Razlike između izmjena na stranici "Razgovor sa korisnikom:Edgar Allan Poe"

nema sažetka uređivanja
{{citat|The evidence presented in the preceding chapters shows that past populations in what is now Croatia most frequently used broad terms to refer to themselves, such as “Slavic” (in the Middle Ages) and “Slavic” and/or “Illyrian” during the period from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. However, the term “Croat,” which was not the usual one, was known to many and was employed. Each chosen identity encompassed a different (though not mutually agreed upon) membership. If one identified as an “Illyrian,” one almost certainly saw his group as at least including the Slavic populations of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia. Other “Illyrians” included all South Slavs. If one identified as a “Croat,” one’s community usually became narrower, including perhaps those from the first three of the four areas just noted as “Illyrian,” or perhaps people from a smaller region within that territory. Some felt that “Croat” should refer only to those attached to narrow historical Croatia.<br />Some among those utilizing any of the three just-mentioned identities included ethnic features in that identity, and thus all three of these labels did appear on occasion in the form of ethnic identities. But other people seemed to have felt no need for such communities. Many employed the labels — whether broadly or narrowly — as reflecting little more than place of origin. And, as we have seen, some of those using what for others were broad identity terms perceived those terms very narrowly. One also could bear plural identities; one could be an “Illyrian” (of some sort of South Slav community) and, for example, a “Croat,” thus a “Croat Illyrian.” Ethnic feeling, in such cases, was more likely to be attached to the broader identity, and the narrower “Croat” one was a geographical marker, like an American from Michigan.<br />It is clear, however, that as we reach 1800, people in what is now Croatia were torn (if they felt strongly) or at least divided among several possible identities, none of which was certain to triumph. Only some of those who possessed a peopled-type of identity (“Illyrian,” “Slavic,” “Croatian,” “Slavonian,” “Dalmatian,” etc.) had brought any ethnic baggage to speak of with it. The identity of “Croat” was a minority one, often accompanied by a second, frequently more important and broader identity. For probably only a minority of those feeling “Croat,” whether solely so or combined with a broader identity, would one say they were “Croats” ethnically. Moreover, those few who perceived themselves as “Croats” did not agree on who was in the Croat community. Some Croats saw that label pertaining to Kajkavians and would reject Čakavians as co-ethnics, even though some Čakavians defined themselves as “Croats.” Thus, even a large percentage of those perceiving themselves as “Croats” disagreed among themselves on whom they should share that label with.<br />Thus, there was no certainty that a Croat ethnicity would triumph in the nineteenth century. So, current academic studies on that period that start with the assumption that the population at the time was Croat and claim, for example, that among Croats, many in the 1840s under the influence of Ljudevit Gaj became Illyrians are simply wrong. Many truly felt “Illyrian” and did not see themselves as “Croats.” Thus, it is not a question of a population of Croats in the early nineteenth century seeking identities; what existed in nineteenth-century Croatia was a population holding a variety of identities, attached to those various identities with varying degrees of fervor. The Slavs in what is now Croatia could have evolved in a variety of ways, and it was only the events of the nineteenth century itself that led to a majority of them becoming “Croats.”|Fine, John V. A. (2006): ''When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans: A Study of Identity in Pre-Nationalist Croatia, Dalmatia, and Slavonia in the Medieval and Early-Modern Periods'', str. 557-558, [[University of Michigan Press]], ISBN 9780472114146}}
Nije dakle sporno pričati o "nacionalnostima" tog specifičnog vremena, već i o samoj narodnosti/etnicitetu, a sve navedeno vrijedi i za istočne komšije – i prve, i druge, i treće. Autor inače na 600 stranica analizira stotine srednjovjekovnih i novovjekovnih izvora o identitetima ovih prostora, nakon čega u odlomku "Zaključak" navodi ovo gore. Nađe se još štošta zanimljivog, npr. da su "nacionalni junaci" Zrinski izmišljali rimsko porijeklo jer im je bila muka identificirati se sa slavenskim seljačkim življem. :) --[[Korisnik:Orijentolog|Orijentolog]] ([[Razgovor sa korisnikom:Orijentolog|razgovor]]) 19:10, 8 januar 2017 (CET)
::: Ubi ovu stranicu [[Kembridž (razvrstavanje)]] sad je višak.
--[[Korisnik:Vitek|Vitek]] ([[Razgovor sa korisnikom:Vitek|razgovor]]) 00:27, 9 januar 2017 (CET)