text:
State defense force

In the United States, state defense forces (SDFs) are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government. State defense forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state.

State defense forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. All state National Guard personnel (to include the National Guard of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territories of Guam and the Virgin Islands) can be federalized under the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 with the creation of the National Guard of the United States. This provides the basis for integrating units and personnel of the Army National Guard into the U.S. Army and, since 1947, units and personnel of the Air National Guard into the U.S. Air Force.

The federal government recognizes state defense forces, as per the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, under which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC § 109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force ... if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and 19 states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active forces with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as ground units, but air and naval units also exist. Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia, or state military reserve.

Every state defense force is also the command authority for the "unorganized militia", which is defined as every able bodied male between the age of 17 and 45 who is not already serving in some capacity within the armed forces or National Guard. The original concept of the unorganized militia being a citizen army which could be raised immediately in times of extreme national emergency. In the modern day military, the unorganized militia is considered obsolete with very few exceptions. One of the only recognized instances where unorganized militia members wear uniforms and actively perform military duties is the Virginia Militia which actively employs officers amongst the various military schools in the state of Virginia.

Origins
From its founding until the early 1900s, the United States maintained only a minimal army and relied on state militias to supply the majority of its troops, with the training and readiness of the latter varying widely. As a result of the Spanish–American War and the performance of the militias and other volunteer units during that conflict, Congress was called upon to reform and regulate the training and qualification of state militias. In 1903, with passage of the Militia Act of 1903, the predecessor to the modern-day National Guard was formed. It required the states to divide their militias into two sections. The law recommended the title "National Guard" for the first section, for federal administration, and "Reserve Militia" for the individual states.

World War I
During World War I, Congress authorized the states to maintain Home Guards, which were reserve forces outside the National Guard forces that were then being deployed by the Federal Government as part of the National Army. The Secretary of War was authorized to furnish these Home Guard units with rifles, ammunition, and supplies.

Interwar years
In 1933, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the newly created National Guard of the United States, a federal reserve force.

World War II
In 1940, with the onset of World War II and as a result of its federalizing the National Guard, Congress amended the National Defense Act of 1916, and authorized the states to maintain "military forces other than National Guard."

Cold War
In 1950, with the outbreak of the Korean War and at the urging of the National Guard, Congress reauthorized the separate state military forces for a time period of two years. These state military forces were authorized military training at federal expense, as well as "arms, ammunition, clothing, and equipment," as deemed necessary by the Secretary of the Army. At the end of the two years, however, they were not reauthorized under federal law.

In 1956, Congress finally revised the law and authorized "state defense forces" permanently under Title 32, Section 109, of the United States Code. Two years later, Congress amended the law and changed the name from "State defense forces" to "defense forces." Still, it was not until the early Ronald Reagan administration that many states developed their defense forces into elements that existed beyond paper, when the U.S. Department of Defense actively encouraged states to create and maintain SDF units.

By the late 1980s, however, a series of high-profile reports caused several states to shut down or significantly restructure their forces. In 1987, the governor of Utah removed all but 31 officers from the Utah State Guard, after a probe revealed that its ranks were "peppered with neo-Nazis, felons and mental patients." Meanwhile, in 1990, the Virginia General Assembly launched an investigation and subsequent overhaul of its state's force after receiving tips that the volunteers were "saving money to buy a tank."

Contemporary
With the end of the Cold War came a general decrease of interest in state defense forces. The September 11 attacks, however, generated additional attention and, with it, greater scrutiny from some in the United States military who questioned the training and equipment of the units and whether they provided an outlet for "warrior wannabes" who would not otherwise qualify for service in the armed forces.

In 2008, Alaska disarmed its state defense force after an investigation concluded the lack of training intensity or standardization was a potential legal liability to the state. By 2010 the status of the force had been downgraded even further, with the Adjutant-General of the Alaska National Guard informing volunteers that they would only be called upon as a "reserve of last resort to be used only in the most extreme emergencies." The ASDF remained deliberately hamstrung for several years, until Governor Bill Walker overruled the Adjutant-General in 2016 when he announced his intention to reform the Alaska State Defense Force by expanding it further into rural Alaska and improving training standards.

Further controversy was stoked by a New York Times report which found many senior officers in the New York Guard had little or no formal military training despite holding, in some cases, general officer ranks. The former commander of the force, Pierre David Lax, noted that, "if you are friendly with the governor and you always wanted to be a general, you ask the governor to make you a general, and poof, you are a brigadier general." Another former commander asserted he regularly awarded titles to members of the New York legislature in exchange for their support of budgetary allocations to the force. The report also noted that a majority of the unit's rare deployments involved providing ceremonial support, such as bands and color guards, to the state government.

An April 2014 Department of Defense report by the Inspector General's office reported confusion and inconsistency among state adjutant generals as to the use and status of state defense forces. The Inspector General's office reported an under-utilization of state defense force capabilities due to a lack of clarity in the US Code regarding the use of SDFs, fueling fear that using funds and assets acquired through the federal government for state defense forces could run afoul of regulations. (While the National Guard is operated by the states, most of their equipment and funding comes from the federal government.) This fear of violating regulations also inhibited their use and integration with their National Guard counterparts, preventing them from conducting joint operations alongside one another, and also from volunteering in support of federal missions. Other problems cited by the Inspector General's office were a lack of standardization in training and physical fitness, raising questions as to the ability of SDFs to work alongside their National Guard counterparts, and a lack of coordination with and support from the Department of Defense. During a survey conducted by the Inspector General of SDF commanders and adjutant generals, 18 of 19 considered their SDFs to be part of the organized militia and subject to the Code of Military Justice, 14 of 18 considered the members of SDFs to be "soldiers", 14 of 18 considered SDF personnel to be "lawful belligerents" under the rules of war, and only 4 of 19 authorized their personnel to conduct firearms training. Almost all of the missions reported to the IG's office were non-military in nature, including small-scale search and rescue, disaster management, and other unarmed, homeland security related-tasks.

Due to public fears over the Jade Helm 15 exercises held throughout a number of southwestern states, on 28 April 2015, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas ordered a call-up of the Texas State Guard to monitor the exercises and facilitate communication between US special operations forces conducting training and the governor's office.

In early 2020, a number of state defense forces were activated to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. As of April 2020, the Alaska State Defense Force, the California State Guard, the Governor's Guards of Connecticut, the Georgia State Defense Force, the Indiana Guard Reserve, the Maryland Defense Force, the New York Guard, the Ohio Military Reserve, the South Carolina State Guard, the Tennessee State Guard, the Texas State Guard, and the Virginia Defense Force had all contributed members to their respective states' efforts in combating the pandemic.

Future
A 2003 article in the United States Army War College's Parameters journal recommended that "United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) should ensure that future contingency planning efforts for homeland security operations fully incorporate the valuable capabilities that State Defense Forces can provide." In the decade following that article, however, no significant action has been taken on the recommendation.

Several bills have been unsuccessfully introduced in Congress since the early 1990s seeking to improve the readiness of state defense forces. The most recent, H.R. 206, introduced in 2009 by Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, would have allowed the U.S. Secretary of Defense to transfer surplus U.S. military equipment to state defense forces. Co-sponsors of the bill included Jim Marshall and Frank Wolf. Congress took no action on the measure before adjourning.

In recent years, state defense forces have focused on retooling their capabilities to be better prepared for future missions by improving their professionalism and interoperability with other agencies. The development of professional commands to support the National Guard, especially medical commands to buttress civil authorities during a civil crisis, has become an emerging trend.

Several state defense forces have begun to shift their focus to preparing for larger emergencies which may require multiple states to coordinate relief efforts. In July 2015, the Virginia Defense Force headed a multi-state communications exercise, the first ever of its kind, where the VDF practiced long-distance radio communications with the Tennessee State Guard, Indiana Guard Reserve, Texas State Guard, and the California State Military Reserve. Further efforts at standardizing training between state defense forces by setting competency requirements have been undertaken by the State Guard Association, which followed its Military Emergency Management Specialist training program with a JAG Academy an Engineer Specialty Qualification Badge, and plans for a Medical Academy in the future.

Individual states have made efforts to increase their capabilities to be prepared to take on future missions. In March 2017, the California State Military Reserve activated its Maritime Component to lead and assist in future homeland security missions while working in conjunction with other agencies, including the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CalTrans, and other civilian departments. As of May 2017, the Maryland Defense Force has significantly reorganized; the number of available officer billets has been shrunk, and the job descriptions reorganized, in order to avoid having a top-heavy organizational structure. New units, including the Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) Support Unit, have been approved, and others, such as the MDDF Cyber Unit, have planned expansions. Training standards were also heightened, with the MDDF requiring that drill participation, age, height, and weight requirements be more strictly enforced. Further, all new soldiers are currently required to earn their Military Emergency Management Specialist Badge. These changes were made with the goal that the future MDDF would be able to "seamlessly integrate into missions with the National Guard."

List of state defense forces
There are currently 20 active state defense forces and 5 active naval militias. The Puerto Rico State Guard includes an air support component, the 1st Air Base Group, that support the operations of the Puerto Rico Air National Guard.

* Colorado does not operate an active state defense force, but rather has a statutory state defense force staffed by one individual appointed by the governor.

Personnel and training
Some state defense forces advertise recruitment and physical standards lower than the U.S. military with relaxed waiver standards. While other state defense forces, and specific units, advertise professional military and physical fitness standards to retain integration with National Guard counterparts and more physically demanding state and interagency missions.

California, for instance, requires no physical fitness test prior to entry and has weight/height standards significantly more relaxed than the federal service for certain units, but certain jobs — like firefighters, search and rescue, and certain maritime search and rescue/dive personnel within the Cal Guard's Emergency Response Command and Maritime Service — require passing a physical fitness test, pack hikes, and tryouts. California State Guard wildland firefighters, for example, must complete the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Red Card standards, then complete a Cal Fire interagency training program alongside their National Guard counterparts. In the Texas State Guard, there are minimal requirements for general accession, but joining specialized teams like the Dive, Rescue, and Recovery (DR&R) Team requires physical fitness testing and completion of the Texas Dive School.

Officer Candidate Schools are also maintained by the active State Defense Forces of the United States by direction of their respective state military departments and by the state's National Guard Adjutant General. Similar to their state's National Guard counterparts who take a dual federal and state military commission, military officers who are commissioned through a SDF Officer Candidate School take a sole military commission to the state that they support, recognized by their state's military code and. In states with full integration of state military resources (SDF and National Guard counterparts) the curriculum is often similar, with the National Guard curriculum taking on additional requirements to meet federal recognition (referred to as FEDREC ). For example, California maintains both Officer Candidate Schools at Camp San Luis Obispo, with the State Guard OCS being 11–12 months and the National Guard OCS being 16–18 months, both celebrate a joint graduation.

The Military Emergency Management Specialist Badge, created by the State Guard Association of the United States, has become a common training focal point among state defense forces. Alabama, California, Indiana, Ohio and others have adopted the MEMS Badge as a basic qualification required of all members desiring promotion. Training is conducted both online, and through MEMS academies in each state, and includes course material provided by FEMA and other agencies, as well as practical experience in local disaster planning and exercise management.

Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) are being organized by several SDFs by utilizing training offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Citizen Corps. Some states follow the lead of the Army and offer a permanent tab (worn in a similar manner as the Army's Ranger and Sapper tabs) as an incentive to become certified as part of the local or unit CERT team.

State defense forces may incorporate Medical Reserve Corps units into their organizational structure. The 47th Medical Company (MRC), of the New Mexico State Defense Force, the 10th Medical Regiment of the Maryland Defense Force, and the Medical Brigade of the Texas State Guard receive training and recognition from the Medical Reserve Corps program sponsored by the Office of the Surgeon General of the United States through the Citizen Corps program, and are simultaneously organized as units of their respective state defense force.

Weapons qualification and training is provided in some SDFs. However, most SDFs do not require weapons proficiency. A 2006 report by the U.S. Freedom Foundation, an organization affiliated with the State Guard Association of the United States, recommended minimum standards for state defense forces, including weapons training, but the report has been largely ignored. Some SDFs have laws that in the event of deployment by order of the state legislature and/or governor, they will become armed.

Uniforms
As a general rule, state defense forces wear standard U.S. military uniforms with insignia closely matching those of their federal counterparts. SDF units generally wear red name tags on service uniforms (as specifically prescribed by AR 670-1 for SDF units when adopting the Army Service Uniform or Battle Dress Uniform (BDU), and name tapes on Army Combat Uniforms (ACU) or BDUs use the state defense force name or state name rather than "U.S. Army." Standard U.S. Army branch insignia are often used or a unique "state guard" branch insignia consisting of a crossed musket and sword is alternatively used.

Where berets are worn, some state defense forces use a beret flash similar to the one the U.S. Army uses, but in bright red thread instead of the Army's blue. Other states have beret flashes that are often based on their state flag.

Uniforms vary from state to state and tend to have only subtle differences. For example, the Texas State Guard wears standard U.S. Army camouflage uniforms, a state guard unit patch, and the "U.S. Army" name tape replaced with one reading "Texas State Guard." Similarly, the California State Military Reserve wears a uniform identical to their National Guard counterparts except for the unit patch, beret flash, and the "California" name tape. Outer garments such as a Gore-Tex jacket have a subdued "CA" beneath the rank insignia. A similar pattern can be found in the New York Guard. The Georgia State Defense Force often works in tandem with and support of federal troops. The Georgia State Defense Force wears the OCP pattern of the ACU with a unique Georgia SDF red flash on the U.S. Army's black beret and "Georgia" in place of the "U.S. Army" uniform name tape. The Tennessee State Guard and Alabama State Defense Force can wear either BDUs or the "tactical response uniform" (TRU) in the Woodland pattern but whose cut and accouterments match the ACU but cannot mix pieces. The Alabama State Defense Force has also recently introduced a new "Standard Service Uniform" composed of a blue "tactical" shirt, and khaki "tactical" pants.

The few states with both SDF air and naval units wear modified USAF and USN/USMC uniforms. Currently, only Ohio, Alaska and New York have uniformed naval militias. Only California, Vermont, and Puerto Rico have an air wing, though Indiana formerly had an Air Guard Reserve. In all cases, the state adjutant general has the final say on uniforms worn by state defense forces, though federal service regulations generally shape the policies of each state.

In March 2024, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau signed an updated Chief of the National Guard Bureau Instruction (CNGBI) 5500.01A National Guard Interaction with State Defense Forces. In this new regulation, it outlined new uniform requirements of SDFs who wear modified US Army Utility Uniforms. These new requirements are the responsibilities of State Adjutant Generals to enforce on their state's SDFs. The new regulations include: solid red background nametapes with white lettering, solid red backgrounds and white ranks for rank tabs, solid red covers with white ranks, the requirement of full color state flags, full color unit patches, and a tab on the left shoulder displaying "SDF" in white lettering on a solid red background. Notably, this regulation also disallowed the display of previously earned qualification badges on the utility uniforms if the badge was issued by the US Armed Forces. For example, if a state SDF member earned a parachutist badge while in the US Armed Forces, they are no longer allowed to display said badge on their SDF uniform. Federal awards not issued by the US Armed Forces are still authorized. This was largely seen by SDF groups, including the State Guard Association of the United States, as an attempt to discredit the legitimacy of SDFs; concerned it would cause confusion among civilians. Proponents argued that it was necessary to ensure there was no confusion between SDFs and the National Guard.

Special units
SDFs include a variety of special units including medical, aviation, and ceremonial units. The following are examples:

 * Cyber Security Command, Maryland Defense Force
 * Cavalry Troop A, Maryland Defense Force
 * 121st Engineer Regiment, Maryland Defense Force
 * 10th Medical Regiment, Maryland Defense Force
 * 61st Medical Company, Tennessee State Guard
 * Finance Corps, Maryland Defense Force
 * Judge Advocate Corps, Maryland Defense Force

 * Georgia Defense Force Band, Georgia State Defense Force

 * Maryland Defense Force Band
 * Governor's Foot Guard, Governor's Horse Guard & Band, Connecticut State Militia
 * 1st Medical Company, Georgia State Defense Force
 * 1st Platoon – DECON/CBRN-e
 * Quick Reaction Teams (QRT) (now disbanded) – Small units attached to a number of Texas State Guard Civil Affairs (CA) regiments. QRT undergo specialized training and qualify with approved NATO 9mm sidearm. QRT compete in the Governor's Twenty competition with the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard.
 * Special Missions Unit: Florida State Guard. Trained for military policing, responses, and special forces missions. It's been reported that the unit is armed with rifles and pistols.
 * Small Arms Training Team – Small arms and crew served weapons team of the California State Military Reserve
 * Search and Rescue Company, Puerto Rico State Guard
 * The 1st Air Base Group, Puerto Rico Air State Guard
 * The Georgia State Defense Force OPFOR unit
 * RAIDER School, South Carolina State Guard
 * 143rd CSMR Support Battalion, State MP Unit, California State Military Reserve.
 * The Ohio Cyber Reserve, a dedicated cyberspace component of the Ohio SDF

Federal activation
The U.S. Constitution, coupled with several statutes and cases, details the relationship of state defense forces to the federal government. Outside of 32 U.S.C. 109, the U.S. Supreme Court noted: "It is true that the state defense forces 'may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.' 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331–333, which distinguish the 'militia' from the 'armed forces,' and which appear to subject all portions of the 'militia' – organized or not – to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses" (Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)). The Court, however, explicitly noted that it was not deciding this issue. The following is an extract of the laws which the Court cited as possibly giving the federal government authority to activate the state defense forces:

10 U.S.C. 251 – "Federal aid for State governments" "Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection."

10 U.S.C. 252 – "Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority" "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

10 U.S.C. 253 – "Interference with State and Federal law" The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

State defense force reactivation efforts
A number of legislators have spearheaded attempts to reactivate the state defense forces of their states. In 2011, a bill was introduced in the New Hampshire General Court which, if passed, would permanently reestablish the New Hampshire State Guard. The bill did not pass. The same year, Governor Jan Brewer signed a bill which authorized the organization of a state defense force in Arizona.

In 2018, Kansas state senator Dennis Pyle petitioned the Governor of Kansas to reactivate the Kansas State Guard, in part to offer an additional security resource for schools.

In 2019, Pennsylvania State Representative Chris Rabb proposed legislation which would reactivate and modernize the Pennsylvania State Guard in order to "address the epidemic of gun violence, domestic terrorism, and other inter-related public health crises."

In December 2021, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced plans to reestablish the Florida State Guard as a 200-person volunteer force that would act independently of the federal government in disaster relief efforts. The reactivated Florida State Guard was announced in June 2022.

In January 2022, Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm introduced legislation to reactivate the Oklahoma State Guard. The bill failed in the Republican-led Oklahoma Senate Veterans Committee in February 2022.

In February 2024, Arizona State Representative Joseph Chaplik introduced Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2059 to establish the Arizona State Guard. The Resolution notably includes granting the Arizona State Guard the authority to make arrests and enforce laws. That same month, multiple West Virginia State Delegates introduced West Virginia House Bill 5525, or the West Virginia State Guard Act. This bill would direct the governor of West Virginia to establish and maintain a State Defense Force for West Virginia. Prior to this, a West Virginia State Guard was authorized for creation by the governor, but this Act would direct the governor to create one. This bill notably includes several tax and education benefits for a service commitment.

Notable members

 * Radio host Clark Howard retired from the Georgia State Defense Force after more than 20 years of service.
 * Former New York state Republican Party chairman Joseph Mondello was a member of the New York Guard.
 * David P. Weber, former Assistant Inspector General of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and whistleblower, is a Lieutenant Colonel JAG officer in the Maryland Defense Force, attached to the Maryland Army National Guard.
 * Lauren Guzman, who was crowned Miss Texas USA in 2014, is a member of the Texas State Guard.
 * Cooper Hefner, Son of Hugh Hefner, was a member of the California State Guard.
 * Alvin C. York, one of the most decorated United States Army soldiers of World War I, served in the Tennessee State Guard.
 * Former Heavyweight champion boxer Lt. Jack Dempsey served in the New York Guard.

title: State defense force


text:
Gymnasium Jur Hronec

Gymnázium Jura Hronca (GJH) is a gymnasium (grammar school) in Bratislava, Slovakia.

The school focuses on the study of natural sciences, mathematics, and computer sciences. However, its affiliation with the International Baccalaureate, an active bi-lingual (English – Slovak) programme and the option to study several foreign languages such as French and German, the school has a strong reputation for the study of foreign languages.

In the school year 2005/2006, GJH launched lower programs of IB Primary Years Programme and IB Middle Years Programme.

The school has been recently known as the "Spojená škola Gymnázium Jura Hronca a ZŠ Košická" (United school of the Gymnázium Jura Hronca and the Košická Primary School) after a merge with the primary school Základná škola a osemročné gymnázium Košická sharing the same building.

History
The school was founded on January 9, 1959, as an 11-year secondary school. In the school year 1969/70 the school was granted the status of a Gymnasium, named after the Slovak mathematician Jur Hronec.

In 1997 the school donated the head of a mummified Egyptian man to the Slovak National Museum.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Gymnasium Jur Hronec


text:
Poprad (river)

The Poprad (Poprád, Popper) is a river in northern Slovakia and southern Poland, and a tributary of the Dunajec River near Stary Sącz, Poland. It has a length of 170 kilometres (63 km of which are within the Polish borders) and a basin area of 2,077 km2, (1,594 km2 of which is in Slovakia, and 483 km2 in Poland). Much of the Polish part of its basin is included in the protected area called Poprad Landscape Park featuring the Poprad River Gorge, a popular tourist destination between the towns of Piwniczna and Rytro.

Poprad is the only large Slovak river flowing north into southern Poland. The river flows through the Slovak towns of Poprad, Kežmarok, Stará Ľubovňa, then forms for 31.1 km the Polish-Slovak border and flows through the Polish towns of Krynica-Zdrój, Muszyna, Piwniczna-Zdrój, Rytro, Stary Sącz, and Żegiestów, among others.

Etymology
The name is derived from a Proto-Slavic verb pręd- (to flow fast, to jump), preserved in the Slovak words priasť, pradenie (to spin, spinning).

title: Poprad (river)


text:
River Rea

The River Rea (pronounced "ray") is a small river which passes through Birmingham, England. It is the river on which Birmingham was founded by the Beorma tribe in the 7th century.

Name
The name of the Rea derives from a root found in many Indo-European languages and means "to run" or "to flow".

Course
The Rea rises in Waseley Hills Country Park, with the source well signposted from the car park there. The river drops about 70 m in its first mile, but from then on has a very gentle slope. The river's tributaries include Callow Brook, the Bourne (which begins as Merritts Brook before joining Griffins Brook) and Bourne Brook. From Rubery, the river flows into Birmingham near the former Rover works at Longbridge, then flows through a tunnel under the A38. In Northfield, one of the river's few remaining fords is at The Mill Walk, near Hawkesley Mill Lane. After this, the river valley is also used by the railway to Kings Norton.

Wychall Reservoir, near the river at Kings Norton, was built in the early 19th century by the Worcester Canal Company after mill owners claimed that water was being taken from the river to fill the canal and reducing the working effectiveness of their mills. Following Kings Norton, the river flows through Stirchley. It is now culverted for much of its course through Birmingham, during which it passes through the Pebble Mill area and Cannon Hill Park then Calthorpe Park. A pair of decorative arches on the bridge where Gooch Street crosses the river mark the first settlement of Birmingham. The medieval hamlet of Birmingham was built on a crossing on the Rea in what is now Digbeth. Many of the street names in the area refer to the river or its mills. These include Rea Street, Floodgate Street, River Street and Duddeston Mill Road. There are proposals to include a riverside walk and new bridge over the Rea at Digbeth's Custard Factory media and arts complex (now complete). There are also proposals for the river to be uncovered at the Warwick Bar area of Digbeth.

Near Gravelly Hill Interchange, about 14 mi from its source, the Rea merges with the River Tame, with its waters eventually reaching the North Sea via the Trent and the Humber Estuary.

Flood prevention measures
The Rea frequently bursts its banks after heavy rain. A £2.7 million scheme to reduce the risk of flooding to more than 200 homes and businesses in the south of Selly Park was completed in January 2018.

title: River Rea


text:
CUC

CUC may refer to:

Education

 * Canadian University College, a private Seventh-day Adventist degree-granting institution and teacher's college in Lacombe, Alberta, Canada
 * Catholic University College, Kensington, a 19th Century college of higher education
 * Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas, the Spanish name of University City of Caracas, a World Heritage Site and the college campus of Universidad Central de Venezuela
 * Claremont University Consortium, a group of seven colleges in California, USA
 * Columbia Union College, a former name of Washington Adventist University, a liberal arts university located in Takoma Park, Maryland, USA
 * Combined Universities in Cornwall, a project to provide higher education in Cornwall, UK
 * Communication University of China, a university in Beijing, China
 * Concordia University Chicago, a private Lutheran university in River Forest, Illinois, USA

Organisations

 * Canadian Unitarian Council, the national body for Unitarian Universalist congregations in Canada
 * Canadian Unity Council, a former non-profit organization whose mission was the promotion of Canadian unity
 * Caribbean Utilities, a utilities company based in the Cayman Islands
 * Comité de Unidad Campesina, the Spanish name for the former Committee for Peasant Unity in Guatemala
 * CUC Broadcasting, a former Canadian media company
 * CUC International, a former consumer services conglomerate involved in a 1998 accounting scandal
 * CUC Software (now Vivendi Games), the software unit of CUC International

Other

 * Canadian Ultimate Championships, a national tournament of Ultimate in Canada
 * Cuban convertible peso, formerly one of two official currencies in Cuba, by ISO 4217 code
 * CUC, the IATA airport code for Camilo Daza International Airport, Cúcuta, Colombia
 * CUC, codon for the amino acid leucine

title: CUC


text:
Drawa

The Drawa (Drage) is a river and popular aquatic trail in Poland, 192 km long. The surface of its catchment area amounts to 3291 km2. The Drawa begins its course at Lake Krzywe in Drawsko Landscape Park and ends it in Noteć below Krzyż Wielkopolski. The Drawa is a right-bank tributary of Noteć, the second regarding size. Its average gradient is 0,61% and its flow rate 19 m3/s. It is the longest river in Pojezierze Drawskie.

Geography
The Drawa flows across regions including Pojezierze Drawskie, Równina Drawska and partly near Pojezierze Wałeckie and Kotlina Gorzowska. The source of the Drawa is in nature reserve Dolina Pięciu Jezior. Then, the river flows across Drawski Landscape Park, Drawieński National Park and Drawski forest. The section from Czaplinek to Noteć is called the Karol Wojtyła Silver Route.

Tributaries
The biggest tributaries of the Drawa are the Kokna, Korytnica, Mierzęcka Struga, Płociczna, Pokrętna, Słopica, Wąsowa. The main streams of the river are the Bagnica, Drawsko, Drawka, Głęboka, Miedzniki, Moczel, Pełknica, Radówka, Sitna, Studzienica, Sucha, Szczuczna, Wilżnica.

One canal, Prostynia, flows into the Drawa.

Lakes
The Drawa flows through many lakes. In the upper region of the river there are Górne, Krąg, Długie, Głębokie, Małe (lake). Further down the river, the lakes Prosino, Żerdno, Drawsko Lake, Rzepowskie, Lubie, Krosino, Wielkie and Małe Dębno can be found.

Towns

 * Czaplinek
 * Złocieniec
 * Drawsko Pomorskie
 * Prostynia
 * Drawno
 * Stare Osieczno
 * Przedborowo
 * Krzyż Wielkopolski

Flora and fauna
The river contains over thirty species of fish, including the Rutilus, perch, gudgeon, European chub, burbot, trout, grayling, barbel, bream, spirlin and silver bream. The river is also a place of living of the rare specimens – sea trout, common minnow, european bullhead and vimba vimba.

The Drawa also hosts buzzards, red algae, sponges, spargania and potamogeton.

History
From the 14th century, the river has been used as a navigational route. Since 1700, the Drawa has been used for drifting honey from Drawsko to Frankfurt. Navigation of the river continued until World War II.

In 1974, on the river route was founded a nature reserve Drawa and in 1990 Drawieński National Park.

Attractions
The Drawa flows near various historical buildings. One of them is Drahimski Castle, which was turned into the museum. The castle was built in 1360 by the Order of Saint John. There are also interesting bunkers near camping in Kotlina. On Drawa's route Wedel's Castle, from the 14th century, can also be found. On one of the banks, Wydrzy Głaz can be found (Moczele ). On the section of the river from Lubie to Prostynia, rafting and canoeing are forbidden because the Drawski Training Ground is located in that area.

title: Drawa


text:
Talk:The Yellow Book

I have removed Count Eric Stenbock from the list of authors who have appeared within the pages of the Yellow Book. While Stenbock did indeed submit some of his writing to the Book (one confirmed of these is his play La Mazurka Des Revenants, of which the rejection letter can be viewed in the Durtro pressing released in 2002), he was never published within it. A scan through the digital copies of the Book should reveal this fact to be true. Please replace him in the list if I am incorrect in this. -Maldoror

I removed this text:

 * It is interesting to compare it with a Black book (also a little black book) which contains a list of potential dates etc carried usually by men and the Blue Book, which is where the comedian Max Miller got his 'dirty' material'. The Red Book is the This is Your Life book.

Didn't seem to be really pertinent to the Yellow Book. If someone wants to make a List of books known by their colours, it ought to include such things as the Red Book of Hergest and the Llibre Vermell de Montserrat as well. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:34, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't very pertinent. The symbolism of the colour yellow here came from the French "livres jaunes", as so-called Decadent books usually came in a yellow cover. Koenraad Cl

French books were wrapped in yellow paper
Does anybody have access to the references that supports this claim? I can't cite Wikipedia as a source and don't have access to all of the references used in the article via JSTOR --5.81.52.82 (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Some confusion
This article doesn’t seem to distinguish between the publication known as The Yellow Book and ‘yellow books’ as a genre. This ought to be clarified by someone with better knowledge of the subject. 2A00:23C7:E980:500:3C4E:E6AB:B918:DAFC (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Erro ou confusão no tópico: Significance
O erro consiste no seguinte é impossível que Wilde tenha feito referência a Revista The Yellow Book que começa em 1994 se o romance de Wilde é de 90, a referência ao "livro amarelo" no romance de Wilde é de fato para o romance de Huysmans escrito em 1984 na França. DJ Silly Boy (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Translated from Portuguese using Google Translate: "The error consists in the following, it is impossible that Wilde made reference to The Yellow Book Magazine which begins in 1994, if Wilde's novel is from the 1990s, the reference to the "yellow book" in Wilde's novel is in fact to the Huysmans novel written in 1984 in France." I'm presuming the references to 19xx are 18xx.
 * I've added an Original Research warning banner for the section. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Yellow Book


text:
Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca

Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (c. 1488/90/92  –  after 19 May 1559) was a Spanish explorer of the New World, and one of four survivors of the 1527 Narváez expedition. During eight years of traveling across what is now the US Southwest, he became a trader and faith healer to various Native American tribes before reconnecting with Spanish civilization in Mexico in 1536. After returning to Spain in 1537, he wrote an account, first published in 1542 as La relación y comentarios ("The Account and Commentaries" ), which in later editions was retitled Naufragios y comentarios ("Shipwrecks and Commentaries"). Cabeza de Vaca is sometimes considered a proto-anthropologist for his detailed accounts of the many tribes of Native Americans that he encountered.

In 1540, Cabeza de Vaca was appointed adelantado of what is now Paraguay, where he was governor and captain general of New Andalusia. He worked to build up the population of Buenos Aires but, charged with poor administration, he was arrested in 1544 and then transported to Spain for trial in 1545. Although his sentence was eventually commuted, he never returned to the Americas. He introduced the story of the India Juliana in his accounts.

Early life and family

Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca was born around 1490 in the Andalusian town of Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz. His father, Francisco de Vera was an hidalgo, a rank of minor Spanish nobility. His mother was Teresa Cabeza de Vaca, also from an hidalgo family. He was named after his mother's great-grandfather, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, but the real influence in his life was his paternal grandfather, Pedro de Vera.

Pedro de Vera was described by contemporaries as an expert in fighting battles on land and sea. He led raids against the Moors in North Africa and in 1483 completed the conquest of Grand Canaria, one of the major islands of the Canaries. He was appointed military governor of the island and used his position to capture Canary natives (Guanches) and sell them as slaves in Spain. When natives on the neighboring island of Gomera revolted, he brutally put down the rebellion, killing males over the age of fifteen and selling the women and children into slavery. He was heavily fined for his actions and recalled to Castile in 1490. Cabeza de Vaca would have heard of these exploits growing up; many years later he named a province in South America, Vera, in honor of his grandfather.

Cabeza de Vaca's father and grandfather died around 1506 and his mother died in 1509, leaving behind a modest estate for her seven children. His younger siblings went to live with their aunt but Álvar had already entered the service of Juan Alfonso Pérez de Guzmán, 3rd Duke of Medina Sidonia in 1503. The house of Medina Sidonia was one of the most powerful in Andalusia and was a dominant force in Seville, the commercial center of Spain's growing overseas empire. Cabeza de Vaca served as a page and then chamberlain for the duke. In 1511 he traveled to Italy to fight against the French in the Italian Wars. In February 1512 he took part in the Battle of Ravenna where the Spanish were badly defeated and Cabeza de Vaca was wounded. He later served as the royal standard-bearer in Gaeta, near Naples.

In 1513 he returned to Spain, still in the service of Medina Sidonia. At some point he married María Marmolejo, member of a prominent converso family in Seville. When the Revolt of the Comuneros broke out in 1520 against the new Spanish king, Charles V, Cabeza de Vaca fought alongside the duke on behalf of the crown. When the comuneros tried unsuccessfully to seize control in Seville in September, the duke put him in charge of defending one of the city gates; in December he fought to liberate the city of Tordesillas; and on 23 April 1521 he participated in the defeat of the comuneros at the battle of Villalar. Later in 1521 when the French king, Francis I, invaded Navarre, Cabeza de Vaca fought against them in the battle of Puente de la Reina.

In 1527, Cabeza de Vaca appeared at the royal court in Valladolid and received an appointment as royal treasurer for an expedition to be led by conquistador Pánfilo de Narváez to explore and conquer La Florida, a portion of North America roughly comprising today's southeastern United States. The reasons for his selection are not known but his history of loyal military service to the crown was certainly a critical qualification. He also had a relative, Luis Cabeza de Vaca, serving on the all-important Council of the Indies.

Narváez expedition

On 11 December 1526, Charles V commissioned Pánfilo de Narváez to explore, conquer, and settle a portion of North America called La Florida, a territory vaguely described as stretching along the Gulf coast from Mexico to Florida. Cabeza de Vaca was named treasurer by royal appointment, a position that put him second in command and made him chiefly responsible to look after the emperor's interests during the expedition. He was promised an annual salary of 130,000 maravedies, payable upon his return. Their fleet of five vessels set sail from Spain on 17 June 1527, carrying 600 soldiers and colonists, including a few married women and African slaves.

When they stopped in Hispaniola for supplies, Narváez lost more than 140 of his men, who chose to stay behind rather than continue with the expedition. They spent forty-five days on the island re-provisioning the fleet, and bought a sixth ship. They were especially anxious to acquire horses, but there was a shortage of them in Hispaniola, so the expedition continued to Cuba, where they hoped to recruit more men and buy horses. Narváez anchored at Santiago de Cuba and ordered Cabeza de Vaca to take two ships and proceed further up the coast to pick up additional provisions at Trinidad. In October, while Cabeza de Vaca was ashore negotiating for supplies, a hurricane hit the coast, resulting in the destruction of both ships and the loss of sixty men and twenty horses. Narváez arrived in early November to pick up the survivors. Fearful of encountering another storm, Narváez decided to overwinter in Cuba. The four remaining ships anchored in the Bay of Jagua under the command of Cabeza de Vaca.

While Cabeza de Vaca watched over the ships and crew, Narváez remained on shore to find replacements for the lost ships and hire more men. In February 1528, he returned to the Bay of Jagua with one additional ship and another one waiting for them in Havana. They resumed their expedition to La Florida with the intention of first stopping in Havana to pick up the final ship and more supplies. Before reaching Havana however, they were hit by another storm and blown off course into the Gulf of Mexico. Short of supplies and fresh water, they decided to push on toward Florida rather than try to get back to Cuba. In April they sighted land, anchored and went ashore. Although the location of their landing has been much debated, more recent opinion leans toward the vicinity of Tampa Bay.

During a quick reconnaissance of the area, they came upon a few small villages of Indians belonging to the Safety Harbor culture. Communicating with them through sign language, the Spanish were informed that a community or region called Apalachee lay to the north and was rich with food and gold. Cabeza de Vaca later noted that whenever Narváez expressed interest in something, the Indians assured him it could be found in great quantities at Apalachee. As a result, Narváez was determined to lead a force north into the interior to find this rich country.

Despite strong objections from Cabeza de Vaca, Narváez decided to split his expedition. He would lead some 300 men and 42 horses overland to Apalachee while the remaining crew, including the women, would sail ahead to find a suitable harbor and wait their return. Cabeza de Vaca protested that dividing their forces would put both groups in danger without any certainty that they would be able to find each other again. He advised that everyone remain with the ships until a suitable harbor could be found to serve as their base camp. Narváez ignored his advice and suggested that if Cabeza de Vaca was afraid, he should stay with the ships. Cabeza de Vaca rejected the suggestion of cowardice and participated in the overland march. He later wrote, "I preferred risking my life to placing my honor in jeopardy."

Narváez and his men set off overland in early May, 1528. They marched north for 15 days without seeing any Indians or native settlements. Then, as they were attempting to cross a swift-flowing river (probably the Withlacoochee), they were confronted by a group of 200 Indians. The encounter quickly turned into a fight and the Indians were driven off. Nearby, the Spaniards found a village where they stayed for several days and helped themselves to the stored maize. Cabeza de Vaca pleaded with Narváez to send a scouting expedition downriver in hopes of finding a bay where their ships might be waiting. Narváez relented and ordered Cabeza de Vaca to lead a reconnaissance. After two attempts to find their way through the swamps and heavy forest, their search yielded no ships or suitable harbor.

Narváez still hoped to find riches at Apalachee, so the expedition pressed forward using captive Indians as guides. Seven weeks after leaving their ships, they came upon the largest village they had found so far, a collection of forty houses. Their guides assured them this was a major Apalachee settlement, so Narváez ordered Cabeza de Vaca to lead about fifty soldiers to seize the village. There was no resistance to their attack and Cabeza de Vaca found only women and children whom he rounded up to serve as hostages. A thorough search of the houses found plenty of food but none of the hoped for gold and gems.

Apalachee had no gold but had only corn, but the explorers were told a village known as Aute, about 5 or 9 days away, was rich. They pushed on through the swamps, harassed by the Native Americans. A few Spanish men were killed and more wounded. When they arrived in Aute, they found that the inhabitants had burned down the village and left. But the fields had not been harvested, so at least the Spanish scavenged food there. After several months of fighting native inhabitants through wilderness and swamp, the party decided to abandon the interior and try to reach Pánuco.

Slaughtering and eating their remaining horses, they gathered the stirrups, spurs, horseshoes and other metal items. They fashioned a bellows from deer hide to make a fire hot enough to forge tools and nails. They used these to make five primitive boats in hopes of reaching Mexico. The small flotilla launched on 22 September 1528, carrying the 242 survivors. Cabeza de Vaca commanded one of the vessels, each of which held approximately 50 men. Depleted of food and water, they followed the coast westward. But when they reached the mouth of the Mississippi River, the powerful current swept them out into the Gulf, where the five rafts were separated by a hurricane. Some lives were lost forever, including that of Narváez.

In November 1528, two crafts with about 40 survivors each, including Cabeza de Vaca, wrecked on or near Galveston Island (now part of Texas). Of the 80 or so survivors, only 15 lived past that winter. The explorers called the island Malhado (“Ill fate” in Spanish), or the Island of Doom. They tried to repair the rafts, using what remained of their own clothes as oakum to plug holes, but they lost the rafts to a large wave.

As the number of survivors dwindled rapidly, they were enslaved for four years by various American Indian nomadic tribes of the upper Gulf Coast. The tribes to which Cabeza de Vaca was enslaved included the Hans and the Capoques, and tribes later called the Karankawa and Coahuiltecan. Only four men managed to escape: Cabeza de Vaca, Andrés Dorantes de Carranza, Alonso del Castillo Maldonado, and an African slave of Dorantes, Estevanico.

Traveling mostly with this small group, Cabeza de Vaca walked generally west through what is now the U.S. state of Texas, as well as the northeastern Mexican states of Tamaulipas, Nuevo León and Coahuila, and possibly smaller portions of New Mexico and Arizona. He traveled on foot through the then-colonized territories of Texas and the Gulf Coast, but encountered no other Europeans. He continued through Coahuila and Nueva Vizcaya (present-day states of Chihuahua and Durango); then down the Gulf of California coast to what is now Sinaloa, Mexico, over a period of roughly eight years. Throughout those years, Cabeza de Vaca and the other men adapted to the lives of the indigenous people they stayed with, whom he later described as Roots People, the Fish and Blackberry People, or the Fig People, depending on their principal foods.

During his wanderings, passing from tribe to tribe, Cabeza de Vaca later reported that he developed sympathies for the indigenous peoples. He became a trader and a healer, which gave him some freedom to travel among the tribes. His group attracted numerous native followers, who regarded them as "children of the sun", endowed with the power to heal and destroy. As Cabeza de Vaca grew healthier, he decided that he would make his way to Pánuco, supporting himself through trading. He finally decided to try to reach the Spanish colony in Mexico. Many natives were said to accompany the explorers on their journey across what is now known as the American Southwest and northern Mexico.

After finally reaching the colonized lands of New Spain, where he first encountered fellow Spaniards near modern-day Culiacán, Cabeza de Vaca and the three other men reached Mexico City. From there he sailed back to Europe in 1537.

Numerous researchers have tried to trace his route across the Southwest. As he did not begin writing his chronicle until he was back in Spain, he had to rely on memory. He did not have instruments to determine his location; he had to rely on dead reckoning, and was uncertain of his route. Aware that his recollection has numerous errors in chronology and geography, historians have worked to put together pieces of the puzzle to discern his paths.

Return to America
In 1540, Cabeza de Vaca was appointed adelantado of the Río de la Plata in South America. The colony comprised parts of what is now Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Cabeza de Vaca was assigned to find a usable route from this colony to the colony in Peru, on the other side of the Andes Mountains on the Pacific Coast.

En route, he disembarked from his fleet at Santa Catarina Island in modern Brazil. With an indigenous force, plus 250 musketeers and 26 horses, he followed native trails discovered by Aleixo Garcia overland to the district's Spanish capital, Asunción, far inland on the great Paraguay River. Cabeza de Vaca is thought to have been the first European to see the Iguaçu Falls.

In March 1542, Cabeza de Vaca met with Domingo Martínez de Irala and relieved him of his position as governor. The government of Asunción pledged loyalty to Cabeza de Vaca, and Irala was assigned to explore a possible route to Peru. Once Irala returned and reported, Cabeza de Vaca planned his own expedition. He hoped to reach Los Reyes (a base that Irala set up) and push forward into the jungle in search of a route to the gold and silver mines of Peru. The expedition did not go well, and Cabeza de Vaca returned to Asunción.

During Cabeza de Vaca's absence, Irala had stirred up resistance to his rule and capitalized on political rivalries. Scholars widely agree that Cabeza de Vaca had an unusually sympathetic attitude towards the Native Americans for his time. The elite settlers in modern Argentina, known as encomenderos, generally did not agree with his enlightened conduct toward the Natives; they wanted to use them for labor. Because he lost elite support, and Buenos Aires was failing as a settlement, not attracting enough residents, Martínez de Irala arrested Cabeza de Vaca in 1544 for poor administration. The former explorer was returned to Spain in 1545 for trial.

Although he was eventually exonerated, Cabeza de Vaca never returned to South America. He wrote an extensive report on the Río de la Plata colony in South America, strongly criticizing the conduct of Martínez de Irala. The report was bound with his earlier La Relación and published under the title Comentarios (Commentary). He died in Jerez de la Frontera or Valladolid on an uncertain date, although there are no surviving records of him after 19 May 1559.

La relación de Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca
La relación de Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca ("The story of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca") is the account of his experiences with the Narváez expedition and after being wrecked on Galveston Island in November 1528. Cabeza de Vaca and his last three men struggled to survive. They wandered along the Texas coast as prisoners of the Han and Capoque American Indians for two years, while Cabeza de Vaca observed the people, picking up their ways of life and customs. They traveled through the American Southwest and ultimately reached Mexico City, nearly eight years after being wrecked on the island.

In 1537, Cabeza de Vaca returned to Spain, where he wrote his narratives of the Narváez expedition. These narratives were collected and published in 1542 in Spain. They are now known as The Relation of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca. The narrative of Cabeza de Vaca is the “first European book devoted completely to North America.” His detailed account describes the lives of numerous tribes of American Indians of the time. Cabeza de Vaca showed compassion and respect for native peoples, which, together with the great detail he recorded, distinguishes his narrative from others of the period.

Role of observer
Cabeza de Vaca reported on the customs and ways of American Indian life, aware of his status as an early European explorer. He spent eight years with various peoples, including the Capoque, Han, Avavare, and Arbadao. He describes details of the culture of the Malhado people, the Capoque, and Han American Indians, such as their treatment of offspring, their wedding rites, and their main sources of food. Cabeza de Vaca and his three fellow survivors at times served as slaves to the American Indians to survive. Through his observations, Cabeza de Vaca provides insights into 16th-century American Indian life near the present-day Mexico-Texas border.

For many peoples the accounts of Cabeza de Vaca and Hernando de Soto are the only written records of their existence. By the time of the next European contact, many had vanished, possibly from diseases carried by Cabeza de Vaca and his companions.

Ambassador for Christ
One of Cabeza de Vaca's greatest accomplishments in his journey was bringing peace throughout the land. As the travellers passed from one tribe to the next, warring tribes would immediately make peace and become friendly, so that the natives could receive the party and give them gifts. Cabeza noted in his personal account of the journey that, in this way, "We left the whole country in peace." Cabeza de Vaca saw these events as part of his purpose in America, writing that he believed that "God was guiding us to where we could serve Him."

Cabeza de Vaca's greatest challenge as an ambassador came when he attempted to bring peace between the conquering Spanish army and the natives. As Cabeza approached the area of Spanish settlement, he and his companions grieved to see the destruction of the native villages and enslavement of the native peoples. The fertile land lay uncultivated and the natives were nearly starving, hiding in the forest, for fear of the Spanish army.

Cabeza de Vaca then encountered Diego de Alcaraz, commander of a slaving expedition of about 20 horsemen, and attempted to negotiate peace between them and the natives. However, as soon as they departed, Alcaraz went back on his word and plundered Cabeza de Vaca's entourage of natives that he had sent back home. Not long afterward, Cabeza de Vaca encountered the chief alcalde (Spanish captain of the province), Melchor Díaz. Díaz ordered Cabeza de Vaca to bring the natives back from the forests so that they would resume cultivating the land. Cabeza de Vaca and Díaz invited the natives to convert to Christianity, and the natives did so willingly. Cabeza de Vaca then instructed them to build a large wooden cross in each village, so that Spanish soldiers would pass through the village and not attack it. Soon afterward, Alcaraz's expedition returned and explained to Díaz that they were amazed to find, on their return journey, that not only was the land repopulated, but the natives coming to greet them with crosses in hand and also gave them provisions. Díaz then ordered Alcaraz to do no harm to these natives.

Personal report
Cabeza de Vaca wrote this narrative to Charles V to “transmit what I saw and heard in the nine years I wandered lost and miserable over many remote lands”. He wanted to convey “not merely a report of positions and distances, flora and fauna, but of the customs of the numerous indigenous people I talked with and dwelt among, as well as any other matters I could hear of or observe”. He took care to present facts, as a full account of what he observed. The Relation is the only account of many details concerning the indigenous people whom he encountered. The accuracy of his account has been validated by later reports of others, as well as by the oral traditions of descendants of some of the tribes.

Cabeza's account also served as a petition to the King of Spain to both establish a permanent Christian mission and eventually establish the native tribes as a nation under the governance of Spain. In his reflection Cabeza writes to the king of Spain:

 * May God in His infinite mercy grant that in the days of Your Majesty and under your power and sway, these people become willingly and sincerely subjects of the true Lord Who created and redeemed them. We believe they will be, and that Your Majesty is destined to bring it about, as it will not be at all difficult.

Cabeza continued to be a strong advocate for the rights of Native American Indians throughout his lifetime.

American Indian nations noted by name
Cabeza De Vaca identified the following peoples by name in his La Relación (1542). The following list shows his names, together with what scholars suggested in 1919 were the likely tribes identified by names used in the 20th century. By that time, tribal identification was also related to more linguistic data.

Possible Karankawan groups:
 * Capoques – Cocos
 * Deaguanes – Cujanes
 * Quevenes – Copanes
 * Guaycones – Guapites
 * Camones – Karankaguases?

Related to Karankawa:
 * Charruco – Bidai-Orcoquiza
 * Han – Bidai-Orcoquiza

Possible Tonkawan groups:
 * Mendica – Tamiques
 * Mariames – Jaranames
 * Iguaces – Anaquas

Possible Coahuiltecan or desert groups:
 * Quitoles
 * The "Fig People"
 * Acubadaos
 * Avavares
 * Anegados
 * Cutalchuches
 * Maliacones
 * Susolas
 * Comos – Comecrudo
 * Cuayos
 * Arbadaos
 * Atayos - Adai Caddo Indian Nation
 * Cuchendados

Comentarios
In 1555, after a four-year position as Adelantado in Rio de la Plata, Cabeza de Vaca wrote from memory a chronicle of his in South America. It is believed that his secretary at the time, Pero Hernández, transcribed Cabeza de Vaca's account in what is known as Comentarios. The publication of Comentarios was appended to La relación as a joint publication in Valladolid, Spain entitled: Naufragios. At that time, explorers often published their reports of travels in foreign lands.

Later editions
In 1906, Naufragios was published in a new edition in Madrid, Spain. The introduction says the intent of this edition was to publicize Cabeza de Vaca's observations and experiences to strengthen authentic representations. This has been described as having the objective of portraying Cabeza de Vaca as less aggressive, while trying to authenticate his role as a sympathetic observer of the natives.

Place in Chicano literature
Herrera (2011) classifies Cabeza de Vaca's La Relacion as the first major contribution to Chicano literature. Scholars have identified five major periods of Chicano literature: Spanish Mexican, Mexican American, Annexation, Chicano Renaissance, and Modern. Cabeza de Vaca is classified as part of the Spanish Mexican period; he recounted eight years of travel and survival in the area of Chicano culture: present-day Texas, New Mexico, and northern Mexico. His account is the first known written description of the American Southwest.

Film adaptation

 * The drama feature film Cabeza de Vaca (1991), a Mexican production, was directed by Nicolás Echevarría and starred Juan Diego. Based on Naufragios, the film was entered into the 41st Berlin International Film Festival.

Representation in other media
Laila Lalami's novel, The Moor's Account (2014), is a fictional memoir of Estevanico, the Moroccan slave who survived the journey and accompanied Cabeza de Vaca through the Southwest. He is considered to be the first black explorer of North America.

Lord Buckley created a monologue The Gasser based on Haniel Long's novella. This was first recorded in 1954 and again in 1959.

His story is noted in the first episode of Ken Burns' The West, a PBS documentary which first aired in 1996.

Russell Persson's The Way of Florida (Little Island Press, 2017) is a highly stylized novelization of Cabeza de Vaca's Relación.

The Great Journey of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca is a work composed between 1981 and 1988 by Colin Matthews.

English editions

 * Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez. The Journey of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and his companions from Florida to the Pacific 1528-1536. Translation of La Relacion, ed. Ad. F. Bandelier. New York, Allerton Book Co. 1904.
 * Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez. The Narrative of Cabeza De Vaca, Translation of La Relacion, ed. Rolena Adorno and Patrick Charles Pautz. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press 2003. ISBN 0-8032-6416-X (one of many editions)
 * Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez. Cabeza de Vaca's Adventures in the Unknown Interior of America, Translation of La Relación by Cyclone Covey. Santa Fe, NM: University of New Mexico Press 1983. ISBN 0-8263-0656-X
 * Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez. Chronicle of the Narváez Expedition, Translation of La Relacion, translated by David Frye, edited by Ilan Stavans. Norton Critical Edition, 2013. ISBN 978-0393918151
 * Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez. The Commentaries of Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca., The Conquest of the River Plate, part II. London: Hakluyt, 1891 (first English edition).
 * Cabeza de Vaca, Álvar Núñez. The Commentaries of Alvar Nunez Cabeza De Vaca., The Conquest of the River Plate, part II. London: Hakluyt, 1891 (first English edition).

Spanish

 * Adorno, Rolena and Pautz, Patrick Charles; Alvaro Núñez Cabeza de Vaca: sus logros, su vida y la expedición de Pánfilo de Narváez, 3 volumes, in Spanish; University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, London (15 September 1999); hardcover; 1317 pages; ISBN 978-0803214545
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia
 * Maura, Juan Francisco. (October 2013).“El libro 50 de la Historia General y Natural de las Indias («Infortunios y Naufragios») de Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo (1535): ¿génesis e inspiración de algunos episodios de Naufragios de Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca (1542)?” Lemir 17, 87-100. University of Valencia

Italian

 * Giovan Battista Ramusio: Delle navigationi et viaggi Terzo volume , pp. 310–330 – "Relatione che fece Alvaro Nunez detto Capo di vacca" – Venetia, 1565 (1606 edition)

title: Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca


text:
Eastern Neisse

The Eastern Neisse, also known by its Polish name of Nysa Kłodzka (Glatzer Neiße, Kladská Nisa), is a river in southwestern Poland, a left tributary of the Oder, with a length of 188 km (21st longest) and a basin area of 4,570 km2 (3,742 in Poland).

Prior to World War II it was part of Germany. During the Yalta Conference it was discussed by the Western Allies as one possible line of the western Polish border. Attempts were made to negotiate a compromise with the Soviets on the new Polish-German frontier; it was suggested that the Eastern Neisse be made the line of demarcation. This would have meant that (East) Germany could have retained approximately half of Silesia, including most of Wrocław (formerly Breslau). However the Soviets rejected the suggestion at the Potsdam Conference and insisted that the southern boundary between Germany and Poland be drawn further west, at the Lusatian Neisse, in some way reintroducing the border to the place from the beginnings of Polish statehood, i.e. west of Legnica Town, important for Bolesław IV the Curly and Henry the Bearded, two Polish Princepses.

Floods
The Eastern Neisse originates in the Králický Sněžník Mountains of the Sudetes, near the border with the Czech Republic. It is partially regulated. The river has often burst its banks and flooded nearby towns, at times destroying them completely. Town chronicles from Kłodzko mention floods in the following years:

 * 14th century: 1310
 * 15th century: 1441, 1464, 1474
 * 16th century: 1500, 1522, 1524, 1560, 1566, 1570, 1587, 1589, 1591, 1598,
 * 17th century: 1602, 1603, 1605, 1610, 1611, 1612, 1625, 1646, 1652, 1655, 1689, 1693, 1696
 * 18th century: 1702, 1703, 1713, 1724, 1735, 1736, 1740, 1755, 1763, 1767, 1775, 1785, 1787, 1789, 1799
 * 19th century: 1804, 1806, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1831, 1850, 1854, 1879, 1881, 1883, 1891, 1897
 * 20th century: 1900, 1903, 1907, 1938, 1952, 1997, 1998

Towns
Until 1945, these communities were situated on German territory and largely populated by Germans before they were driven out at the end of the Second World War. German names are indicated in italics.
 * Bardo (Wartha)
 * Bystrzyca Kłodzka (Habelschwerdt)
 * Kamieniec Ząbkowicki (Kamenz N.S.)
 * Kłodzko (Glatz)
 * Lewin Brzeski (Löwen)
 * Międzylesie (Mittelwalde) - both names mean "middle of the woods"
 * Nysa (Neiße)
 * Otmuchów (Ottmachau)
 * Paczków (Patschkau)

title: Eastern Neisse