Changes

This statement below comes from a book called ''Dalmatia'' (History, Culture, Art Heritage) written by Antun Travirka: ''"By the 14th century the city had become wholly Croatian'"'  <ref>Dalmatia (History, Culture, Art Heritage) by Antun Travirka (p137)</ref>

This statement below comes from a book called ''Dalmatia'' (History, Culture, Art Heritage) written by Antun Travirka: ''"By the 14th century the city had become wholly Croatian'"'  <ref>Dalmatia (History, Culture, Art Heritage) by Antun Travirka (p137)</ref>

The book itself is primarily for the [[Croatia|Croatian]] tourist market and is easily available in several languages in all major bookstores within Croatia.<ref>'''Editors note''': Recent DNA studies have stated that more than three quarters of today's Croatian men are the descendants of Europeans who inhabited Europe 13 000-20 000 years ago. The first primary source (factual-that its authenticity isn't disputed) to mention the Croatian-Hrvat identity in the Balkans was '''Duke Branimir''' (Latin:'' "Branimiro comite dux cruatorum cogitavit"''  c. 880 AD). Branimir was a Slav from Dalmatia. Prior to the arrival of the Slavs, Roman Dalmatia was mainly inhabited by a '''Roman Latin-Illyrian''' population.</ref> This quote is on page 137 and it’s referring to the ''Republic of Ragusa''. The old Republic of Ragusa (with it's famous city Dubrovnik) <ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/143561/Croatia|title="Croatia." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2011.|date=[[2011]]|accessdate=2011-03-8 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120524/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/143561/Croatia |archivedate=2012-05-24}}</ref><ref>Encyclopaedia Britannica (publ. 1911)</ref> is now within the borders of the modern Croatia. This monolithic description is an outright lie and it’s a form of cultural genocide (the crucial word is '''''wholly''''').  Additionally the book did not even use the term Republic of Ragusa (the closest that it got to this was ''RESPUBLICA RAGUSINA'' on page 141),<ref>Dalmatia (History, Culture, Art Heritage) by Antun Travirka (p141)</ref> which was used for more than a '''millennium'''. The statement is biased ultra-nationalistic propaganda and is not based on fact.

The book itself is primarily for the [[Croatia|Croatian]] tourist market and is easily available in several languages in all major bookstores within Croatia.<ref>'''Editors note''': Recent DNA studies have stated that more than three quarters of today's Croatian men are the descendants of Europeans who inhabited Europe 13 000-20 000 years ago. The first primary source (factual-that its authenticity isn't disputed) to mention the Croatian-Hrvat identity in the Balkans was '''Duke Branimir''' (Latin:'' "Branimiro comite dux cruatorum cogitavit"''  c. 880 AD). Branimir was a Slav from Dalmatia. Prior to the arrival of the Slavs, Roman Dalmatia was mainly inhabited by a '''Roman Latin-Illyrian''' population.</ref> This quote is on page 137 and it’s referring to the ''Republic of Ragusa''. The old Republic of Ragusa (with it's famous city Dubrovnik) <ref>Encyclopaedia Britannica (publ. 1911)</ref> is now within the borders of the modern Croatia. <ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/143561/Croatia|title="Croatia." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2011.|date=[[2011]]|accessdate=2011-03-8 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/20120524/http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/143561/Croatia |archivedate=2012-05-24}}</ref> This monolithic description is an outright lie and it’s a form of cultural genocide (the crucial word is '''''wholly''''').  Additionally the book did not even use the term Republic of Ragusa (the closest that it got to this was ''RESPUBLICA RAGUSINA'' on page 141),<ref>Dalmatia (History, Culture, Art Heritage) by Antun Travirka (p141)</ref> which was used for more than a '''millennium'''. The statement is biased ultra-nationalistic propaganda and is not based on fact.

*Statement made by the contemporary historian John Van Antwerp Fine (Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Michigan, [[USA]]): {{quote|

*Statement made by the contemporary historian John Van Antwerp Fine (Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Michigan, [[USA]]): {{quote|

''This is not surprising since the “Ragusans” identified themselves as Ragusans and not as Croats.''<ref>[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wEF5oN5erE0C&pg=PA157&dq=When+Ethnicity+did+not+Matter+in+the+Balkans+call+themselves+ragusans&hl=en&ei=_WmHTa-ZAo_Bcc63hZcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=When%20Ethnicity%20did%20not%20Matter%20in%20the%20Balkans%20call%20themselves%20ragusans&f=false When Ethnicity did not Matter in the Balkans:] by John Van Antwerp Fine (p157)</ref>}}

''This is not surprising since the “Ragusans” identified themselves as Ragusans and not as Croats.''<ref>[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wEF5oN5erE0C&pg=PA157&dq=When+Ethnicity+did+not+Matter+in+the+Balkans+call+themselves+ragusans&hl=en&ei=_WmHTa-ZAo_Bcc63hZcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=When%20Ethnicity%20did%20not%20Matter%20in%20the%20Balkans%20call%20themselves%20ragusans&f=false When Ethnicity did not Matter in the Balkans:] by John Van Antwerp Fine (p157)</ref>}}