{"id":4690,"date":"2022-02-02T18:39:40","date_gmt":"2022-02-02T17:39:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=4690"},"modified":"2024-06-20T21:30:49","modified_gmt":"2024-06-20T20:30:49","slug":"croatia-is-not-passing-a-law-to-declare-djokovic-a-croat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2022\/02\/02\/croatia-is-not-passing-a-law-to-declare-djokovic-a-croat\/","title":{"rendered":"Croatia is not passing a law to declare Djokovic a Croat"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Original article<\/a> (in Serbian) was published on 24\/01\/2022<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

An ironic Facebook post by Croatian academic and linguist Ranko Matasovic ended up on the website Informer, where it was declared to be \u201ctrue\u201d. Namely, Matasovic reacted to the news that Serbia has adopted a law that considers works of old Dubrovnik literature as Serbian heritage. He wrote that Novak Djokovic should be declared a Croat according to a similar logic since his grandparents and coach are from Croatia. Informer, therefore, reported this as the following news – \u201cCroats are using the law to kidnap Novak\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason for Ranko Matasovic’s ironic post is the recently adopted Law on Cultural Heritage<\/a> of Serbia, which states that works of Dubrovnik literature, \u201cwhich belong to both Serbian and Croatian culture, concluding in 1867\u201d, are considered old and rare library material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Croatian public resented this. The Institute for Croatian Language and Linguistics<\/a> said that Serbia was thus trying to reach for Croatia’s cultural heritage in the \u201cfirst phase as part of a common cultural treasure\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ranko Matasovic, wrote on Facebook that \u201cit is time for Croatia to pass the Law on Sports Heritage, which would prove that Djokovic is also a Croatian tennis player\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSince Novak is an old Croatian name, Djokovic’s grandparents are from Vinkovci, and for an athlete to belong to a nation, it is not only important how he feels, but also who his coach is. Djokovic is coached by Croat Ivanisevic. Finally, the Croatian Law on Sports Heritage would only apply to athletes born in the former state until 1991, before Croatia and Serbia became independent. Djokovic was born in 1987\u201d, the linguist wrote, among other things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the weekend edition of January 21, Informer wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe idiotic response of the neighbors to the Serbian regulation on cultural heritage – Croats are using the law to kidnap Novak. Frustrated by our law which protects the works of art of Serb Catholics from Dubrovnik, Croatian academics are demanding that a law be adopted to catch hold of Djokovic\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The text quotes only Matasovic’s sentence that Novak is a Croatian name and that his grandparents are from Vinkovci. The rest of the text widely explains how works of Dubrovnik literature, like the works of writers Marin Drzic and Ivan Gundulic, are actually Serbian works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, they do not quote the rest of Matasovic’s post, which shows that this is not about any official proposal to adopt a law by which Croats will catch hold of Djokovic, but about irony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matasovic goes on to say that, according to the logic of Serbian legislators, it could be argued that Dante was a Croatian writer, since Italy, where he lived, was under the same papal jurisdiction as today’s Croatia, and parts of both countries under the same secular jurisdiction of the Venetian doge. In addition, he wrote in Tuscan, \u201cand many related Romance idioms were spoken in Croatia, ergo, Dante is also a Croatian writer\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs long as we are not ready to consistently implement such logic in all cases, it is better to stick to common sense: Dante is an Italian, not a Croatian writer, Dubrovnik writers are Croatian, not Serbian. And Djokovic is only a Serbian tennis player (and anti-vaxer)\u201d, Matasovic concluded in his post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Websites including Kurir<\/a>, Vecernje novosti<\/a> and Espreso<\/a> also shared similar claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The FakeNews Tragac<\/a> also wrote about this disinformation today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, the Ministry of Culture of Serbia responded to the Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics<\/a> with claims that Serbia does not dispute that old Dubrovnik literature is part of the cultural heritage of Croats, i.e., that it is a \u201cdouble heritage\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is on the example of double heritage, common linguistic past and attitude towards literary heritage, that the European values \u200b\u200band perspectives of good neighborly relations are best recognized\u201d, the Ministry announced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Croatian Minister of Culture Nina Obuljen believes that these provisions are \u201cprofessionally unfounded\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI expect Serbia to change that law and stop reaching for the Croatian cultural heritage\u201d, Obuljen said, as Radio Free Europe reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Original article (in Serbian) was published on 24\/01\/2022 An ironic Facebook post by Croatian academic and linguist Ranko Matasovic ended up on the website Informer, where it was declared to be \u201ctrue\u201d. Namely, Matasovic reacted to the news that Serbia has adopted a law that considers works of old Dubrovnik literature as Serbian heritage. He […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4715,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[29,13,28],"class_list":["post-4690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks","tag-croatia","tag-journalism","tag-serbia"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4690","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4690"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4690\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4692,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4690\/revisions\/4692"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4715"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}