Determinación de Procesos

In or der to pro ve the ac tu ally un pro va ble and non-exi sting sta te and le gal con - ti nu ity, “Ger man, Hun ga rian and Ita lian fe u dal lords simply dec la red them sel ves Cro ats and the ter ri tory of Hun gary, that is Austria, as Cro a tian ... Cro a tian hi sto rian Ja ro slav Ši dak uses the terms ‘et hnic ter ri tory of the Cro a tian na tion’, ‘Cro a tian lands’, etc. Tho se Cro a tian lands in clu de Srem and re ach as far as Ze mun, that is the fart hest Austrian bor ders. Na mely, the Cro a tian bor der was equ a ted with the Austrian sta te bor der (Srem, Bo ka). Ši dak go es on to in clu de even the ter ri tory of Mi li tary Kra ji na wit hin Cro a tia, cla i ming that its right to pos sess Mi li tary Kra ji na was ne ver dis pu ted. Still, Ši dak con tra dicts him self when he cla ims that it ac tu ally to ok two and a half cen tu ri es (un til 1881) “for that right to ma te ri a li se”. Furt her mo - re, Ši dak ar bi tra rily emp ha si ses that Cro a tia pre ser ved im por tant fe a tu res of its in di - vi dual sta te hood, even tho ugh “it was rat her con stra i ned and re pres sed by the im pe - rial mi li tary for ce”! That is a very da ring sta te ment for a “di stin gu is hed” Cro a tian (or, even bet ter, Czech) “hi sto rian”. As so me of the mo re im por tant ele ments of this phan tom-li ke Cro a tian sta te hood, Ši dak in clu des “le gally de li ne a ted ter ri tory”, “its ci ti zen ship (in di ge nat) and exe cu ti ve and le gi sla ti ve po wer”. Ši dak con firms his cla - im abo ut the le gi sla ti ve po wer with the fact that, in 1636, the em pe ror (king) san cti - o ned 29 law “ar tic les” that the Cro a tian As sembly had enac ted in the pe riod from 1609 to 1639. Ho we ver, in the end, Ši dak him self di mi nis hes the sig ni fi can ce of that Cro a tian sta te hood, or rat her its ge o grap hi cal and ad mi ni stra ti ve unity, and puts all

the bla me for such di mi nis hed sig ni fi can ce of the Cro a tian sta te hood on Hun gary, be ca u se “the cen tu ri es-old con nec tion of its (Cro a tian – N.Ž.) po li ti cal na tion (i.e. no bi lity that, truth to be told, had ne ver been Cro a tian) with Hun gary had a ne ga ti - ve in flu en ce on the se fe a tu res of its sta te hood”. Qu i te ir ra ti o nally, Ši dak ascri bes all the at tri bu tes of sta te hood to a typi cal con sti tu ent land (ce sa ro vi na) of the Austrian Em pi re. Ac cor ding to tho se outra ge o us sta te and le gal con struc ti ons, the firmly cen - tra li sed and uni que Austrian Em pi re sho uld be cal led a con fe de ra tion (sta te union) sin ce, applying such Ši dak’s stan dard, that kind of sta te hood co uld be ascri bed to ot - her ‘im pe rial lands’, for exam ple, to the King dom of Dal ma tia or the King dom of Sla vo nia” (p. 11-12).

Cat ho lic ide o lo gists con si de red the an ci ent po pu la tion of Sla vo nia to be Cro a tian, even tho ugh they had no pro of to cor ro bo ra te its al le ged Cro a tian et hnic ori gin. “In his bo ok en ti tled The In ha bi tants of Po že ga and the Sur ro un ding Are as From 1700 to

1950, the Ro man Cat ho lic wri ter Jo sip Bu to rac sets out the the sis that a sig ni fi cant

num ber of Cro a tian Cat ho lics di sap pe a red from Sla vo nia due to the ir ‘pro ba ble’ con - ver sion to Islam – so, as such, they mo ved to Bo snia in 1687?! The sa me the sis is ‘sug - ge sted’ by Stje pan Pa vi čić. Ho we ver, as no ted by Đ. Stan ko vić, exa mi na ti on of the scripts of Cro a tian hi sto rian Ta di ja Smi či klas from the ar chi ves of the Im pe rial Cham - ber in Vi en na, and espe ci ally of Hapsch’s po pu la tion cen sus from 1702, re ve a led that the Cro a tian hi sto ri o graphy wrongly con clu ded that the ‘an ci ent in ha bi tants’ of 22 set - tle ments of the val ley of Po že ga ‘we re pro bably Cro a tian Cat ho lics who con ver ted to Islam and mo ved to Bo snia af ter the li be ra tion of Sla vo nia in 1691’. In Hapsch’s cen - sus, it is cle arly spe ci fied that, un til the Ot to man in va sion (1537), tho se we re only Ser - bian set tle ments” (p. 12-13).

a) A Ra re ca se of Co u ra ge – Je re mi ja Mi tro vić

As one of the ra re Ser bian hi sto ri ans who da red to wri te abo ut Cro a tian for ge ri - es in hi sto ri o graphy un der Broz’s ru le, Žu tić sin gles out Je re mi ja Mi tro vić. Mi tro vić pu blicly stig ma ti sed the sup pres sion of the Ser bian na me in hi sto ri o grap hic wri tings in Dal ma tia, Du brov nik, Sla vo nia and the Mi li tary Kra ji na. In in com ple tely de fi ned qu an ti ti es, the Serbs blen ded the Slavs, eastern Gre ek Chri sti ans, schi sma tic Mor -

lachs, etc. The ir most fre qu ent de ter mi nant was “the Vlach Sto ka vian im mi grants”.

Cri ti cally con si de ring Stan čić’s bo ok on the na ti o nal ide o logy in Dal ma tia in the first half of the 19th_{cen tury, Mi tro vić “po ints out that, as early as the be gin ning of the 18}th

cen tury, the Za dar Ar chbis hop Vi ćen ti je Zma je vić stop ped cal ling Serbs ‘schi sma - tics’, ‘Gre ek Cat ho lics’, ‘Vlachs’ or ‘Mor lachs’ and set tled on them be ing Serbs. Zma - je vić’s suc ces sor Ma tej Ko ro man be ha ved si mi larly, but he even went one step furt - her, men ti o ning a ca te gory of Ser bian Cat ho lics as well” (p. 14). Je re mi ja Mi tro vić, using firm and im pla ca ble lo gic, simply de stroys tho se sci en ti fic fra me-ups, hig hlig - hting: “If Ka čić knows that the Vlachs are Serbs, if ot her Cro a tian sci en tists know it too, then it is not cle ar why this na me is eva ded. If Zma je vić him self te sti fied, as a con tem po rary, that the Serbs spread from Hun gary to Al ba nia and Thra ce and that they knew what ‘the Ser bian land’ was – if, as the Ar chbis hop, he te sti fied that the Serbs li ved in the di o ce ses of Ko tor, Ma kar ska, Tro gir, Ši be nik, Skra din, Za dar and Nin and that the num ber of the Ort ho dox was si mi lar to the num ber of Cat ho lics, why

do we now avoid men ti o ning and ex pla i ning whe re and when the Serbs ca me from, how many of them the re we re and why they con ver ted to Cat ho li cism? Why do we not men tion that, in 1673, Za greb Ar chbis hop Ben ko Vin ko vić con fir med that the Serbs (Vlachs) in Is tria, the di o ce se of Senj and Vi no dol, had con ver ted to Cat ho li - cism and ta ken on the Cro a tian na me? Why do we not say that the Ar chbis hop of Split de ci ded in 1732 that: ‘The Ort ho dox Serbs in Dal ma tia must not be Ort ho dox, but La - tins and Uni a tes’? At the sa me ti me, an of fi cial re port ap pe a red, in which we find that the con ver ted Serbs aban do ned the ir cu stoms, but ne ver the ir fa mily pa tron sa int’s day [sla va]. Even to day, in Ko na vle and the pa rish of Du bra va, and even mo re to the north, the sla va is not for got ten” (p. 14).

The har de ned Ro man Cat ho lic hi sto rian Mi le Bo go vić calls the Serbs “the Chri - sti ans of the Byzan ti ne ri te”, in si sting on the de ro ga tory tin ge of that term. At the sa - me ti me, he de ni es that the Vlachs and Mor lachs are et hni cally Serbs and mi ni mi ses the num ber of the Ort ho dox in Dal ma tia, espe ci ally the num ber of tho se who con ver - ted from Ort ho doxy to Cat ho li cism. His bo ok The Cat ho lic Church and Ort ho doxy in

Dal ma tia un der Ve ne tian Ru le, pu blis hed in Za greb in 1982, simply abo unds with hi -

sto ri cal for ge ri es. The ca se of Na da Kla ić is espe ci ally in te re sting, and Žu tić ela bo ra - tes on it: “In par ti cu lar de ba tes, ar tic les, and cri ti cal analyses pu blis hed in ma ga zi nes that we re not dra wing gre at pu blic at ten tion of the Cro a tian na ti o nal mytho ma ni acs and me ga lo ma ni acs, the Cro a tian hi sto rian Na da Kla ić fer vently cri ti ci sed tho se hi sto - ri ans (e.g. Fri ar Do mi nik Man dić) who pat ho lo gi cally spread the Cro a tian na me and lin ked Cro a tian na ti o nal iden tity and Cro a tia with everything on the Bal kans, espe ci - ally if it was Ro man Cat ho lic. Ho we ver, in stu di es and mo no graphs that co uld ha ve been at tac ked by the Com mu nist/Gre a ter Cro a tian po li ti cal cir cles and bro a der con - tem po rary Cro a tian and Yugo slav pu blic, Kla ić’s exem plary cri ti cal zeal of her ear li er years di sap pe a red con si de rably and she her self even star ted using the hi sto ri o grap hic con struc ti ons that she had on ce cri ti ci sed. For exam ple, when she wro te abo ut the so - cial tur moil and upri sings in Cro a tia in the 16th_{and 17}th_{cen tu ri es, she iden ti fied the}

Slavs with the Cro ats as D. Man dić had do ne, even tho ugh she had cri ti ci sed him. In any ca se, she spread the Cro a tian na me and era sed and sup pres sed the Ser bian one, which as so ci a ted her with the cir cle of Cro a tian hi sto ri ans who iden ti fied the Sla vic and Illyrian na mes with the Cro a tian one and, ac cor dingly, spread the Cro a tian na ti o - nal iden tity. In the abo ve men ti o ned bo ok, Na da Kla ić did not even men tion the Ser - bian na me, ex clu si vely using the na me ‘Vlachs’, tho ugh not in the sen se of a ho mo - ge no us na ti o nal or et hnic term, but as so me sort of stra tum, a na ti o nal and re li gi o us con glo me ra te. For Na da Kla ić, the Vlachs we re ‘tho se gro ups of new po pu la tion that to ok over the mi li tary ser vi ce’, so the na me Vlach was a synonym for a sol di er. Ac - cor ding to Na da Kla ić, sin ce they had cer tain pri vi le ges as sol di ers, ci vi li ans with a dif - fe rent na ti o nal and re li gi o us ori gin jo i ned the ‘Vlach com mu nity’ as well. With this analysis of the term ‘Vlach’, Na da Kla ić de nied the synonymy of the Ser bian and Vlach na mes (in the mo dern era) and, applying this way of re a so ning, she eli mi na ted the cen tu ri es-old Ser bian exi sten ce in the re gi ons of Cro a tia, Sla vo nia, Dal ma tia and the Mi li tary Kra ji na” (p. 15-16).

What Na da Kla ić co uld not deny is the fact that tho se al le ged “Vlachs” we re all of the Ort ho dox re li gion and mem bers of the Ser bian Ort ho dox Church. That is why she of fe red an ad di ti o nal ex pla na ti on, not ba sed on any real facts, saying: “As the ma -

jo rity of Vlachs who cros sed to the ter ri tory of Sla vo nian Kra ji na at the be gin ning of the 17th _{cen tury we re Ort ho dox and as the ir church le a ders mo ved with them to ‘Chri -}

sten dom’ and we re gran ted the ir own church or ga ni za tion, i.e. the well-known Epi sco - pacy of Mar ča, from that ti me on the term Vlach was get ting nar ro wer and, from the broad me a ning of a fo re ig ner in ge ne ral, it be ca me mo re fre qu ently used to de sig na te the sol di ers of the Ort ho dox re li gion. Sin ce that Vlach po pu la tion mostly ca me from the Tur kish fron ti er ter ri to ri es – from the Sa njaks of Pa krac and Crm ni ca – and not from Old Ser bia, they we re ne ver re fer red to as Serbs in the so ur ces from the 17th_{cen -}

tury” (p. 16). For Na da Kla ić, the fact that, from 1630, not all the Vlachs had been Ort - ho dox was of spe cial sig ni fi can ce and that is why she cla i med that the Cat ho lics, in - clu ded in this term ever sin ce, we re ac tu ally ori gi nal Cro a tian set tlers and, in that way, she ne glec ted the un qu e sti o na ble da ta on the mas si ve con ver sion of the Serbs to Cat - ho li cism.

As Ni ko la Žu tić no ti ces, “Na da Kla ić con si ders the Cat ho lic Vlachs as the po pu - la tion that mer ged with the Ort ho dox Vlachs, as a new fo re ign ele ment. She do es not men tion the pos si bi lity that tho se Cat ho lic Vlachs co uld ha ve ori gi na ted from the Ser - bian (Vlach) Ort ho dox co re and we re only af ter wards re mo ved from it by be ing su bjec - ted to the Ro man Cat ho lic (pro selytist) cam pa ign. Most im por tantly, Na da Kla ić re fers no so ur ces in sup port of her the ses.” (p. 16). The bo ok On the Scat te red Illyirian-Ras -

cian Na tion by Ba ron Bar ten stein, pu blis hed in 1761, is highly sig ni fi cant for this is sue.

He in sists on the fact that the terms Ra ci, Ras ci ans, Gre eks, Uni a tes and non-Uni a tes, Vlachs and Rut he ni ans are synonyms and re fer ex clu si vely to the Serbs. The Austrian aut ho ri ti es avo i ded the na me Serb with the vi ew of sup pres sing and sti fling the ir na ti o - nal con sci o u sness, ac cor dingly ban ning the ir na ti o nal cu stoms, per se cu ting the ir re li - gion, lan gu a ge, script, etc. “The edi tor of Bar ten stein’s bo ok, Aca de mi cian Slav ko Ga - vri lo vić, re fers to the na me of the Kro a ti (Cro ats) men ti o ned the rein, as a na me for Serbs who li ved in Kra ji na in the 16th_{and 17}th_{cen tury ... The Serbs that got that na me li ved}

in the ge o grap hi cal re gion of the Cro a tian ba na te. Bar ten stein him self men ti ons fron ti -