WBEZ | Croatia http://www.wbez.org/tags/croatia Latest from WBEZ Chicago Public Radio en How the NATO peoples helped settle Chicago, Part 2 http://www.wbez.org/blogs/john-r-schmidt/2012-05/how-nato-peoples-helped-settle-chicago-part-2-99028 <p><p>Today we continue the capsule stories of how people from the 28 NATO countries helped build Chicago. The final part will be posted tomorrow.</p><p><strong>Albania</strong>—Chicago has never had a large Albanian population, and no real Albanian neighborhoods. The most prominent local person of Albanian ancestry was probably comedian John Belushi, who grew up in Wheaton.</p><div class="image-insert-image "><img alt="" class="image-original_image" src="http://www.wbez.org/system/files/styles/original_image/llo/insert-images/ZZ-Albania-St.%20Nicholas.JPG" title="St. Nicholas Albanian Orthodox Church--2701 N. Narragansett Ave."></div><p><strong>Croatia</strong>—Because Croatia didn’t become independent until 1991, Chicago’s Croatians were commonly classified as “Yugoslavians.” Most of the local community life was centered around a few parishes, such as St. Jerome’s in Armour Square. Mayor Michael Bilandic and Alderman Ed Vrdolyak are the city’s most famous Croatians.</p><p><strong>Denmark</strong>—Most of the Chicago’s earliest Danish immigrants settled along the axis of Milwaukee Avenue, close to other Scandinavians. By 1910 there were nearly 20,000 Danes in the city, the majority of them located near North Avenue in Humboldt Park. From there the newer generations moved northwest and gradually dispersed.</p><div class="image-insert-image "><img alt="" class="image-original_image" src="http://www.wbez.org/system/files/styles/original_image/llo/insert-images/ZZ-Denmark-Danish%20Home.jpg" title="The Danish Home--5656 N. Newcastle Ave."></div><p><strong>Greece</strong>—Greeks began arriving in the city as early as 1840. By the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century, a thriving community called the Delta was established around the area of Harrison and Halsted. Unlike most other ethnic groups, a large percentage of Greek immigrants remained in America only long enough to make their fortune, then returned to their native land. But enough of them stayed to make Chicago’s Greek settlement one of the country’s biggest.</p><p>Today over 100,000 people of Greek descent live in metro Chicago. During the 1960s, the new University of Illinois campus displaced many residents, and the Greek community dispersed to such areas as Lincoln Square. However, a remnant of the city’s historic Greektown remains on the Near West Side, along Halsted just north of the university. &nbsp;</p><p><strong>Iceland</strong>—In all the years I’ve been in Chicago, I’ve only known one person of Icelandic descent. It was the early 1970s, and she lived near Diversey and Central—which you might say made Cragin the city’s Icelandic neighborhood. If there are any more Icelanders out there, let me know.</p><div class="image-insert-image "><img alt="" class="image-original_image" src="http://www.wbez.org/system/files/styles/original_image/llo/insert-images/ZZ-Norway-Rockne%20%28LofC%29.jpg" style="float: right; height: 339px; width: 250px;" title="A Norwegian immigrant to Chicago: Knute Rockne (Library of Congress)"></div><p><strong>Norway</strong>—Norwegians were among the earliest immigrants to put down roots in Chicago. They lived along Milwaukee Avenue, mainly in Logan Square. By 1900 there were over 40,000 Norwegians in Chicago, including future football legend Knute Rockne. Though the community is no longer concentrated in one area, a Norwegian Constitution Day Parade is staged annually in Park Ridge.</p><p><strong>Poland</strong>—Chicago’s first wave of Polish immigrants started arriving in the 1850s. They settled on the near Northwest Side. St. Stanislaus Kostka parish was founded in 1864, and as more people came, other churches were built. Business, cultural, and political organizations sprang up. The area near Milwaukee and Division became known as Polish Downtown.</p><p>During the 20<sup>th</sup> century, Poles began moving up Milwaukee Avenue toward Niles. Meanwhile, Polish enclaves developed in Back of the Yards, South Chicago, Hegewisch, and other areas. The Poles became the city’s largest ethnic group, and Chicago was said to be "the second biggest Polish city in the world."</p><p>Today the Chicago area counts about 1.5 million people of Polish ancestry. The community has dispersed, though many Poles still live along the Milwaukee Avenue corridor. The Polish Museum of America is located near the onetime Polish Downtown.</p><div class="image-insert-image "><img alt="" class="image-original_image" src="http://www.wbez.org/system/files/styles/original_image/llo/insert-images/ZZ-Poland-family%20group%2C%201907.jpg" title="Polish family group, 1907. (Author's collection)"></div><p><strong>Portugal</strong>—Portugal sent an official delegation to the 1893 Columbian Exposition. Yet as late as 1940 there were only 47 Portuguese residents in all of Cook County. The current metro population is said to be about 3,000.</p><p><strong>Spain</strong>—Though Chicago’s Hispanic community is large, the number of ethnic Spaniards has always been very small. The latest estimate puts the number of Spaniards in the Chicago metro area at about 500.</p></p> Wed, 16 May 2012 07:00:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/blogs/john-r-schmidt/2012-05/how-nato-peoples-helped-settle-chicago-part-2-99028 World Cup Analysis: What is it about England? http://www.wbez.org/EHague/2010/06/world-cup-analysis-what-is-it-about-england/26838 <p>After the pulsating USA v. Slovenia match on Friday, England played out a dreadful 0-0 draw with Algeria in what was, arguably, the worst game of the World Cup so far (oops -- I forgot about France v. Uruguay).‚  What is it about England? As a Scot with English friends and family, I have a strange relationship with the self-styled "home" of football. I'm not someone who hates England, and wouldn't mind seeing them do well, as long as it doesn't get mentioned again. The problem is, of course, that an England triumph would be spoken of again and again and again. England's one World Cup championship, 44 years ago, is still discussed by many in England as if it were yesterday, and despite Scotland's better qualification record in the 1970s, the press in the UK was (and still is) dominated by a fixation with England. (Note to the US media -- all English people are "Brits," but not all "Brits" are English, so don't use these interchangeably. It's England in the 2010 World Cup, not Britain!) Like many of you, English games and players form the bulk of my regular season soccer-watching, and that familiarity means there's an awareness of the personalities on the England team.‚  So I support them a little bit, but only up to a point. I'm not ecstatic when England wins, it's just nice for them. Nor am I despondent when England loses.‚  In fact, I could hardly keep a grin off my face in The Globe pub back in November 2007 when England imploded against Croatia and lost 3-2.‚  It was just that funny. I think that it is the hubris and hyperbole that accompanies an England World Cup team that leaves me torn between wanting to see them do well, and wanting to see them lose tragically and/or humiliatingly.‚  But I'd at least like to see them playing well. England today showed none of the passion that the USA or Mexico had demonstrated in the last 24 hours.‚  If England had really gone at Algeria, whose goalkeeper was starting his first world cup match, they probably would have won, but they didn't and they didn't. How can England players like Gerrard and Lampard, stalwarts of the Premier League, so consistently fail to get the ball to the would-be match winner, Wayne Rooney?‚  Could you imagine Argentina failing to get the ball to Messi, or Portugal to Ronaldo, of Brazil to Kaka or Robinho, or the US to Donovan? When the US needed someone to step up and take control today, Donovan burst into Slovenia's box and scored.‚  England players went into hiding, regularly over-running the ball, hitting the first defender with corners and being generally devoid of ideas.‚  If Heskey is in the team because his presence helps Rooney, then I've yet to see it. The old tale that Lampard and Gerrard can't play together seems to hold true, and Wright-Phillips and Lennon, as professional soccer players whose job is to cross the ball should, you'd think, be able to cross the ball, after all they get paid to practice crossing every day of the week! Taking my cue from "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" after a poor first 45 minutes, I phoned a friend at half time and asked for his solution to England's malaise. His answer was good -- Manchester City's exciting young winger Adam Johnson. The only problem, Johnson, like other potential matchwinners, Ashley Young, Gabby Agbonlahor and Darren Bent, were left in England.‚  In fact, I read somewhere in the build up to the World Cup that no Englishman, other than Rooney, has scored more Premier League goals in the last 5 years than Darren Bent. The figures are telling: since 2005 (according to Wikipedia, at least) Young has scored 41 professional goals, Agbonlahor 45, Bent 73 and Adam Johnson, despite being only 22 and a midfielder, has scored 23. Emile Heskey has scored 24. Of course, all this English ineptitude could just be an extravagant ploy to make other teams think they are rubbish.‚  After all, this is Fabio Capello's team, and he's Italian, and if any nationality wins World Cups after a playing poorly and drawing their group matches , it's Italy. In 1982 the Italians began with three draws (0-0, 1-1, 1-1) and went through ahead of Cameroon (0-0, 0-0, 1-1) on goals scored, before going on to lift the trophy in exhilarating fashion. For England, however, three draws in 2010 will not be enough.</p> Sat, 19 Jun 2010 07:59:00 -0500 http://www.wbez.org/EHague/2010/06/world-cup-analysis-what-is-it-about-england/26838