Talk:Italianization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Italianization was a natural process in Istria over the time because the diferences betwin slavic, usualy workers, and italians, usualy masters, work like a pressure factor.In this case every slvic who become rich people in fact become italian. By the other way italians were the symbol of culture (e.g. Renaissance)and normaly slavic people try be integreted into a herittage of roman emperium.Over the century the italianization was a peacefuly process that means was accepted and wanted by slavic.
In relation with the germanic it is better to observe what is happend in last 100 years with romansh in Gritschum and with italians in Ticino (Swisse).The germans press in south by 1000 years, Swiss colonization in detriment of the romanic(french,italin and romansch)it is the main proof.Italianization against the germanic?It is not true.
About the relationship betwin french people and italians we have to see the situation of Nisa.At the begining of the xix century was a italian city and now italian language was vanishid from area.Italianization in relation with french?Where?
IN THIS CASE I ASK FOR URGENTLY MODIFICATION OF THIS PAGE BECAUSE IT S CONTENT IS MALICIOS AND ANTI-ITALIN. BY THE WAY I AM NOT ITALIAN. --proturism 04:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The slavic are not natives in Dalmatia == --proturism 03:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Neither the Italians if we think that a population who lives in a region for 1300 years can't be considered autochtonous. GhePeU 11:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Not alone.With istroromanian the real natives of this area (by the way a lot of them forced to become slavic), with ragusan and morlach(black wallach)(vanished by slavic), and with italian.Of corse the istroromanian, ragusan, morlach and italian are the people who are the real autochtonus inhabitants of Dalmatia and Illiricum like have their ancestors the roman. Of all the Romance languages, it could be said that Romanian(and istroromanian like a dialect of romanian) is the most archaic one, having retained, for example, the inflected structure of Latin grammar.That prove the slavic are not the real native of this area.--proturism 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- This is true, but I don't think that we can adopt this approach, I prefer to assume that someone who lives in a region for more than two centuries can be considered native. If the Dalmatian and Istrian slavs are not autochtonous of a place where they live since VII century, what are they? GhePeU 09:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Terms natives and autochthonous means people who formed or originating in the place were found.(Merriam Webster s Dictionary)--proturism 09:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- We can discuss this but, please, edit without removing all the wiki tags. I can agree on the removal of autochtonous, but by removing that term there is no need to specify when Slavs, Germans or French arrived in the area, nor when Italian arrived: the articles on Germans, Italians and Slavs are linked. Also, this article is about the italianization policy; we all know that the adoption of ethnic policies isn't an Italian peculiarity, but the repression of Italians is off topic here: there are specific articles, like Foiba and you could write an article on Alpenvorland. GhePeU 12:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
