and by appointment.
What is History 101?
As we begin a new millennium, there is great anticipation of a "new era," a new beginning. However, the future is inescapably tied to the past and questions our society is facing and will face in the future are rooted in our past. Our attitudes on such issues as political democracy, social justice, economic opportunity, equality and the environment have all been shaped by our society's previous experiences. In this course we will study how these attitudes and beliefs evolved in the first two and one half centuries of our history. Ultimately, history in large part, is a study and an attempt to understand those links between what we "were" to what we "are" and to what we "hope to be."
While this course is an "introductory" course in American history covering the period from 1607 to 1865, it is not a "survey" course in the sense that we will not attempt to discuss every fact or cover every event in 250 years of American history. Rather we will approach this period of history through a discussion of three themes. The first, essentially covering the period from the founding down to the middle of the eighteenth century, will deal with the question of how Europeans from a medieval culture became Americans. The second theme will explore the political, social and economic impact the Revolution had upon American society. And finally, we will focus on the modernization of American society in the nineteenth century and examine the relationship between modernization and the sectional crisis. In all three themes we will focus, in part at least, on issues of political democracy, social justice and equality.
This course has two major objectives. First, we will study history as a process through which our society, our country came to be as it is today. Our society in 2004 is the product of a diverse and complex past and a fuller understanding of that past will give us greater insight and perspective into the historical roots to the problems that challenge us. One historian has written: "A nation's attitudes towards its own history is like a window into its own soul and the men and women of such a nation cannot be expected to meet the obligations of the present if they refuse to exhibit honesty, charity, open-mindedness and a free and growing intelligence towards the past that makes them what they are."
The second objective of this course is to challenge you to develop your critical reading and writing skills. We will introduce you to sets of complex historical problems and ask you to order, assess, analyze and conceptualize the material in order to gain greater understanding of the particular problem with all of its ramifications. It is my belief that this course and your undergraduate education at Syracuse University is only the first step in a life-long quest for education.
We, the faculty, hope that through our courses we will have whetted your appetite for knowledge and will have offered you the tools through which you will continue to enjoy and to prize learning throughout your life. One prominent educator has written that the goal of education "if we are to survive, is the facilitation of change and learning. The only person who is educated is the person who has learned how to learn; the person who has learned how to adapt and change; the person who has realized that no knowledge is secure, that only the process of seeking knowledge gives a basis for security. Changingness, a reliance on process rather than upon static knowledge, is the only thing that makes any sense as a goal for education in the modern world."Course requirements
There will be two one-hour examinations and a final. Each of these will be an essay examination, requiring you to answer in essay form a general question or questions. Our objective in these essay questions is not to ask you to recall a large number of facts. Rather we are more interested in how well you are able to synthesize and conceptualize a large amount of information and present an argument in a logical and coherent manner. In addition to the essay questions each exam will have several more specific identification questions. The final will count 25 percent of your final mark while each of the two one-hour exams will count 15 percent.
You also will be required to write two short, three page, double-spaced papers. Each paper will count 15 per cent of your final mark.
The papers will be based upon your analysis of certain short documents in our book of readings, American Voices and American Lives edited by Wayne Franklin. The specific paper assignments, however, will be made by your TA during section meeting.
We sincerely hope that the papers will not be an exercise in futility or simply be regarded as busy work assignments. The papers, as well as the essay exams, have been designed to hone and sharpen analytical, conceptual and critical skills. In addition we hope that the papers will engage your interests and encourage your imagination and creativity.
In addition to the two lecture classes a week you will attend a small discussion class taught by one of the teaching assistants. The discussion classes are an important and critical element of History 101. For the discussion classes to be successful and for you to get the most out of the course you must have finished the assigned reading before you come to class and be prepared to discuss the material. As a general rule it is a good idea to bring the books (not the textbook) you are reading each week to class. It is quite possible that your TA will read a paragraph from the material and have you comment on it. In addition you might have questions of your own from the readings that you want to discuss. Your participation in the discussion classes and attendance will count 15 per cent of your final mark.
Several excellent historical films will be shown in the evening during the semester. Students who attend will be allowed to answer extra-credit questions on the mid-term examination and the final.
Black Robe A dramatic account of the clash of two cultures (French and Indian) in French Canada in the seventeenth century.
Mary Silliman's War A story of how a mother and wife coped with personal and political problems during the American Revolution
An Empire of Reason A reenactment of the debates in the New York Convention that ratified the federal Constitution in the summer of 1788.
Nightjohn A gripping account of a young slave girl's attempt to learn and read and its tragic consequences.
Soloman Northrup's Odyssey The story of a kidnapped freeman who was sold into slavery.Advice, admonitions etc.
Since class attendance (lectures and discussion sections) is essential for your successful completion of the course, attendance checks will be made in lectures and the discussion sections. Repeated absences from class will have a serious negative effect on your final mark for this course.
Examinations must be taken at the assigned time. Make-up exams will only be given to those students who have had to miss the exam due to some medical or family emergency. Late papers will not be accepted unless you have been given a time extension by your teaching assistant. Unexcused late papers will suffer a reduction of ten per cent of your mark a day.
Cheating on examinations or plagiarizing your paper will result in your failing the course and a letter reporting your conduct will be sent to your college dean for your file. Plagiarism is defined as: taking "ideas, writings, etc. from another and passing them off as one's own." Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language Second College Edition (Cleveland, 1980), 1087. If you are unsure what constitutes an act of plagiarism, please see your teaching assistant or me.
This is a large course (300+) and I must depend on a staff of six teaching assistants to help me teach it. But I want to emphasize that I am intimately involved in every aspect of the course. The TAs and I will meet weekly to discuss teaching strategies and how they might better conduct their sections. TAs will visit one another's sections and we will videotape some of the sections in order to critique and improve teaching. I will also visit many of the sections in order to help each TA to improve his or her teaching. In addition the TAs and I will spend considerable time discussing the assignments and the grading standards that we will use.
We, the TAs and I, want History 101 to be one of the best introductory history courses, not just at Syracuse University, but in the country. As a tenured full Professor I can teach almost any course that I want. I continue to teach this course, however, because I enjoy it. I like working with freshmen and sophomore students, and while I think that History 101 is a good course, I am excited by the prospect that I can always make it better and learn much from the students that I teach.
While it is true that this is a large class, I think that much can be done to minimize the inconvenience of the size. I, for example, feel that my success as a teacher in this course or any course is dependent, at least partially, upon my getting to know the students in the class. To this end, I hope to have some discussion during many of the lecture classes and I have scheduled two coffee hours at the beginning of the semester. I also will often have my Tuesday office hour over coffee off campus on Marshall Street (place to be announced). I hope that these Tuesdays will be opportunities for me to meet with small groups of you. In addition, I will visit a number of the sections. Lastly I urge you to come by my office during my office hours. If you cannot meet me during the posted hours, I will be happy to make an appointment at your convenience. Faculty office hours are an under-utilized resource for students. We are in our offices and we want to talk to our students, but few avail themselves of the opportunity.Required Books
The following books are required for the course. They may be purchased at the Orange Book Store in the Marshall Street Mall:
John M. Murrin, et al, Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People vol.1, to 1877. Compact 4th edition (Thomson, 2007).
Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: the Story of John Winthrop. (Boston, 1958)
Robert Gross, The Minutemen and Their World . (New York, 1976)
James Roger Sharp, editor, Documents in American History 1607-1865 (2006)
Henry Louis Gates, Jr. editor, The Classic Slave Narratives. (New York, 1987)
Charlemagne Essay, Research Paper Charlemagne History 101 – Fast Forward Fall 1996 PREPARED BY: SUBMITTED: September 30, 1996 Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, King of the Franks (742-814), was a strong leader who unified Western Europe through military power and the blessing of the Church. His belief in the need for education among the Frankish people was to bring about religious, political, and educational reforms that would change the history of Europe. Charlemagne was born in 742 at Aachen, the son of Pepin(or Pippin) the Short and grandson of Charles Martel. His grandfather, Charles, had begun the process of unifying western Europe, in the belief that all people should be Christian. Charlemagne?s father, Pepin, continued this process throughout his rule and passed his
beliefs on to Charlemagne. All three, in addition to the political unification, believed that the church should be reformed and reorganized under the Pope, which helped their rise to power as the Carolingian Dynasty. (Holmes 74) Upon Pepin?s death in 768, Charlemagne and his brother, Carloman, each inherited half of the Frankish kingdom. Pepin, in the Merovingian tradition of the time, split his kingdom between his two sons. Three years later Carloman died and Charlemagne took control of the entire kingdom. He inherited great wealth and a powerful army, built by his father and grandfather. Charlemagne used the army and his own skillful planning to more than double the size of the Frankish Kingdom. (Halsall 15) The world of Charlemagne was a heathen one, with many warring tribes
or kingdoms. Many of these tribes were conquered by Charlemagne, among them the Aquitanians, the Lombards, the Saxons, the Bretons, the Bavarians, the Huns, and the Danes. The longest of these battles was against the Saxons, lasting thirty-three years. Charlemagne actually defeated them many times, but due to their faithlessness and their propensity to return to their pagan lifestyle, the Saxons lost many lives in the prolonged battles with the Franks. With each conquest the Frankish kingdom grew, and with growth came additional power and responsibility for Charlemagne. In each area of Europe that was taken over by Charlemagne, he removed the leaders if they would not convert to Christianity and appointed new ones, usually someone with high position in the Church. Those people
who refused to convert or be baptized in the church were put to death. (Holmes 75) The Church played a vital role in the kingdom of Charlemagne. It gave a sense of stability to Charlemagne?s rule, and he in turn provided stability in the Church. The people conquered by Charlemagne, after being converted to Christianity, were taught through the Bible a unified code of right and wrong. It was necessary for the Church to play a role in this education of the people, because only the clergy were educated. (Boussard 92) The Church also guided Charlemagne?s hand as a ruler, for he took on many conquests as a necessity to spread the Christian religion throughout Europe. (Ganshoff 19) Indeed, it appears that Charlemagne?s desire to spread his kingdom and government was intertwined with
his desire to spread the Christian religion and have the people live according to the Word of God. (Ganshoff 25) At the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty the Church was suffering from many problems. Paganistic peoples, a degradation of the Latin language, and the decline of power of the Pope or Papacy all contributed to the need for a leader to bring about reformation. Charles Martel, Pepin, and ultimately Charlemagne all took as their personal responsibility the reorganization of the Church. Each one, as king of the Franks, saw it his duty to better the state of his churches. (Ganshoff 205) Charlemagne, through the monasteries and ultimately the “Palace School”, required all priests to learn classic Latin. His purpose was to insure that church services were always
So, you have to write an essay about Impressionism, do you? It shouldn't be too hard, for you've certainly got a wealth of material to work with. There are a few common misconceptions about Impressionism, however, that you may want to avoid including. There are also a few truisms that you most definitely should include. Those which follow below are salient points to either hit or miss.
Impressionism changed art.
Continue Reading Below
You definitely can, and should, include this point in your essay. Defend it with the subsequent generations of artists Impressionism influenced, the multitude of movements that Impressionism spawned, the fact that Modern Art was firmly modern from the Impressionists on, and the ways in which viewers, patrons and critics altered their viewing, buying and critical habits after becoming acquainted with the Impressionists.
Impressionism was about light.
The Impressionists studied light to the -nth degree.
You probably could write of optical color receptors and wavelength measurement from a scientific point of view, but that isn't actually how the Impressionists "studied" light. Instead, they looked long and hard at how light is reflected or absorbed, and how this interplay subsequently registers colors in our brains. They observed and sketched endlessly. They then tried to recreate light itself with paints and brushes. I can't begin to tell you how truly innovative this type of visual thought was.
Continue Reading Below
Color theory was a key component of Impressionism, too.
Color theory was a relatively new science, formulated by the French chemist Michel-Eugène Chevreul (1786-1889) and published in 1839. The Impressionists were the first group of artists to fully grasp Chevreul's findings and put them into practice. You can see the results for yourself whenever seemingly incongruous but complementary primary, secondary and tertiary colors are used next to one another in Impressionist canvases to achieve color blends that are, yes, found in nature.
The third main ingredient of Impressionism concerns technique.
Here, too, Impressionism was bold and daring. These artists broke from smooth convention and let anyone who cared to look see full evidence their brushwork (unthinkable!). Because they now had tubes of paint that could open and close, they began mixing colors right on their canvases instead of their palettes (unheard of!). And, after stretching them, the Impressionists primed their canvases to be white (inconceivable!). None of the academic painters did this. They used unprimed, dark canvases because that was how it had always been done. Until these wild rebels hit the scene, of course.
A fourth point to make about Impressionism is its chosen subject matter.
In one final, definitive break from academic tradition, the Impressionists threw history, royalty and mythology out the subject matter window. Rather, they concentrated on scenes from the life that a thoroughly modern Paris offered. They gave us pictures of an emerging middle class enjoying leisure activities in locations that could now be easily reached by train, mothers and children who were enjoying the relatively new concept of "childhood," and ordinary people (previously excluded from such fun) who were seen enjoying attending the opera, the ballet, the theatre, balls, bars, horse races and even dancing lessons.
Impressionism did not spring, fully formed, out of the ether.
A myth has come to surround the Impressionists, making them into towering artistic geniuses who collectively formed a completely original way to make art. While these artists had their genius moments, nothing in art ever springs up fully formed. Over time we tend to forget that, while Impressionism was new and radical in the 1870s, it was also a synthesis of many disparate elements gleaned from earlier artists and movements. The Impressionists deserve credit for "inventing" Impressionism, but they themselves were quick to point out when, where and from whose prior work they'd been inspired to do this new thing.
The Impressionists did not do all of their painting outdoors.
The Impressionists popularized outdoor scenes and so have the reputation of being a group of "outdoor" painters, but this is not fully warranted. They weren't actually even the pioneers of painting en plein air they are supposed to be. Facts are, the Impressionists painted a lot of landscapes, and did a lot of preliminary work outdoors. However, most of these same landscapes (including Monet's) saw a much larger proportion of indoor studio time while they were being completed. So avoid any sweeping generalizations in the "outdoor" area.
The Impressionists were not universally loathed by art critics.
This is also a popular, dramatic and somewhat romantic falsehood. We seem to have concentrated on Impressionism's initial detractors in art history, and have repeated their scornful quotes so often that all anyone remembers these days is how doltish said commentators appear in retrospect. In truth, the list of friendly critics, literary champions and early patrons of the Impressionists is much longer than the list of those who've been made to eat their harsh words over the years.
The beginning of the Croatian written language can be traced to the 9th century, when Old Church Slavonic was adopted as the language of the liturgy. This language was gradually adapted to non-liturgical purposes and became known as the Croatian version of Old Slavonic. The two variants of the language, liturgical and non-liturgical, continued to be a part of the Glagolitic service as late as the mid-9th century.
Until the end of the 11th century, Croatian medieval texts were written in three scripts: Latin, Glagolitic, and Bosnian Cyrillic (bosančica), and also in three languages: Croatian, Latin and Old Slavonic. The latter developed into what is referred to as the Croatian variant of Church Slavonic between the 12th and 16th centuries.
The most important early monument of Croatian literacy is the Baška tablet from the late 11th century. It is a large stone tablet found in the small church of St. Lucy on the Croatian island of Krk, containing text written mostly in čakavian, today a dialect of Croatian, and in Croatian Glagolitic script. It is also important in the history of the nation as it mentions Zvonimir, the king of Croatia at the time. However, the luxurious and ornate representative texts of Croatian Church Slavonic belong to the later era, when they coexisted with the Croatian vernacular literature. The most notable are the "Missal of Duke Novak" from the Lika region in northwestern Croatia (1368), "Evangel from Reims" (1395, named after the town of its final destination), "Missal of Duke Hrvoje" from Bosnia and Split in Dalmatia (1404) and the first printed book in Croatian language (1483).
Also, during the 13th century Croatian vernacular texts began to appear, the most important among them being "Istrian land survey", 1275 and "The Vinodol Codex", 1288. both in the Čakavian dialect.
The Štokavian dialect literature, based almost exclusively on Čakavian original texts of religious provenance (missals, breviaries, prayer books) appeared almost a century later. The most important purely Štokavian vernacular text is Vatican Croatian Prayer Book (ca. 1400).
Both the language used in legal texts and that used in Glagolitic literature gradually came under the influence of the vernacular, which considerably affected its phonological, morphological and lexical systems. From the 14th and the 15th centuries, both secular and religious songs at church festivals were composed in the vernacular.
Writers of early Croatian religious poetry (začinjavci), translators and editors gradually introduced the vernacular into their works. These začinjavci were the forerunners of the rich literary production of the 15th and 16th centuries. The language of religious poems, translations, miracle and morality plays contributed to the popular character of medieval Croatian literature.
Istrian land survey, 1275
The Vinodol Codex, 1288
Glagolitic Missal of Duke Novak, 1368
Vatican Croatian Prayer BookModern language and standardisation
Although the first purely vernacular texts in a Croatian distinctly different from Church Slavonic date back to the 13th century, it was in the 14th and 15th centuries that the modern Croatian language emerged (recorded in texts as Vatican Croatian prayer book from 1400.) in the form (morphology, phonology and syntax) that only slightly differs from contemporary Croatian standard language.
Bartul Kašić's manuscript Bible translation
Bartul Kašić's manuscript Bible translation
The standardization of Croatian language can be traced back to the first Croatian dictionary (Faust Vrančić: Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum—Latinae, Italicae, Germanicae, Dalmatiae et Ungaricae, Venice 1595) and first Croatian grammar (Bartul Kašić: Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo, Rome 1604).
The language of Jesuit Kašić's translation of the Bible (Old and New Testament, 1622-1636; unpublished until 2000) in the Croatian štokavian-ijekavian dialect (the ornate style of the Dubrovnik Renaissance literature) is as close to the contemporary standard Croatian language (problems of orthography apart) as are French of Montaigne's "Essays" or King James Bible English to their respective successors—modern standard languages.
This period, sometimes called "Baroque Slavism" was crucial in formation of literary idiom that was to become Croatian standard language—the 17th century witnessed flowering in three fields that shaped modern Croatian:
* One was the linguistic works of Jesuit philologists Kašić and Mikalja;
* the other energetic literary activity of Bosnian Franciscan Matija Divković, whose Counter-Reformation writings (popular tales from the Bible, sermons and polemics) were widespread among Croats both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia;
* and, last but not least, in aesthetically refined poetry of Ivan Gundulić from Dubrovnik.
This "triple achievement" of Baroque Slavism in first half of the 17th century laid the firm foundation upon which later Illyrian movement completed the work of language standardisation.Illyrian period
But, due to the unique Croat linguistic situation, formal shaping of Croatian standard language was a process that took almost four centuries to complete: Croatian is a three dialects tongue (a somewhat simplistic way to distinguish between dialects is to refer to the pronoun what, which is ča, kaj, što in, respectively, čakavian, kajkavian and štokavian dialects) and three scripts language (Glagolitic, Croatian/Western/Bosnian Cyrillic and Latin script, with Latin script as the ultimate winner). The final obstacle to the unified Croatian literary language (based on celebrated vernacular Croatian Troubadour, Renaissance and Baroque -- acronym TRB) literature (ca. 1490 to ca. 1670) from Dalmatia, Dubrovnik and Boka Kotorska was surmounted by Croatian national awakener Ljudevit Gaj's standardization of Latin scriptory norm in 1830–1850s.
Gaj and his Illyrian movement (centred in kajkavian-speaking Croatia's capital Zagreb) were, however, important more politically than linguistically. They "chose" štokavian dialect because they didn't have any other realistic option—štokavian, or, more precisely, neoštokavian (a version of štokavian which emerged in the 15th/16th century) was the major Croatian literary tongue from 1700s on. The 19th century linguists and lexicographers' main concern was to achieve a more consistent and unified scriptory norm and orthography; an effort followed by peculiar Croatian linguistic characteristics which may be humorously described as "passion for neologisms" or vigorous word coinage, originating from the purist nature of Croatian literary language. One of the peculiarities of the "developmental trajectory" of the Croatian language is that there is no single towering figure among the Croatian linguists/philologists, because the vernacular osmotically percolated into the "high culture" via literary works so there was no need for revolutionary linguistic upheavals—only reforms sufficed.The Serbian connection
The 19th century language development overlapped with the upheavals that befell Serbian language. It was Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, an energetic and resourceful Serbian language and culture reformer, whose scriptory and orthographic stylisation of Serbian linguistic folk idiom made a radical break with the past; until his activity in the first half of the 19th century, Serbs had been using the Serbian variant of Church Slavonic and a hybrid Russian-Slavonic language. His "Serbian Dictionary", published in Vienna 1818 (along with the appended grammar), was the single most significant work of Serbian literary culture that shaped the profile of Serbian language (and, the first Serbian dictionary and grammar thus far).
Following the incentive of Austrian bureaucracy which preferred some kind of unified Croatian and Serbian languages for practical administrative reasons, in 1850, Slovenian philologist Franc Miklošič initiated a meeting of two Serbian philologists and writers, Vuk Karadžić and Đuro Daničić together with five Croatian "men of letters": Ivan Mažuranić, Dimitrija Demetar, Stjepan Pejaković, Ivan Kukuljević and Vinko Pacel. The Vienna Agreement on the basic features of a unified "Croatian or Serbian" or "Serbo-Croatian" language was signed by all eight participants (including Miklošič).
Karadžić's influence on Croatian standard idiom was only one of the reforms for Croats, mostly in some aspects of grammar and orthography; many other changes he made to Serbian were already present in Croatian. Both languages shared the common basis of South Slavic neoštokavian dialect, but the Vienna agreement didn't have any effect in reality until a more unified standard appeared at the end of 19th century when Croatian sympathisers of Vuk Karadžić, known as the Croatian Vukovites, wrote the first modern (from the vantage point of dominating neogrammarian linguistic school) grammars, orthographies and dictionaries of the language which they called "Croatian or Serbian" (Serbs preferred Serbo-Croatian). Monumental grammar authored by pre-eminent fin de siècle Croatian linguist Tomislav Maretić (Grammar and stylistics of Croatian or Serbian language) and dictionary by Broz and Iveković (Croatian dictionary) temporarily fixed the elastic (grammatically, syntactically, lexically) standard of this hybrid language.Relation to Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Serbian
The establishment of the Yugoslavian state was an important event in the history of Croatian.
The Kingdom of Serbs,Croats and Slovenes (1918-1929) lasted till January 1929,after that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was pronounced Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1929-1941)and was dominated by the Serbian government(King), which tried to use a joint language in the spirit of supra-national Yugoslav ideology. This meant that Croatian and Serbian were no longer developed individually side by side, but were attempted to be forged into one language under political pressure. Owing to the nature of the state politics at the time, this forging was resultant in a Serbian-based language, which meant a certain Serbianization of the language of Croatia and Bosnia.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the lexical, syntactical, orthographical and morphological characteristics of Serbian were officially prescribed for Croatian textbooks and general communication.
This artificial process of "unification" into one Serbo-Croatian language was preferred by neo-grammarian Croatian linguists, the most notable example being the influential philologist and translator Tomislav Maretić. However, this school was virtually extinct by the late 1920s and since then leading Croatian linguists (such as Petar Skok, Stjepan Ivšić and Petar Guberina) were unanimous in the re-affirmation of the Croatian purist tradition.
The situation somewhat eased in the run-up to World War II (cf. the establishment of Banovina of Croatia within Yugoslavia in 1939), but with the capitulation of Yugoslavia and the creation of the Nazi puppet regime (the "Independent State of Croatia", 1941-1945) came another, this time hardly predictable and grotesque attack on standard Croatian: the totalitarian dictatorship of Ante Pavelić pushed natural Croatian purist tendencies to ludicrous extremes and tried to reimpose older morphonological orthography preceding Ivan Broz's orthographical prescriptions from 1892. An official order signed by Pavelić and co-signed by Mile Budak and Milovan Žanić in August 1941 deprecated all imported words and forbade the use of any foreign words that could be replaced with Croatian neologisms.
However, Croatian linguists and writers were strongly opposed to this travesty of "language planning" in the same way that they rejected pro-Serbian forced unification in monarchist Yugoslavia. Not surprisingly, no Croatian dictionaries or Croatian grammars were published in this period.
Under monarchist Yugoslavia, "Serbo-Croatian" unification was motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy. In the Communist period (1945 to 1990) it was the by-product of Communist centralism and "internationalism". Whatever the intentions, the result was the same: the suppression of the basic features that differentiate Croatian from Serbian, both in terms of orthography and vocabulary. No Croatian dictionaries (apart from historical "Croatian or Serbian", conceived in the 19th century) appeared until 1985, when centralism was well in the process of decay.
In Communist Yugoslavia, Serbian language and terminology were "official" in a few areas: the military, diplomacy, Federal Yugoslav institutions (various institutes and research centres), state media, and jurisprudence at the federal level. As well, language in Bosnia and Herzegovina was gradually Serbianized in all levels of the educational system and the republic's administration. Virtually the only institution of any importance where the Croatian language was dominant had been the Lexicographic Institute in Zagreb, headed by Croatian writer Miroslav Krleža. This unitary linguistic policy was encouraged by the state.
Notwithstanding the declaration of intent of AVNOJ (The Antifascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia) in 1944, which proclaimed the equality of all languages of Yugoslavia (Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and Macedonian) — everything had, in practice, been geared towards the supremacy of the Serbian language. This was done under the pretext of "mutual enrichment" and "togetherness", hoping that the transient phase of relatively peaceful life among peoples in Yugoslavia would eventually give way to one of fusion into the supra-national Yugoslav nation and, arguably, provide a firmer basis for Serbianization. However, this "supra-national engineering" was arguably doomed from the outset. The nations that formed the Yugoslav state were formed long before its incipience and all unification pressures only poisoned and exacerbaced inter-ethnic/national relations, causing the state to become merely ephemeral.
The single most important effort by ruling Yugoslav Communist elites to erase the "differences" between Croatian and Serbian — and in practice impose Serbian Ekavian language, written in Latin script, as the "official" language of Yugoslavia — was the so-called "Novi Sad Agreement". Twenty five Serbian, Croatian, and Montenegrin philologists came together in 1954 to sign the Agreement (named after the site of the signing, Novi Sad). A common Serbo-Croatian or "Croato-Serbian" orthography was compiled in an atmosphere of state repression and fear. There were 18 Serbs and 7 Croats in Novi Sad. The "Agreement" was seen by the Croats as a defeat for the Croatian cultural heritage. According to the eminent Croatian linguist Ljudevit Jonke, it was imposed on the Croats. The conclusions were formulated according to goals which had been set in advance, and discussion had no role whatsoever. In the more than a decade that followed, the principles of the Novi Sad Agreement were put into practice.
A collective Croatian reaction against such de facto Serbian imposition erupted on March 15, 1967. On that day, nineteen Croatian scholarly institutions and cultural organizations dealing with language and literature (Croatian Universities and Academies), including foremost Croatian writers and linguists (Miroslav Krleža, Radoslav Katičić, Dalibor Brozović and Tomislav Ladan among them) issued the "Declaration Concerning the Name and the Status of the Croatian Literary Language". In the Declaration, they asked for amendment to the Constitution expressing two claims:
* the equality not of three but of four literary languages, Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian and Macedonian, and consequently, the publication of all federal laws and other federal acts in four instead of three languages
* the use of the Croatian standard language in schools and all mass communication media pertaining to the Republic of Croatia. The Declaration accused the federal authorities in Belgrade of imposing Serbian as the official state language and downgrading Croatian to the level of a local dialect.
Notwithstanding the fact that "Declaration" was vociferously condemned by Yugoslav Communist authorities as an outburst of "Croatian nationalism", Serbo-Croatian forced unification was essentially halted and an uneasy status quo remained until the end of communism.
In the decade between the death of Marshall Tito (1980) and the final collapse of communism and the Yugoslavian state (1990/1991), major works that manifested the irrepressibility of Croatian linguistic culture had appeared. The studies of Brozović, Katičić and Babić that had been circulating among specialists or printed in the obscure philological publications in the 60s and 70s (frequently condemned and suppressed by the authorities) have finally, in the climate of dissolving authoritarianism, been published. This was a formal "divorce" of Croatian from Serbian (and, strictly linguistically speaking, the death of Serbo-Croatian). These works, based on modern fields and theories (structuralist linguistics and phonology, comparative-historical linguistics and lexicology, transformational grammar and areal linguistics) revised or discarded older "language histories", and restored the continuity of the Croatian language by definitely reintegrating and asserting specific Croatian characteristics (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical, etc.) that had been constantly suppressed in both Yugoslavian states and finally gave modern linguistic description and prescription to the Croatian language. Among many monographs and serious studies, one could point to works issued by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, particularly Katičić's Syntax and Babić's Word-formation.
After the collapse of communism and the birth of Croatian independence (1991), the situation with regard to the Croatian language has become stabilized. No longer under negative political pressures and de-Croatization impositions, Croatian linguists expanded the work on various ambitious programs and intensified their studies on current dominant areas of linguistics: mathematical and corpus linguistics, textology, psycholinguistics, language acquisition and historical lexicography. From 1991 on, numerous representative Croatian linguistic works were published, among them four voluminous monolingual dictionaries of contemporary Croatian, various specialized dictionaries and normative manuals (the most representative being the issue of the Institute for Croatian Language and Linguistics). For a curious bystander, probably the most noticeable language feature in Croatian society was the re-Croatization of Croatian in all areas, from phonetics to semantics and (most evidently) in everyday vocabulary.
Political ambitions played a key role in the creation of the Serbo-Croatian language. Likewise, politics again were a crucial agent in dissolving the unified language. With the collapse of Yugoslavia, the Serbo-Croatian language officially followed suit.
If you're trying to learn the Croatian Alphabet you will find some useful resources including a course about pronunciation, and sound of all letters. to help you with your Croatian grammar. Try to concentrate on the lesson and memorize the sounds. Also don't forget to check the rest of our other lessons listed on Learn Croatian. Enjoy the rest of the lesson!
Learning the Croatian alphabet is very important because its structure is used in every day conversation. Without it, you will not be able to say words properly even if you know how to write those words. The better you pronounce a letter in a word, the more understood you will be in speaking the Croatian language.
Below is a table showing the Croatian alphabet and how it is pronounced in English, and finally examples of how those letters would sound if you place them in a word.