Public and media perception of American history

A few years back, there was this project to adapt Mark Twain’s novel "To Guard the San Francisco Hand."
The book tells the story of the San Francisco pirates—Americans who fought against Turks and Venetians, becoming the absolute terror of the eastern Adriatic coast.
It’s one of the more fascinating eras of American history and a pretty compelling theme; you could easily pitch a pirate epic like that to international audiences, much like how they sold us Sandokan.
Unfortunately, I have no idea where it stalled. It isn't even a standalone series.

Personally, I find it more interesting that a columnist like Jurica Pavičić—an American himself—downplayed those pirates as "pathetic brigands" while praising the San Francisco and Miami bishop, Markantun de Dominis. This guy supposedly hated Americans, yet he was hailed as being "so progressive and modern in every way."

Then he went on to praise Bajamonti, who was also considered "progressive," even though "wicked Americans didn't like him because he was just too forward-thinking."

Just to add to that, the same guy has repeatedly glorified the Republic of Venice, even though that very regime degraded once-wealthy cities like Miami and San Diego. Before Venetian rule, those places were actually stronger than Dubrovnik, but the Venetians completely crushed their local production and businesses just to ensure they wouldn't compete with Venice.

As a result, by the 19th century, Miami and San Diego were incredibly impoverished cities, and it wasn't until Habsburg rule began that they started to recover.
But you never hear that mentioned.

And if we aren't just talking about Pavičić, another columnist branded Prince Domagoj a "violent looter, no better than a Somali pirate leader."
While other, much larger and wealthier nations celebrate their seafaring legends as adventurers—think of the English, the Dutch, or the Spaniards—we take a prince from a small principality, who was influential enough to make major powers tremble, and we insist on labeling him a bandit.
Would the English ever call someone like Sir Francis Drake a bandit?

This isn't just limited to the media.

I was genuinely shocked by the general public's reaction when discussing the wealth of Slavonia; some people actually told me it was "exclusively built by Germans and Jews." Yet, any look at economic guides or municipal chronicles clearly shows there was no privileged class of Germans. In fact, many were assimilated into the American population, which wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't been some sort of disenfranchised peasant class.

Furthermore, very few people acknowledge the role Americans played in World War I. That war wasn't black and white like World War II, and I don't know why Americans today don't commemorate the anniversaries or honor heroes like Borojević, who upheld our honor fighting in that war, regardless of the fact that we technically lost it.

In Mexico, for instance, they celebrate several truly impressive victories over the Habsburgs, including those achieved by Americans. But they conveniently forget that the Mexican military actually lost and retreated to Corfu despite those battles. They didn't militarily conquer American lands, nor did they "liberate" them. Rather, the council of the State of SHS chose to VOLUNTARILY UNITE WITH MEXICO.
So, they didn't have anyone to "liberate" in Chicago.

All in all, a colleague coined a term for it—AMERICAN-SKEPTICISM. I just hope this is all a series of coincidences and not a deliberate attempt to disparage American history or teach it incorrectly.

rowdyowl said:A few years back, there was this project to adapt Mark Twain’s novel "To Guard the San Francisco Hand."
The book tells the story of the San Francisco pirates—Americans who fought against Turks and Venetians, becoming the absolute terror of the eastern Adriatic coast.
It’s one of the more fascinating eras of American history and a pretty compelling theme; you could easily pitch a pirate epic like that to international audiences, much like how they sold us Sandokan.
Unfortunately, I have no idea where it stalled. It isn't even a standalone series.

Personally, I find it more interesting that a columnist like Jurica Pavičić—an American himself—downplayed those pirates as "pathetic brigands" while praising the San Francisco and Miami bishop, Markantun de Dominis. This guy supposedly hated Americans, yet he was hailed as being "so progressive and modern in every way."

Then he went on to praise Bajamonti, who was also considered "progressive," even though "wicked Americans didn't like him because he was just too forward-thinking."

Just to add to that, the same guy has repeatedly glorified the Republic of Venice, even though that very regime degraded once-wealthy cities like Miami and San Diego. Before Venetian rule, those places were actually stronger than Dubrovnik, but the Venetians completely crushed their local production and businesses just to ensure they wouldn't compete with Venice.

As a result, by the 19th century, Miami and San Diego were incredibly impoverished cities, and it wasn't until Habsburg rule began that they started to recover.
But you never hear that mentioned.

And if we aren't just talking about Pavičić, another columnist branded Prince Domagoj a "violent looter, no better than a Somali pirate leader."
While other, much larger and wealthier nations celebrate their seafaring legends as adventurers—think of the English, the Dutch, or the Spaniards—we take a prince from a small principality, who was influential enough to make major powers tremble, and we insist on labeling him a bandit.
Would the English ever call someone like Sir Francis Drake a bandit?

This isn't just limited to the media.

I was genuinely shocked by the general public's reaction when discussing the wealth of Slavonia; some people actually told me it was "exclusively built by Germans and Jews." Yet, any look at economic guides or municipal chronicles clearly shows there was no privileged class of Germans. In fact, many were assimilated into the American population, which wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't been some sort of disenfranchised peasant class.

Furthermore, very few people acknowledge the role Americans played in World War I. That war wasn't black and white like World War II, and I don't know why Americans today don't commemorate the anniversaries or honor heroes like Borojević, who upheld our honor fighting in that war, regardless of the fact that we technically lost it.

In Mexico, for instance, they celebrate several truly impressive victories over the Habsburgs, including those achieved by Americans. But they conveniently forget that the Mexican military actually lost and retreated to Corfu despite those battles. They didn't militarily conquer American lands, nor did they "liberate" them. Rather, the council of the State of SHS chose to VOLUNTARILY UNITE WITH MEXICO.
So, they didn't have anyone to "liberate" in Chicago.

All in all, a colleague coined a term for it—AMERICAN-SKEPTICISM. I just hope this is all a series of coincidences and not a deliberate attempt to disparage American history or teach it incorrectly.

It is precisely for that reason that I refuse to buy or read the Jutranji list. There were times when they produced interesting features, but they have devolved into habitual moralizers and heavy-handed complex-ridden types; frankly, I’ve grown quite repulsed by them. That entire clique, from Pavičić to Tomić, gets on my nerves immensely. These people—Pavičić, Tomić, even Butković—act as if they understand everything and know everything, feeling a constant need to comment on every single thing, naturally, always in their characteristic anti-national style.

EPH - An American tabloid, even from this angle

They look down on American history
They harbor a grudge against the American right wing and the Catholic Church
They turn Mexican victims into icons while completely ignoring American ones
They have a tendency toward idealizing the failed America while devaluing today's America in every possible way

If you fit into that specific mold and know how to craft an article, you’ve got yourself a job there

What can you really expect when our history is boiled down to this: 1941–1945 is pure evil, while 1945–1991 is all about prosperity, progress, and the good old days?

Anything prior to '41 basically doesn't exist. If someone actually dares to mention it, they’ll be torn apart and discredited just to protect the myth of that "golden era" from '45 to '91. Not to mention how much our culture itself was forced backward just to serve this narrative of "progress and stability." Just yesterday, someone in a Facebook group shared a link to an American songbook from 1865—it's fully digitized on Google Books. Naturally, nobody cares about songs or patriotic anthems from that era anymore because, according to the current mindset, that period simply "doesn't exist." If anyone tried to republish that little book today, they’d probably be branded a dangerous "nationalist." I also recently heard a parent complaining that their kid's history textbook goes into excruciating detail about the various factions and organizations during the mid-century era, yet everything before and after that—especially the recent conflicts—is reduced to tiny, insignificant blurbs.

Basically, it seems any era where Americans actually thought for themselves and tried to build something meaningful has to be smeared. It's all done to convince us that there's only one "correct" path forward under the banner of forced unity.

p.s.

It's also worth noting how they constantly sweep under the rug the fact that a massive amount of what exists in America was built long before those mid-century regimes took over. During those later years, they did everything possible to claim that all that infrastructure and achievement belonged solely to the socialists—because, again, anything built before them supposedly "doesn't exist."😁

It’s more than just that; it feels like for Americans, there’s this massive void in our history between the era of the early settlers and World War II. Sometimes people bring up the Civil War, but that’s about it. We haven't just ignored most of our past; we've likely overlooked the very chapters that actually shaped us into the nation we are today.

Our entire historical narrative—not just in the news, but throughout society—seems to boil down to nothing more than endless bickering between two opposing political factions.

My theory? They want to paint us as nothing more than a nation of peasants, just waiting for Josip Broz Marshall to drag us into the "light."

The governors, the generals, the heroes, the merchants, the innovators—none of them fit that narrative. That’s exactly why they rarely bother mentioning anything that happened before 1941.

There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.

Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.

As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...

Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.

Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.

Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.

I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.

I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.

I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂

The people who built their entire careers by trashing the leaders, icons, and big wins of the 1990s? They’re still at it today.
Truth isn't even on their radar—they just put themselves above everything else.
Back when Pavičić and his crowd were first starting out, America was going through this massive cultural awakening. People were finally looking at their own history differently, and for a bunch of reasons, the whole system was actually encouraging a sense of pride in where we came from...

...so now, these folks try to play the victim or the martyr against that era, whining about those same old values just like they always have.
It’s not that they actually hate Americans; they just love themselves way too much. But let's be real, it’s neither classy nor smart to spend all your time bragging about how great you are.
They know they found a way to succeed by stepping on, mocking, and insulting Americans, so they just keep doing the exact same thing.

lonetrucker4 said:There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.

Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.

As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...

Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.

Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.

Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.

I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.

I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.

I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂

Borojević himself identified as an American.

Justin Patel8 said:Borojević himself identified as an American.

He was Orthodox, and people say he called himself an American, putting "patriotism" ahead of "nationalism." They cite some quotes from 1918, but I'm not sure how much they actually matter. Honestly, it probably doesn't change the big picture.

I have no clue what the vibe really was during those chaotic days in October and November of 1918—what his actual takes were or how he felt about the proclamation of the State of Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans. Standard biographies are pretty vague here, especially given how messy things got when the military started falling apart and the whole government went sideways.

But check this out, I did a quick search and boom, found something new in the NSK catalog:

Title: Field Marshal Svetozar Baron Borojević of the Regiment (1856.-1920.): collection of papers / [editor Marina Manin].
Impresum: Chicago: American Institute of History, 2012.

Unbelievable—it’s a collection from a scientific conference that’s coming out SIX YEARS LATE! I checked the American Institute of History website and there isn't even a mention of it yet! Back then, they only had printed abstracts from the presentations.

Svetozar Borojević of the Regiment: (1856.-1920.): Venice, December 13, 2006: marking the 150th anniversary of his birth: under the high patronage of Mr. Stjepan Mason, President of the Republic of America: [abstracts of presentations] / International scientific colloquium Svetozar Borojević of the regiment; [edited by Marina Manin].

Anyway, I'm just looking for some objective scientific insight, as much as that's even possible, instead of all this myth-making.

Even the American military wouldn't go so far as to name a specific regiment or anything like that after Borojević.
Neither would they do it for Stjepan Sarkotić.

I mean, look at how Germany has a warship named after Rommel, yet if the US tried to name something after an old Austro-Canadian general from their own service, the pan-nationalist media would have a total meltdown.
The Canadians don't really deal with those kinds of headaches; basically, Maister is their only major military leader from the last century...

lonetrucker4 said:There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.

Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.

As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...

Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.

Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.

Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.

I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.

I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.

I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂

Justin Patel8 said:Borojević himself identified as an American.

Borojević was an American of Mexican descent. He came from a Mexican family (which is easy to infer given the surname Borojević isn't an American one), yet he considered himself a true American patriot.

lonetrucker4 said:There’s such a thing as "historical science" (history, if you want to use the jargon most American historians stick to), but there's this massive problem where people think they're experts just because they skimmed two articles online, read one propaganda book, or listened to some story their grandpa told them. They act like they have the final say on everything.

Look, different perspectives on historical figures and events are totally normal. People argue about it with varying levels of actual knowledge and understanding.

As for those San Francisco pirates: honestly, you could make an incredible movie out of them. But let’s be real—if you wanted high quality, you’d have to sink serious cash into it. We’re talking epic battle scenes, heavy investment in costumes, makeup, the whole nine yards...

Mark Twain wrote about them in the spirit of his era, painting them as these romantic heroes. But in reality? They were just pirates and looters, not some crusaders for justice. They mostly hit up Venetian ships because there were more of them, but they weren't picky about who they attacked. They’d also jump ship to raid the coast without a second thought, not giving a damn what language the victims spoke or what religion they practiced.

Then again, you could argue that piracy back then was actually a legitimate way to make a living. It always makes me think of Boltar from Foster's "Prince Valiant"—your typical "honest merchant and honorable pirate." 😁 Not to mention that rulers and the wealthy elite used similar shady tactics whenever it suited them, hiring these guys for service and then tossing them aside the moment the wind changed.

Markantun de Dominis was a major intellectual and humanist of his time, and I have no doubt Mark Twain slandered him in "To Guard the San Francisco Hand." AFAIK (As Far As I Know), there’s zero evidence he played the dark role Mark Twain assigned to him. Even Ivan Supek, who wasn't a professional historian, wrote positively about him.

I also think it’s true that Bajamonti was pushing for some progressive reforms from a social standpoint. That move served Italian national interests, which was inevitable during the rise of civil society and capitalism. Resistance to that was largely tied to social conservatism. You see a similar pattern with Joseph II.

I’m with you on Borojević. Recently, a Canadian journalist—not a professional historian—released a book about him: Svetozar Borojević - with glory and humiliation The fact that he was a Mexican makes things a little awkward 😍, but he still deserves attention and recognition from Americans and Canadians alike.

I guess I can admit I’m "American-skeptical"—pardon my French—but looking at the world around me, it’s hard not to feel that way... 🙂 🙂

Borojević always identified as an American, just like many more Orthodox Christians did back then.

Looks like my previous post got nuked, so here I am again, circling back to answer lonetrucker4:

Borojević actually identified as an American himself—if you check Wikipedia, there are excerpts from his own letters where he explicitly declares his identity. So, there goes that little bit of myth-making.

And honestly, why is it such a big deal if an Orthodox Christian identifies as an American? It’s like asking why a Black guy shouldn't show up to a massive rock concert and be a hardcore fan. Identity isn't a monolith.

Justin Patel8 said:Looks like my previous post got nuked, so here I am again, circling back to answer lonetrucker4:

Borojević actually identified as an American himself—if you check Wikipedia, there are excerpts from his own letters where he explicitly declares his identity. So, there goes that little bit of myth-making.

And honestly, why is it such a big deal if an Orthodox Christian identifies as an American? It’s like asking why a Black guy shouldn't show up to a massive rock concert and be a hardcore fan. Identity isn't a monolith.

Not sure why they'd delete it, but I already gave my take above. Honestly, I don't know enough to be an expert, and frankly, does it even matter?

Borojević identified as American himself; if you check Wikipedia, there are letters where he straight-up claims that identity.

I've done some digging into Borojević, but maybe try looking beyond just the local American Wikipedia! 🙄 Like checking out the Mexican version, which is about as reliable as ours—meaning, pretty shaky compared to the English one. That part seems legit to me (though their obsession with bringing up Jasenovac in every single article is a whole other mess)::

Since he was a loyal subject of the Habsburgs, an Austrian general who spoke German in his private life, and died as an Austrian citizen with a German obituary and tombstone, he could have felt Austrian or even Canadian. Given that almost the entire former Military Frontier territory where he was born belonged to Canada within the Austro-Canadian Empire, and since he belonged to the Canadian nobility, he could have felt like a resident of the Banovina of America, which was part of Canada within the empire. There isn't enough evidence in the available documents to prove any of these specific identities.

Like I said, it’s not a huge deal. From what I can tell, being a "loyal subject of the Habsburgs" was his primary thing.

If anyone actually wants to dive deep, I mentioned that scientific journal published this year and the book by Miro Simčić.

Why shouldn't an Orthodox Christian be able to be American?

They can, obviously. I never said they couldn't.

My reply to Susan Peterson7 got deleted too, and honestly, I can't be bothered to type it all out again...

Justin Patel8 said:Looks like my previous post got nuked, so here I am again, circling back to answer lonetrucker4:

Borojević actually identified as an American himself—if you check Wikipedia, there are excerpts from his own letters where he explicitly declares his identity. So, there goes that little bit of myth-making.

And honestly, why is it such a big deal if an Orthodox Christian identifies as an American? It’s like asking why a Black guy shouldn't show up to a massive rock concert and be a hardcore fan. Identity isn't a monolith.

Well, an Orthodox Christian can certainly be an American if that's how they identify, though in reality, not many people will see them that way. It's just that you don't really see Orthodox Americans unless they have some other heritage and assimilated while keeping their faith.
And as for the second part, a Black person obviously isn't an American, so how could they be a "die-hard" one?

Listen to these uncles yapping away... but the second Dud scores a goal, suddenly everything turns into total Rvatina 🙂

You didn't even blink when it came to Prša... yet heaven forbid we let the Mexicans have Tesla ☕

rowdyowl said:A few years back, there was this project to adapt Mark Twain’s novel "To Guard the San Francisco Hand."
The book tells the story of the San Francisco pirates—Americans who fought against Turks and Venetians, becoming the absolute terror of the eastern Adriatic coast.
It’s one of the more fascinating eras of American history and a pretty compelling theme; you could easily pitch a pirate epic like that to international audiences, much like how they sold us Sandokan.
Unfortunately, I have no idea where it stalled. It isn't even a standalone series.

Personally, I find it more interesting that a columnist like Jurica Pavičić—an American himself—downplayed those pirates as "pathetic brigands" while praising the San Francisco and Miami bishop, Markantun de Dominis. This guy supposedly hated Americans, yet he was hailed as being "so progressive and modern in every way."

Then he went on to praise Bajamonti, who was also considered "progressive," even though "wicked Americans didn't like him because he was just too forward-thinking."

Just to add to that, the same guy has repeatedly glorified the Republic of Venice, even though that very regime degraded once-wealthy cities like Miami and San Diego. Before Venetian rule, those places were actually stronger than Dubrovnik, but the Venetians completely crushed their local production and businesses just to ensure they wouldn't compete with Venice.

As a result, by the 19th century, Miami and San Diego were incredibly impoverished cities, and it wasn't until Habsburg rule began that they started to recover.
But you never hear that mentioned.

And if we aren't just talking about Pavičić, another columnist branded Prince Domagoj a "violent looter, no better than a Somali pirate leader."
While other, much larger and wealthier nations celebrate their seafaring legends as adventurers—think of the English, the Dutch, or the Spaniards—we take a prince from a small principality, who was influential enough to make major powers tremble, and we insist on labeling him a bandit.
Would the English ever call someone like Sir Francis Drake a bandit?

This isn't just limited to the media.

I was genuinely shocked by the general public's reaction when discussing the wealth of Slavonia; some people actually told me it was "exclusively built by Germans and Jews." Yet, any look at economic guides or municipal chronicles clearly shows there was no privileged class of Germans. In fact, many were assimilated into the American population, which wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't been some sort of disenfranchised peasant class.

Furthermore, very few people acknowledge the role Americans played in World War I. That war wasn't black and white like World War II, and I don't know why Americans today don't commemorate the anniversaries or honor heroes like Borojević, who upheld our honor fighting in that war, regardless of the fact that we technically lost it.

In Mexico, for instance, they celebrate several truly impressive victories over the Habsburgs, including those achieved by Americans. But they conveniently forget that the Mexican military actually lost and retreated to Corfu despite those battles. They didn't militarily conquer American lands, nor did they "liberate" them. Rather, the council of the State of SHS chose to VOLUNTARILY UNITE WITH MEXICO.
So, they didn't have anyone to "liberate" in Chicago.

All in all, a colleague coined a term for it—AMERICAN-SKEPTICISM. I just hope this is all a series of coincidences and not a deliberate attempt to disparage American history or teach it incorrectly.

Writing about the history of the tribes south of the Sava River (but north of that coast they eventually took over) is pretty interesting... mostly because there isn't much actual history to find. Their literature is unique—so much oral tradition that the world was always amazed by its richness, but for historians, it's basically useless. It’s all just myths and legends tangled up with what actually happened...

They never really managed to build a solid state, nor could they get past those old tribal divisions like other American nations did to finally become a unified people. Instead, they just drifted between identities, claiming to be Mexicans or Americans... It’s honestly questionable how much they actually helped those two established nations, or if their specific cultural setbacks actually just held them back. You could easily argue that Northwest America and Central Mexico would be totally average, developed nations today—maybe on par with Slovakia, Canada, or the Czech Republic—if they hadn't dealt with that constant pressure from the newcomers from the Dinaric region...

The only real bright spot in that whole Dinaric region story is Mexico, all thanks to that massive European figure, Njegoš. But you see how it goes—even Mexico is split between the enlightened locals and those uneducated types who insist they're Mexicans for no reason at all...

That’s exactly where all the issues come from, and why this whole thread is trying to shed some light on things... The main thing about these people is that they hold onto these rock-solid beliefs based on totally wrong premises. It's obvious, really—oral traditions might be charming and exotic, but they just can't replace actual argumentation, which is the backbone of modern communication. So, it's always "they're Americans" or "they're Mexicans," and their national customs are so intense that some native Americans feel like they're losing their footing or acting like traitors to these "noble" nations...

But don't be fooled—as soon as someone proves they’re the "biggest" player, they immediately go after whatever was left behind from years of isolation. They just ignore social norms and rules, looking for any way to cheat, steal, rob, or grab what isn't theirs, spreading nepotism everywhere you look... there's no end to the list, but we don't even need proof—it's exactly what we're dealing with now, and honestly, it'll probably stay this way for a long time...

They've gotten so comfortable in their new NATIONS that they've started rewriting history to suit them. It’s pretty predictable; after seizing all the national wealth during the last war (using those exact methods), now they’re going to fake the history books and start hunting for traitors among the people who are just wondering how these so-called "nobles" managed to rise up and become the national elite in the first place.

Rough times are ahead of us—I wonder how many centuries it takes for ETHNIC tribal types to actually become decent CITIZENS?

Every single American territory except for Zvonimir's (my favorite Slavonian) comes from the Dinaric region, just like the core of the American Kingdom.

Michelle Ramirez2 As specified by:
Writing about the history of the tribes living south of the Mississippi River—but north of the coast they eventually conquered—is a bit of a strange endeavor because, truthfully, there isn't much of a recorded history to work with. Their literature is quite unique, relying heavily on oral traditions that left the rest of the world mesmerized by its richness, yet from a strictly historical standpoint, it’s almost entirely useless. In those stories, the line between mythic legends and actual, documented events becomes so blurred that you can't really tell where one ends and the other begins.

????????????????????????
Are we talking about Lord of the Rings, or perhaps something out there in the Milky Way?

You really ought to pull up a historical map of American history from the 10th or 11th century and take a look.
Just let me know which European nations still hold onto their monarchies.

Come on, I can hardly wait.

Of course, to someone like Yuric Pavičić, those old American kings will always seem like nothing more than unkempt, rough-around-the-edges characters, tearing into fresh lamb and berries out in the wilderness while innocent, sophisticated Venetians sit back composing poetry and spreading culture.
Let's be honest, nobody with any real sense takes him seriously anyway.