial discourse of the time and social-Darwinist ideas about dominant and submissive ‘races’. There are two dominant lines in this discourse according to Drapac. Firstly, the Anglophone attitude towards Catholicism in the late 19th/early 20th century was very negative, and contrasted with a positive outlook on Orthodox Europe (pp. 37- 46). Secondly, ethnography and anthropology of the time, using contemporary racial discourse, developed a classification of the South Slavs, whereby the Serbs were perceived as dominant over other South Slavs, especially after Serbia became a kingdom in 1882 (pp. 46-52). The idea of union was presented as a re-unification of ‘brotherly nations’, rather than unification of culturally and linguistically similar but different ethnic groups. Drapac reveals the incredible significance and influence of the intellectual circle around British politician and few-times prime-minister William Gladstone in shaping the ideas about South Slav unity under Serb leadership before the First World War. This circle included, amongst others, English historians – Robert W. Seton-Watson, E. A. Freeman and Freeman’s famous son-in-law, Arthur J. Evans, the discoverer of Knossos (pp. 27-36).12 Such ideas sharply contrasted with ‘local’ internal narratives of Yugoslavism, such as the Croatian revival in the circle of Archbishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer (pp. 23-24), or Serbian views and changing political interests. As Drapac points out, the appearance of the Yugoslav Kingdom cannot be understood without these 19th and early 20th century ideas. Thus, it is obvious that Yugoslav unification was not a new or hasty thing, but something that was the result of significant theoretical preparations. In her words, the change of political geography after the First World War and the disappearance of the Habsburg Empire, resulting in the imagined state of the South Slavs, became presented as a geo-strategic necessity and an ‘unavoidable’ reality. At the same time, unification was projected as a result of general will, which was, in reality, far from true. Chapters two and three (pp. 63-148) show the next step in the construction of Yugoslavia in Western perceptions, this time as an extension of ‘Gallant Serbia’. The racial discourse in which outside observers operated at this time constructed three ‘tribes’ (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes),

12 An important part of this circle were certainly British travellers and humanitarians Georgina Mackenzie and Adelina Irby, whose book Travels in the Slavonic Provinces of Turkey-in-Europe significantly influenced the ideas of Gladstone’s circle and especially Arthur Evans (Drapac, pp. 25- 26), cf. Anderson (1966) in English on Irby. It is quite amusing in this context to see that in 2013 the British-Croatian Association organised symposium in the Ashmolean museum entitled “Sir Arthur Evans in Dalmatia“, as a part of celebrations related to Croatian joining to EU.

155

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) originating from the Serbian ‘stock’, thus constructing ‘Yugoslavs’ as an ‘integrated race’ which corresponded with internal centralizing policies of the Karađorđević dynasty. The belief in Yugoslavia amongst its strongest supporters, such as Seton- Watson, was so strong that it could not be shattered, even with the dictatorship of King Alexander I Karađorđević, from 1929 to his assassination in 1934. In fact, some of the outside observers (as well as the King’s own propaganda) resorted to ‘Balkanist’ discourse, defending the king’s abolishment of democracy as an attempt to preserve peace from ‘Balkan tribal passions’ (pp. 117-35). Political opposition of the Croats, articulated by the Croatian Peasant Party included the demands for autonomy and political rights in the Kingdom. Nevertheless, outside observers almost unanimously perceived them as ‘negative’ when compared with ‘progressive’ Yugoslavism, while the Croats were projected in these perceptions as ‘restless’, irascible and problematic (pp. 144-48). The fourth chapter analyses the period of the Second World War and the created political disarray in the region and briefly disintegrated Yugoslav political construction. Drapac is one of the first scholars ever to observe Yugoslav collaboration and resistance to the Nazi regime in a comparative context with other parts of Nazi-controlled Europe. Her conclusions are that war-time resistance followed different narratives, general patterns of European resistance movements, but was also strongly impacted by very specific local factors. The lack of an integrated Yugoslav civic or national identity meant that post-war Yugoslavia could exist only through credentials built upon an anti-fascist resistance and partisan movement, i.e. as a communist state (pp. 149-94). So, it is not surprising that this period was a fruitful breedfing ground for the rise of new myths which were carefully embedded into the foundation-myths of the communist state (pp. 149-54). Drapac shows these myths largely being founded on deception – Yugoslav resistance was anti-fascist, not pro- communist, and certain myths used later, such as the one about ‘genocidal Croats’ had no support in available evidence. It is clear that Croatian Nazi-collaborationists, who formed the ruling structures of the Independent State of Croatia, established in 1941, represented an extremist and marginalized minority. They gained some support only because of Croatian resentment of the earlier regime, not because of the existing and continuing grass-roots support (pp. 154-72). Drapac also pays due attention to the narratives of women in the Second World War, which were mainly disregarded or mythologized by earlier scholarship (pp. 183-88). The fifth chapter (pp. 195-236) deals with the communist-led federation. While communist Yugoslavia is often regarded as a separate unit of historical analysis from the first Yugoslavia, Drapac presents compelling arguments that they should be analyzed together, as a single unit. She underlines some quite interesting similarities between the monarchy and socialist federation, such as the position of war in the foundation myths of both entities, as well as the failure of those myths to produce a coherent civic or national identity.13 Outside perceptions produced a discourse on federal Yugoslavia, drawing on familiar ‘knowledge’ about the ‘Balkans’. The Yugoslavs are frequently portrayed as a ‘breed of people’ saved from themselves and

13 The role of the armed conflicts in the renegotiation of South Slavic identities was examined by Vlaisavljević (2002).

156

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) their ‘tribal’ murderous passions by a communist leader, later Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz (Tito). It is not surprising that communist propaganda resorted to a similar use of ‘Balkanist’ discourse (pp. 205-06). While the discourse of the integrated ‘Yugoslav race’ and political centralization was no longer viable after 1945, the outside perceptions changed very little: South Slavs (especially the Serbs and Croats) were continually portrayed as closely related and ‘barely distinguishable’ nations. The same relates to the construction and the existence of a hybrid ‘Serbo-Croatian’ language in federal Yugoslavia. Tito’s resistance to Stalin in 1948 made his regime acceptable to the West which mostly turned a blind eye to frequent abuses of human rights, portraying it as a ‘benevolent’ dictatorship – again reminiscent of earlier views of the royal dictatorship of King Alexander I. While the breakdown of federal Yugoslavia certainly cannot be explained through a single narrative, but only as a complex interplay of different factors,14 Drapac also points out a few important reasons for the collapse. In her opinion, the commemoration and celebration of Second World War resistance was the most important element which maintained cohesiveness in communist Yugoslavia. However, after some time, memories were no longer enough for new generations (“passing of the Partisan generation”), which challenged it. Even more importantly, Drapac also points out that communist lack of tolerance for any dissent prevented the development of structured opposition which shared a civic sense of Yugoslavism. This meant that after Tito’s death in 1980, the push for democratization of society went through a national rather than civic agenda. There was no coherent civic or national Yugoslav identity or Yugoslav institutions – only some 5% of the population declared themselves ‘Yugoslavs’, usually those belonging to the inner city elites in cities with a larger proportion of mixed population, such as Sarajevo (pp. 228-36, 245-56). Although Drapac can be criticized for the selective approach she takes towards the sources,15 in my opinion such an approach was necessary as it shows the structure of the changing discourse on Yugoslavia against a background of internal developments. The reliance on Anglophone and francophone sources certainly provides just a part of the picture, with germanophone and Italian perceptions presenting a different picture, as we can partly see from Raspudić’s book. Drapac focuses her analysis mostly on the dynamics of the Serbs and Croats and Croatian grievances, which were undoubtedly grossly underplayed and underestimated in modern scholarship and Western perceptions. However, certainly more could have been done to bring into focus the Slovenians, Macedonians and Bosnian Muslims (modern-day Bosniaks), not to mention the Albanians (modern-day Kosovars) in the disputed region of Kosovo/Kosova as well as looking into the fears of Yugoslav breakdown, real and constructed, amongst the Serbs outside Serbia. There is an unavoidable parallel between the outside perceptions of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia, which Drapac could also underline more in this book. What this book discovers about the outside constructions of Yugoslavia is highly applicable in a comparative context to ‘little Yugoslavia’ – Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14 See Ramet (2005), especially 54-75. 15 Pawlovitch (2011).

157

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

It is fascinating how the ‘discovery’ of South Slavs as a ‘people’ who should be ‘reunified’ by British travellers Irby and Mackenzie (and Evans)16 corresponds with their ‘discovery’ of Bosnia and Herzegovina.17 The view of Bosnia and Herzegovina as ‘Serbian lands’ was used as crown evidence by Gladstone’s circle that the Serbs should be a leading force of South Slavic ‘reunification’ (pp. 45, 51). The perceptions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Western literature, inspired by the conflict in the 1990s, draws upon similar literary mechanisms, earlier used to imagine Yugoslavia, simplifying its history and changing constructions of culture and tradition.18 They constructed a whole new discourse on ‘good savages’, which created an imaginary Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ‘land of multiculturalism and tolerance’ in Western perceptions. This discourse was contrasting its counterpart, and also equally distorted the perception of perpetually ʻwarring tribes’ in the ʻBalkans’, exemplified in the words of former British prime-minister John Major in the 1990s. The frequent use of the term ‘multiculturalism’ for multi-national and multi-religious Ottoman- and Habsburg- ruled Bosnia and Herzegovina is particularly misleading in these works. This term describes modern Western societies, which regulate, by law, tolerance and equality between different ethnic and gender groups and different religions. Bosnia and Herzegovina, until the later 20th century, can hardly be described as such place. It is similar with the recent attempts to construct a pre-modern Bosnian nation in scholarly literature.19 Such outside constructs are sharply contrasted with current political reality and irreconcilable (but intersecting and interconnected) internal historical and identity-narratives of the Muslims-Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats, combined with the continuing inability of post-Dayton institutions to create a unified civic or national identity in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both, Raspudić and Drapac show the arrival of a new generation of scholars equipped with theoretical approaches of postcolonial criticism, drawing inspiration upon general studies on ‘Balkanist’ discourse. Italian perceptions of the Croats and outsider views of Yugoslavia are just two specialized studies in different discourses dealing with this part of the world. These works are not only relevant as a part of a growing corpus of works, but also because strongly rooted stereotypes continue to impact perceptions of the region. It is worth mentioning a few. Raspudić (pp. 301-02) brings forward an excellent example of the story about the bowl filled with human eyes brought to Ante Pavelić, the leader of the collaborationist Independent State of Croatia in the Second World War, a fictional episode from the novel Kaputt by Curzio Malaparte. This fictional story was later frequently used as ‘fact’ about Croatian and ‘Balkan’ cruelty by historians and the press, especially during the conflicts in the 1990s, thus trivializing the real and documented crimes of Pavelić’s regime. The

16 Todorova (1997): 97-98. 17 See recently published dissertation of Berber (2010) discussing the discourse on Bosnia and Herzegovina in English travel literature between 1844 and 1912. It is very disappointing that this author heavily focuses only on the depictions of Bosnian Muslims, disregarding completely the Serbs and Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina, who are barely mentioned in this study. 18 This relates to the whole region, Goldsworthy (2002): 27-31. 19 E.g. Fine & Donia (1994); Malcolm (1996). This discourse is also incorporated in the Bosniak narratives, see Mahmutćehajić (2000) for example. For a proper examination of historical myths and realities in Bosnia and Herzegovina see Džaja (2005) and also Džaja’s article in this volume of CSR.

158

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) discourse on Balkanism is deeply rooted in Western political approaches towards the whole region, from political ideas that the West must intervene in the Balkans, and ‘civilise’ it, which in essence did not change much from the later 19th century.20 New Western media-discourse which demonized the Serbs during and after the conflicts in the 1990s also used familiar elements of the ‘Balkanist’ discourse in this new context. It is well exemplified in a string of Hollywood movies, the last being a very unfortunate release about the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, In the Land of Blood and Honey, by Hollywood megastar actress-turned-director Angelina Jolie from 2011.21 ‘Balkanism’ is therefore very much alive and kicking, and is therefore a reason to attract more research focus. The books of Raspudić and Drapac represent important contributions in the growing discourse on Orientalism and ‘Balkanism’, and it is very important that they are both translated – Raspudić into English (and Italian) and Drapac into Croatian, in order to facilitate and improve dialogue between ‘local’ and ‘global’ scholarship.

Bibliography Anderson, D. (1966): Miss Irby and Her Friends (London). Bakić Hayden, M. (1995): ‘Nesting Orientalism: The Case of Former Yugoslavia’, Slavic Review 54(4): 917-931. Bakić Hayden, M. & Hayden, R.M. (1992): ‘Orientalist Variations of the Theme “Balkans”: Symbolic Geography in Recent Yugoslav Cultural Politics’, Slavic Review 51(1): 1-15. Berber, N. (2010): Unveiling Bosnia-Herzegovina in British travel literature (1844- 1912) (Pisa). Bešker, I. (2011): ‘Ova mržnja stara - Nazor i stereotipi o Talijanima u hrvatskoj štokavskoj književnosti’, Croatian Studies Review 7: 31-48. Bjelić, D. (2002): ‘Introduction: Blowing up the “Bridge”’. In: Bjelić & Savić (2002): 1-22. Bjelić, D. & Savić, O. (eds.) (2002): Balkan as a Metaphor: Between Globalization and Fragmentation (Cambridge MA). Blažević, Z. (2007): ‘Rethinking Balkanism: Interpretative challenge of the early modern Illyrism’, Etudes Balkaniques 2007/1: 87-106. Donia, R.J. & Fine, J.V.A.Jr. (1994): Bosnia and Herzegovina. A Tradition Betrayed (New York).

20 A. Hammond (2006), and more comprehensively in A. Hammond (2007) arguing that the Anglophone travel-writing on the ‘Balkans’ through 19th and 20th century ultimately reflects the foreign policy objectives of their countries. 21 On the demonization of the Serbs in media for example P. Hammond (2004), cf. Longinović (2002) and on ‘Balkanist’ discourse going wild in all directions in the Western perceptions during the 1990s see Goldsworthy (2002).

159

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Džaja, S.M. (2002): Die politische Ralität des Jugoslavismus (1918–1991). Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Bosnien-Herzegowinas. Untersuchungen zur Gegenwartskunde Südosteuropas 37 (Munich). ______. (2005): ‘Bosnian Historical Reality and its Reflection in Myth’. In: Myth and Boundaries in South-Eastern Europe, ed. P. Kølsto (London): 6-29. Fleming, K.E. (2000): ‘Orientalism, the Balkans and Balkan Historiography’, American Historical Review 105(4): 1218-1233. Goldsworthy, V. (1998): Inventing Ruritania: The Imperialism of the Imagination (New Haven). ______. (2002): ‘Invention and In(ter)vention: The Rhetoric of Balkanization’. In: Bjelić & Savić 2002: 23-38. Hammond, A. (2006): ‘Balkanism in Political Context: From the Ottoman Empire to the EU’, Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 3(3): 6-26. ______. (2007): The Debated Lands: British and American Representation of the Balkans (Cardiff). Hammond, P. (2004): ‘Humanizing War: the Balkans and beyond’. In: Reporting War: journalism in wartime, eds. S. Allan & B. Zelizer (London & New York): 174-189. Longinović, T.Z. (2002): ‘Vampires like Us: Gothic Imaginary and “the serbs”’. In: Bjelić & Savić (2002): 39-78. McCallam, D. (2011): ‘(Ac)claiming Illyria: Eighteenth-Century Istria and Dalmatia in Fortis, Cassas, and Lavallée’, Central Europe 9(2): 125-141. Mahmutćehajić, R. (2000): Bosnia the Good: Tolerance and Tradition (Budapest). Malcolm, N. (1996): Bosnia: A Short History, 2nd ed. (London). Markulin, N. (2010): ‘“Prijatelj našega naroda”: Prikazbe Drugoga u djelu Viaggio in Dalmazia Alberta Fortisa’, Povijesni Prilozi 38: 213-233. Pavlowitch, S.K. (2011): ‘Review of Drapac, Constructing Yugoslavia’, English Historical Review 126(518): 221-222. Ramet, S.P. (2005): Thinking about Yugoslavia: Scholarly debates about the Yugoslav Breakup and the Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo (Cambridge). Sajkowski, W. (2012): ‘Obraz ludów bałkańskiego wybrzeża Adriatyku we Francji epoki Oświecenia’, PhD diss., University of Adam Mickiewicz, Póznan. Todorova, M. (1997): Imagining the Balkans (New York). Vlaisavljević, U. (2002): ‘South-Slav identity and the Ultimate War-Reality’. In: Bjelić & Savić (2002): 191-208. Wolff, L. (1994): Inventing Eastern Europe. The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford, CA). ______. (2001): Venice and the Slavs: The discovery of Dalmatia in the Age of Enlightenment (Stanford, CA).

160

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Luka L. Budak: “Review of F. Lovoković, Hrvatske zajednice u Australiji, Nastojanja i postignuća [Croatian communities in Australia, Endeavour(ing)s and achievements]”.

Luka L. Budak Croatian Studies Centre Department of International Studies Macquarie University [email protected]

Fabijan Lovoković, Hrvatske zajednice u Australiji. Riverwood (Sydney): Ligare Pty Ltd, 2010; pp. i-xiii, 768; hbk, AU$80; ISBN: 9780646530536.

The first Croatian migrants to arrive to Australia in the years after World War II were mainly displaced persons and refugees, survivors of postwar atrocities, both soldiers and civilians. In the mid-1950s as well as late 1950s they were joined by those who had experienced both the horrors of war and the difficult social, political and economic conditions of the first decade of the Yugoslav communist regime. Many fled illegallly,1 but were welcomed to Australia by the Menzies government.2 The next ʻwave’ of Croatian migration to Australia, both from Croatia and from Bosnia and Herzegovina, was after Yugoslav authorities opened borders when faced with high rate of unemployment in the early 1960s.3 It was followed by those migrants who arrived under Australia’s skilled and semi-skilled immigration scheme4 which lasted roughly until the mid-1970s. The official attitude to Croatian migrants had by now changed, culminating during the federal Whitlam Labor govrenment with raids on the homes of Croatians who were alleged to have participated in terrorist actvities in Australia.5 In the 1980s, due to high rates of unemployment and political uncertainties, a number of skilled and professional people left Croatia for Australia in a search of a better life.6 They wee followed in the 1990s, by which time Yugoslavia was already defunct, by some refugees from Croatia and somewhat larger number of Croatian refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the time of this writing a number of young and skilled people are arriving, or are trying to migrate, to Australia due to

1 Budak (1988): 343. 2 Biršić (1988): 337; Čolić-Peisker (2004/05): 6. 3 Biršić (1988): 343. 4 Čolić-Peisker (2004/05): 7. 5 Biršić (1988): 343; Čolić-Peisker (2004/05): 6; Drapač (2004/05): 29-31. 6 Čolić-Peisker (2004/05): 9.

161

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) high rate of unemployment in the Republic of Croatia as well as due to low wages which are often paid with weeks and months of delay.7 The post-Second World War Croatian migrants, and in particular those who came in the early postwar years, differed from the interwar migrants, and not only because they now came from all the regions of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were very proud of their Croatian nationality and cultural heritage, and the great majority supported the idea of an independent, sovereign, and democratic Croatia, and refused to be referred to as “Yugoslavs”. Like many other Croatian communities around the world, many postwar Croatian migrants in Australia directed all their political, social, cultural and intellectual efforts to the struggle for Croatian national independence and secession from Yugoslavia. Unlike their interwar predecessors, they took up the challenge to engender a Croatian identity in Australia. This group set the nationalist direction of the community and founded and built a plethora of Croatian associations, clubs, sporting and cultural organizations, welfare associations, churches and Croatian language schools which affirmed the Croatian identity in an urban environment, which encouraged multiculuralism and cultural diversity as social ideals. Their efforts and achievements were immediately boosted by those Croatian migrants who arrived in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s. The pinnacle of their efforts and engagement came with the proclamation of indepenedent, sovereign and democratic Republic of Croatia in 1991. Their efforts were rewarded with a visit by the first President of the Republic of Croatia, Dr Franjo Tuđman, in 1995, and later by diverse state officials and academics. The land for the Embassy of the Republic of Croatia in Canberra was purchased by the local Croatian community and the embassy soon built thereafter on it as a joint effort and project of Croatian Australian community, the Croatian General Consulates in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth were opened in premises purchased by the local Croatian communities. During the 1990s quite a few Croatians departed for Croatia. Some settled there for good, but a number of them returned back to Australia. It is estimated that over 250,000 Australians are Croatian migrants or their descendants. There is no doubt that the post-Second World War migrants played the pivotal role in both the development of the Croatian community and Australia as well. Although a considerable literature, in Croatian and English, exists on Croatains and Croatian community in Australia, Fabijan Lovoković’s book Croatian communities in Australia, Endeavour(ing)s and achievements makes a valuable contribution nevertheless. I should stress at the outset that Lovoković’s book is not an academic work. Unfortunately it is neither a narrative of the evolution or history of the Australia’s post-war Croatian communities. It is rather a diary or ʻdot point’ annals, recording dates and events in the Croatian community, a very unusual and unconventional style and manner for book writing. By author’s own admisson:

7 In a last half year or so I have been receiving a numerous emails from young people with the university education asking me for a job as well as an advice how to migrate to Australia. This symbolizes a potential ʻnew wave’ of Croatian migration to Australia.

162

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

“Most of these data have been extracted from a number of bound newspaper copies of ʻSpremnost.’8 Also I used a number of clippings from Australian newspapers, letters from individuals, records from the Federal Parliament. In other words, for all the above I sought legal basis, or confirmation in writing, so that this part of work and life of Croats in Australia would be a true representation.” (p. xiii) 9

Be that as it may, this enormous publication consists of 768 pages, of approximately 1,200 entries and 524 photographs, 112 of which are in colour.10 The major portion of the book consists of three main parts. Each part consists of a number of sections. There are other segments of the book which we will also be look at.

Part I: Activities of Croatians in NSW 1950-1992 (Djelovanje Hrvata NSW-a 1950.-1992.) This first part of the book refers to events in Croatian community of New South Wales from 1950 to 1992. It consists of five sections with almost 800 entries and 180 photographs

 “Arrival of Croatians after World War II” (pp. 3-15) - it consists of 18 entries and 11 black and white photographs.  “Croatian community of Sydney 1951-1959” (pp. 17-75), with 103 entries and 25 black and white photographs.

8 Fabijan Lovoković was one and only editor of the Croatian-language newspaper Spremnost since its inception in 1957 till its extinguishing in the first decade of the 21st century. Spremnost reflected the editor’s and post-war Croatian migrants’ non-recognition of the state and government of Yugoslavia as the legal representative of the Croatian people. This is well confirmed by the very first photograph in the book in which a young man holds a sign: “Please don’t call me a Yugoslav! I am a Croat. Yugoslavia is a symbol of slavery for Croatian.” 9 I am not so sure about this statement, especially when I personally know that the Governing Council of the Croatian Studies Foundation never gave or approved any lists of its membership, but in spite of that Lovoković went ahead and published a partial list of CSF’s members which caused quite a bit of unnecssary unrest among CSF’s membership and in community in general. In relation to that Lovoković says: “We publish the data which we were able to come across because we are of the conviction that names of the donors should be inscribed not only into the book of Croatian Studies Foundation, but also into those annals which will be accessible to much greater number of interesting persons and institutions.” (p. 336). Lovoković always wanted to be a busy-body in the community (Htio je uvijek biti svakom loncu poklopac). Furthermore, he takes a handful of names from one CSF’s invitation to a cocktail party and publishes the names of students who have studied Croatian from 1983-2000 without any consultation and without anyone’s permission, ignoring Federal Privacy of Information Act. What is even worse, the author publishes any information, untrue or misleading, to undermine the Croatian Studies Foundation and its activities. Good example of this unverified and planting information is the correspondence that the author received from Mrs. Štefica Maglica and readily published it in his book (pp. 337-41). 10 It would make an interesting research to see whether the colour photographs signify the importance of a group in relation to the author and his political views. For example, Croatians on Tasmania have only 8 entries altogether but 28 photographs of which 16 are in colour as compared to 22 entries on Croatians in South Australia, 16 entries on Croatians in Western Australia, and 17 entries on Croatians in Queensland but no colour photographs!

163

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

 “Croatian community of Sydney 1960-1969” (pp. 77-135), with 167 entries and 52 photographs of which 16 are in colour.  “Croatian community of Sydney 1970-1979” (pp. 137-205), with 237 entries and 35 photographs of which 16 are in colour.  “Croatian community of Sydney 1980-1992” (pp. 207-89), with 271 entries and 56 photographs of which 16 are in colour.

So, for example, if you turn to page 63 you will find there four entries: “Annual function of Australian Council of Australia (ACA) was held on 16th November 1957”; “A proposal about formation of Central Council of Croatian Associations of Australia”; “The action for buying of Croatian Club (Dom)”, and that on 15th December 1957 the first issue of Spremnost came out. On page 77 you can find and read about the “Last wish of the Poglavnik”11 as well as “Memorial service for the Poglavnik”. On page 113 we find about a lecture on Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac in Croatian Club (Dom) on 25th February 1966 by a young speaker, Franjo Lazanja; on a same page we also find the entry that Sir Robert Menzies leaves politics, etc., etc. It must be pointed out that many of these entries are riddled with bias and incomplete information, which makes them, putting it mildly, misleading. For example, if we turn to page 235 we find four entries on that page. The second one reads: “Dr Vinko Grubišić in Australia”:

“On Sunday 14th April 1985 Dr Vinko Grubišić, who will be teaching Croatian language and literature at Macquarie University, has arrived to Sydney. He graduated out of Croatian Studies in Zagreb under the guidence of Professor Ljudevit Jonke, and obtained his PhD in Slavonic philology in Switzerland. For the past nine years Vinko Grubišić has been living in Canada in town of Sudbury.”

The fourth entry reads: “Michael McAdams in Australia“:

“In the early days of May 1985 Professor Michael McAdams, professor of history and expert on Croatian issues, arrived to Sydney and held a series of lectures. He gave a lecture on 4th May 1985 in Croatian Club ʻKing Tomislav’, on 5th May 1985 in Croatian Club Ltd in Punchbowl, and on 7th of May he held a lecture at Macquarie University. This lecture on ʻYalta Agreement’ was held in front of numerous students, Croatians, Ukrainians, Poles and Macedonians. The lectures were held in the organization of SOHDA [Central Council of Croatian Associations of Australia]. Professor Michael McAdams was a guest of Croatians in Melbourne, Geelong and Adelaide.”

The above is only partially true. Dr Vinko Grubišić and Professor Michael

11 Poglavnik (the Leader) is a title used by Ante Pavelić, supreme leader of collaborationist Independent State of Croatia in the Second World War.

164

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

McAdams did not come to Australia just because of their own accord. It is a well- known fact that both colleagues, Dr Grubišić and Professor McAdams of University of San Francisco, were invited to Australia by the writer of this review and with the support of the Croatian Studies Foundation. Without their efforts and support the two gentlemen and academics would not have come to Australia and I cannot understand why this is passed over in silence! This is a very dangerous path to tread upon.

Part II: Organizing of Australian Croatians through associations and institutions (Organiziranje Hrvata Australije kroz društva i ustanove) This second part of the book relates to formation of Croatian organizations and the institutions across Australia during this period. It illustrates the social, cultural, folkloric, sports, media, and political actvities and it consists of 360 entries, 301 photographs, 36 scanned front pages of Croatian printed media, and 45 scanned covers of Croatian books published in Australia:

 “Umbrella Croatian institutions in Australia” (pp. 293-342); it consists of 25 entries and 14 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in Sydney” (pp. 345-427) with 70 entries and 57 photographs of which 16 are in colour.  “Croatians in NSW outside Sydney” (pp. 429-42) with 16 entries and 8 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in Victoria” (pp. 445-96) with 32 entries and 56 photographs of which 16 are in colour.  “Croatians in South Australia” (pp. 499-523) with 22 entries and 16 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in Western Australia” (pp. 525-40), with 16 entries and 10 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in Tasmania” (pp. 543-54), with 8 entries and 28 photographs of which 16 were in colour.  “Croatians in Queensland” (pp. 557-81), with 17 entries and 23 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in Canberra and Queanbeyan” (pp. 583-89), with 10 entries and 12 black and white photographs.  “Croatian printed media in Australia” (pp. 601-12), with 47 entries and 36 scanned front pages.  “Books printed in Australia” (pp. 615-25), with 1 entry and 45 scanned front covers.  “Religious life of Croatians in Australia” (pp. 627-60), with 32 entries and 24 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in building of Australia” (pp. 665-72), with 5 entries and 8 black and white photographs.  “Croatians in cultural and sports life of Australia” (pp. 675-90), with 22 entries and 27 photographs of which 16 are in colour.  “Croatian institutions established in NSW after establishment of the

165

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

[independent] Republic of Croatia” (pp. 693-727), with 37 entries and 18 photographs.

Part III: Appendices (Dodatci) In this third and final part of the book we find eight different sections; it consists of 17 entries and 2 black and white photographs:

 Croatians and Slovenes (p. 730); Members of ACA Sydney 1951-1955 (pp. 731- 2); Second wave of immigrants 1959-1960 (pp. 732-3); First Minutes of the ACA Sydney 1951 (734); First memorandum of the Croatians to the Federal Government 1952 (735-6); Letter by ACA Melbourne in relation to memorandum 1953 (737); First Minutes of ACA Geelong 1957 (738); Letter of Federal Government in relation to te opening of Yugoslav embassy in Canberra 1966 (739); Notice about the bomb attacks in Sydney 1972 (740); Announcement in the name of Croatian freedom and independence 1974 (741); Notice from Australian Government in relation to symbolic Croatian embassy in Canberra in 1977 (742); Recognition of Croatian language in Victoria 1979 (743); Recognition of Croatian language in NSW 1979 (744); Statement by Canberra Croatians about democratization of Yugoslavia 1988 (745); Resolution from the meeting of Croatian political organizations in Canberra on 26th February 1989 (746-7); Letter from SOHDA to Prime Minister of Australia about the proclamation of independence of the Republic of Croatia 1991 (748); Notice from Australian Prime Minister about recgognition of the Republic of Croatia 1992 (749).

In addition to the documents listed above, we also find the following parts of the book such as the Note of thanks (Zahvala) in which author expresses his gratitude to 106 persons from different Croatian organizations who have helped him in bringing his book to a fruition (pp. 750-52) and a list of numerous abbreviations (pp. 753-54). After going through 754 pages of discordant and often not very soothing entries – at times passionate, polemical, biased and even ironic – we finally come to the Bibliography on pp. 756-66 which is not in fact bibliography but a list of ‘well-known’ books published in Australia and New Zealand in Croatian about Croatians in Australia and New Zealand or on Croatian themes published in English. And finally, we come to the last page in the book: “Sponsors of the book”, mentioning seventy Croatian individuals, businesses and commmunity organizations, to whom the author dedicates the following thoughts:

“I wish to express my thanks to the persons and associations who with their financial donations helped printing of this historical book about Croatian communities in Australia in a hope that the book will be of use for further thinking about achievements of Croatians, especially with our younger generations both in Australia as well as in other historical spaces where Croatians now reside.” (p. 768).

A huge data of information on the social cultural, sports, religious, and political activities of the Croatian expatriates in Australia in post-war period have been

166

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012) gathered and presented in this book. A lot of that information, however, comes from Lovoković’s own newspaper Spremnost. The possible researchers of this newspaper will not have to browse and plow through the many issues of the paper as selective summary of Spremnost is available in this book. Nevertheless Lovoković’s book will, no doubt, with all its weaknesses and flaws, contribute to the better understanding of history and problems of the Croatian community in Australia during a very difficult and arduous period of Croatian history.12 Apart from the lack of formal cohesion, and other shortcomings mentioned only briefly above, the book also suffers from the ʻSpremnost syndrom’ - the biased coverage of the issues in the Croatian community. For that reason, and many others, the book will not live up to promise of delivering a true history of post-World War II Croatian-Australian community. Just as in the times of his editorship of Spremnost, here too the author employs the same approach and underhand dealing with unlike-minded persons and members of Croatian community and Croatian community organizations of different views. As the editor of Spremnost he would undermine them and belittle in every way he could, and that unfortunately transpired into the book under the review. Due to this egocentric approach many important events in the Croatian community and several community organizations were hardly mentioned or they were left out altogether. That is very disturbing and negative side of this book in ʻdot-point’ form. And that is really sad as there is no room in today’s space and time to express such intolerabe attitudes with no respect to the views of other people. Croatian community of Australia is a diverse community and the book should have provided a deeper appreciation of the diversity of Croatian life in post-war Australia, as well as greater presentation of the Croatian migrants’ input into and contribution to the multicululutral fabric of the Australian nation.

Bibliography Biršić, G. (1988): ‘Croatian Settlement Since 1960’. In: Australian People: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, ed. J. Jupp (North Ryde- Sydney): 343-44. Budak, L. (1988): ‘Postwar Croatian Settlement’. In: Australian People: An encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins, ed. J. Jupp (North Ryde- Sydney): 342. Čolić-Peisker, V. (2004/05): ‘Australian Croatians at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century: A Changing Profile of the Community and its Public Representation’, Croatian Studies Review 3-4: 1-26. Drapač, V. (2004/05): ‘Perceptions of Post-World War Croatian Immigrants: The South Australian Case’, Croatian Studies Review 3-4: 27-39.

12 Ante Vukasović, p. xii; Professor Ante Vukasović, well known Croatian pedagouge (now in retirement), wrote a Comment on the book (pp. ix-xiii); and Dr Mladen Ibler, ex-Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to Australia and New Zealand (1999-2005), wrote a short Introduction (pp. vii- viii).

167

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Submission guide

The articles and book reviews for CSR should be submitted as email attachments in Microsoft Word format, with line spacing 1.5 to either of the editors. Before main text of the article, please provide short abstract (ca. 100-150 words), and keywords, and after bibliography supply 400-600 words summary. If article is in language other than English, summary should be in English. If article is in English 400-600 words summary should be in Croatian. Length of articles is limited on 10,000, and book reviews on 2,500 words, which includes bibliography, footnotes and (in a case of articles) abstracts and summaries. If review deals with more than one book at the same time, it can be longer than 2,500 words, with upper limit on 5,000.

CSR uses footnotes, not in-text referencing or endnotes. Referencing in footnotes should contain the author’s surname(s), the year of publication and, if necessary, page(s) in this way:

Biti (2002): 77

Pages in footnotes should be abbreviated in following manner.

Flaker (1977): 77-8

Budak (1994): 206-12, 225-7

If there are more than two authors, please reference publication in this way: Davidson, Gaffney et al. (2006): 219-66, supplying the names of all authors in bibliography. Do not include ‘ed.’ in a reference to an edited work: Easthope (2005), not Easthope ed. (2005). Cite works published by the same author(s) in the same year as (2004a), (2004b) etc, not (2004), (2004a) etc.

In a text articles and book chapters should be written under inverted comas (ʻNeki problemi padežnog sustava’), and book titles in italics (Jagićev zbornik).

Quoted paragraphs with more than 3 lines should have line spacing of 1.15.

Bibliography of cited works must be listed at the end of the article (before summary in second language, which comes last). Authors should be listed in alphabetical order with surname(s) in bold letters.

Books:

Barry, P. (2002): Beginning Theory. An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory (Manchester). Ladmiral, J. R. & Lipianski, E.M. (1989): La Communication interculturelle (Paris). Dragić, M. (2005): Hrvatska usmena književnost Bosne i Hercegovine: proza, drama i mikrostrukture. Hrvatska književnost Bosne i Hercegovine u 100 knjiga 5 (Sarajevo). Pohl, W. & Reimitz, H. (eds.) (1998): Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800 (Leiden, Boston & Cologne).

168

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

Chapter in edited book:

Eagleton, T. (1998): ‘Postcolonialism. The Case of Ireland’. In: Multicultural States. Rethinking Diference and Identity, ed. D. Bennet (London & New York): 48-52.

Articles from journal or conference proceedings:

Karaula, Ž. (2006/07): ‘The 1888 Bjelovar affair: The Theory behind the (Yugo)Slavic Idea and the Unification of Churches’, Transcultural Studies 2-3: 95-107.

Publications by the same author(s) should be listed chronologically in this way, without repeating name of the author (use 8 spaces).

Bešker, I. (1997): Rinascita serba e Illirismo croato (Napoli) ______. (2002/03): Il Rinnovamento culturale e letterario nell’Ottocento (Roma).

Articles from websites must include author (if known, if unknown please put Anonymous), the name of the website, the date and year of publishing (if known), www link and the date of last access.

Dijanović, D. (2012): ʻLuka Budak: Hrvati u Australiji razočarani su hrvatskom politikom’, Portal Hrvatskog kulturnog vijeća website, published 2/4/2012. http://www.hkv.hr/razgovori/11164-l-budak-hrvati-u-australiji-razoarani-su- hrvatskom-politikom.html, last access 12/4/2013.

Anonymous (2012): ʻKonferencija “Mogućnosti ulaganja u Republiku Hrvatsku i Splitsko-dalmatinsku županiju”, Split’, Croatian Chamber of Economy website, published 2012. http://www.hgk.hr/sektor-centar/centar-za-investicije/konferencija-mogucnosti- ulaganja-u-republiku-hrvatsku-i-splitsko-dalmatinsku-zupaniju-split-05-i-06-listopada- 2012, last access 12/4/2013

All the articles will be anonymously refereed by two peer-referees. After the review author might be asked to make changes suggested by referees, if deemed necessary by editors.

169

Croatian Studies Review 8 (2012)

170