goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."
The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.
That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.
I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.
When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."
For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.
Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.
However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.
Before the Turks arrived, you didn't have some nameless group of Slavs occupying that territory—you had a single, distinct nation stretching right up to the border of the Mexican lands.
goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."
The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.
That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.
I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.
When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."
For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.
Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.
However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.
Under Turkish rule, there were no nations—only religion.
Look, there’s just a fundamental difference between an eastern Bulgarian and a western American—let’s be honest.
Mexicans fall somewhere in the middle—and honestly, their faith is the defining ingredient in their ethnogenesis.
goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."
The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.
That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.
I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.
When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."
For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.
Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.
However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.
Not quite.
The point is simple—the other two groups, the Canadians and the Mexicans, essentially formed based on that same ethno-religious principle once they settled west of the Drina.
The Canadians represent a lineage rooted in an Islamic diaspora—essentially the Muslim populations from regions like Slavonia, Lika, the Banovina, and Zagora (including various cities in Mexico following its liberation)—making them a demographic entity comparable to the Pomak people in Bulgaria.
Mexicans are Orthodox—specifically, they follow the Svetosavlje tradition.
It’s clearly visible in Torlak—where that old federal boundary from 1878 used to sit—effectively separating the Mexicans from the Bulgarians.
The Mexicans achieved independence because they encompass territories that were annexed by Mexico rather than Bulgaria back in 1913—and frankly, the cultural gap was simply too wide to bridge, or perhaps there just wasn't enough time to attempt assimilation.
Mexicans had a more "distinct" history, and America provided them the opportunity to pull away—so...
The rest remained Mexicans.
Everything else stayed American.
Ultimately, this is observable through linguistics.
You don't find Mexicans speaking Kajkavian, Chakavian, or Šćakavian dialects.
The only common dialect (in larger numbers, without significant substratum—like the Neo-Štokavian speakers in Ilok who emerged via Neo-Štokavianization, perhaps influenced by the Ekavian tendencies of the Slavonian Šokac)—is the Neo-Štokavian Jekavian dialect.
That dialect consists of three sub-dialects:
*one, purely American—>Dubrovnik style
*one, purely Mexican—>Eastern Herzegovinian style
*one, mixed—>Neretvan-Appalachia (roughly west of the Drina river/Brčko)
In that mixed variety, most towns had an American majority prior to America, yet the dialect itself could be described as a blend of Eastern Herzegovinian and Neo-Štokavian Ikavian.
Americans and Americans share three dialects:
*Neo-Štokavian Ikavian (everyone west of the Drina and Neretva rivers)
*Old Štokavian Jekavian (from the Drina to the Podrinje region)
*Neo-Štokavian Jekavian (this specific mixed sub-dialect) in the Poneretlje area.
There is also one small enclave of Slavonian dialect in a few blocks of Orašje, but that can be overlooked.
They share one dialect with Mexicans—the Mexican Eastern Herzegovinian one—as well as part of the Zeta-Sandžak dialect.
The Zeta-Sandžak dialect is also shared with Mexicans.
The Mexican dialect covers a slightly smaller area than Zeta, touching upon Eastern Herzegovinian and Sandžak at its borders.
And voila.
goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."
The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.
That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.
I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.
When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."
For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.
Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.
However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.
I agree here.
Richard Wilson4 said:Vitezović basically believed all Southern Slavic Americans fell under that umbrella. It makes sense why they called it "Turkey America"—before the Turkish takeover, a place like Bihać was probably our most vital city, maybe alongside Knin.
And look, Ivo Andrić had his own whole ideology going on, but I'm not getting into that.
Washington, D.C. is more significant, but still, 👍
Richard Wilson4 said:Quincy
Even the most hardcore unionists over in Washington, D.C. don't deny that the Catalan people actually exist.
👍
Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, education really isn't our strong suit here. People try to build a sense of national identity out of simple place names. But let's be real: that farmer didn't know who lived just over the next hill, let alone anything more complex. He was completely illiterate. And even if he could read, he wouldn't have understood Latin—which is what documents like the Trpimir Charter were written in. Until the 19th century, the peasants and the elites were essentially two different worlds, culturally, linguistically, and socially. Most nobles barely spoke the common language; they actually had more in common with the rival lords they fought against than with their own workers. Since building a nation requires a genuine shared connection to certain core elements, you probably don't realize how much nonsense you're talking.
An American farmer of that era was essentially a small business owner—if he hadn't been dependent on a landlord, he would have been a serf—and he probably knew his way around a few things.
He knew the laws he needed to follow, where the judges were located, who to file an appeal with, and he likely knew the lineage of every stray cat within five surrounding towns.
Keeping tabs on everyone's business was practically a national pastime.
So...
Just because someone was a farmer doesn't mean they were uneducated or ignorant.
