Page 257 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. V tišini spomina: "eksodus" in Istra. Koper, Trst: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Založništvo tržaškega tiska
P. 257
Summary
goslavia. The mentioned process completely changed the ethnic, social and
economic image of Istria, particularly its towns. Like with other popula-
tion transfers, the outcome of the ‘exodus’ is the ethnic homogenisation
of the contested territories, the Slovenianisation, the Yugoslavisation of
Istria and the Italianisation of Trieste and its surroundings.
The Istrian ‘exodus’ may be understood in the context of post-war pop-
ulation transfers across Europe due to the Allies’ policies which saw in the
ethnic homogenisation of nation states the only way to prevent any fur-
ther violence, while assuring peace and stability. As a result of the collective
guilt and punishment for the Second World War, about 12 million Germans
were exiled from Eastern and South-East Europe. A different perspective
on the ‘exodus’ was provided by Pamela Ballinger (2015), interpreting it as
a consequence of (post)imperial processes accompanying Italy’s disinte-
gration during the period of fascist rule, when it lost its newly-conquered
territories in Africa and the Balkans.
Ever since, research into the ‘exodus’ among Istrians has been silent.
The study identifies different types of silence with respect to the ‘exodus’
that are especially characteristic of Italian Istrians, but may also be identi-
fied in other Istrians, both natives and newcomers. From the sociological
perspective, the reason for keeping quiet often lies in individual and col-
lective memories that are at variance, especially among the Italians who
stayed in Istria. Their memories do not fit with the dominant Slovenian
memory which perceives the ‘exodus’ as voluntary migration, nor with the
dominant Italian discourse that understands the ‘exodus’ as the outcome
of the violence inflicted on the Italians by the ‘barbaric’ Slavs and their
communist system. Conversely, they are in fact well aware of the causal
relationship between the ‘exodus’ and the fascist violence against Slove-
nians and Croats, to which the dominant Italian official discourse turns a
blind eye. Apart from this incongruence in memories and trauma, silence
may also be ascribed to the isolation and the feeling of abandonment of
the Italians in Istria, given that after the ‘exodus,’ in the completely trans-
formed social environment, they became ‘others.’ They suddenly became a
minority, at least in the urban areas, lost their social network and linguis-
tic environment as well as turned from superior to inferior inhabitants,
collectively stigmatised as ‘fascists.’ The silence might be a reflection of the
general public failing to acknowledge the historical truth about a traumatic
event that people experienced. It is also a question of a dichotomy between
the winners and the defeated, whereby the former do not acknowledge the
latter’s right to grieve. Another question arises in the opposite direction;
255
goslavia. The mentioned process completely changed the ethnic, social and
economic image of Istria, particularly its towns. Like with other popula-
tion transfers, the outcome of the ‘exodus’ is the ethnic homogenisation
of the contested territories, the Slovenianisation, the Yugoslavisation of
Istria and the Italianisation of Trieste and its surroundings.
The Istrian ‘exodus’ may be understood in the context of post-war pop-
ulation transfers across Europe due to the Allies’ policies which saw in the
ethnic homogenisation of nation states the only way to prevent any fur-
ther violence, while assuring peace and stability. As a result of the collective
guilt and punishment for the Second World War, about 12 million Germans
were exiled from Eastern and South-East Europe. A different perspective
on the ‘exodus’ was provided by Pamela Ballinger (2015), interpreting it as
a consequence of (post)imperial processes accompanying Italy’s disinte-
gration during the period of fascist rule, when it lost its newly-conquered
territories in Africa and the Balkans.
Ever since, research into the ‘exodus’ among Istrians has been silent.
The study identifies different types of silence with respect to the ‘exodus’
that are especially characteristic of Italian Istrians, but may also be identi-
fied in other Istrians, both natives and newcomers. From the sociological
perspective, the reason for keeping quiet often lies in individual and col-
lective memories that are at variance, especially among the Italians who
stayed in Istria. Their memories do not fit with the dominant Slovenian
memory which perceives the ‘exodus’ as voluntary migration, nor with the
dominant Italian discourse that understands the ‘exodus’ as the outcome
of the violence inflicted on the Italians by the ‘barbaric’ Slavs and their
communist system. Conversely, they are in fact well aware of the causal
relationship between the ‘exodus’ and the fascist violence against Slove-
nians and Croats, to which the dominant Italian official discourse turns a
blind eye. Apart from this incongruence in memories and trauma, silence
may also be ascribed to the isolation and the feeling of abandonment of
the Italians in Istria, given that after the ‘exodus,’ in the completely trans-
formed social environment, they became ‘others.’ They suddenly became a
minority, at least in the urban areas, lost their social network and linguis-
tic environment as well as turned from superior to inferior inhabitants,
collectively stigmatised as ‘fascists.’ The silence might be a reflection of the
general public failing to acknowledge the historical truth about a traumatic
event that people experienced. It is also a question of a dichotomy between
the winners and the defeated, whereby the former do not acknowledge the
latter’s right to grieve. Another question arises in the opposite direction;
255
