Page 258 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. V tišini spomina: "eksodus" in Istra. Koper, Trst: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Založništvo tržaškega tiska
P. 258
mary
namely, if a community shares memories that underpin its collective iden-
tity (Halbwachs 2001), can it share silence as well? Yes, a community can
share both memories and silence and the latter, just like memory repre-
sents the cornerstone of the collective identity, an example being the Ital-
ians in Istria.
There is also silence of those who exploit the crisis to climb up the social
ladder or in their struggle for power, which was also the case of the Italians
in Istria. Silence is often a consequence of emotionally charged memories
that people try to avoid to protect themselves from traumatic pain. It is
worth noting that silence not only means the absence of words or voice,
but can be detected in the embodied memory or everyday physical mem-
ory practices, because a ‘body always remembers.’ Beautiful stories about
humanity among those migrants who left and those who came are also
recorded, bearing witness to the omnipresence of silence which people, in
a society that refuses to hear them out, learn to live with.
The silent ‘detabooisation’ of the ‘exodus’ and ‘foibe’ only started with
the democratisation of Yugoslav society, although the silence still exists
today. In the period of Yugoslavia, multi-ethnic collaboration in the com-
mon partisan fight was at the forefront. In Italy, by the 1980s literature
concerning the ‘suffering of the Italians’ under the ‘barbaric communist
rule’ had already started to pile up. Whenever the ‘exodus’ was discussed
on the Croatian and Slovenian sides, it was made relative by the allegation
that the Italians only lived in towns, which is an old and deeply rooted
idea of the Italian urban and Slavic rural population. The gap in Slovenian
memory may be attributed to the foundations of the collective identity
that leans on the anti-fascist resistance and the national-liberation strug-
gle, deeming any self-reflection on the consequences inappropriate. Not
many Slovenian politicians have succeeded in shattering this standpoint
by questioning the unequivocal historical truth, making room only for the
anti-fascist struggle and ignoring the co-operation of the Italian Istrians,
while stereotyping the latter in public discourse as fascists.
A similar ‘memory gap’ can be identified in all nations that were in-
cluded in population transfers after the Second World War. These nations
in Eastern and Central Europe perceived themselves as victims, whereas
the expulsion of Germans was morally justified by the horrors they had
inflicted during the war. The memory was preserved only within the inti-
macy of a family circle. After the expulsion, history was either rewritten
or silenced, while the symbols and monuments of the native inhabitants
were destroyed or deleted.
256
namely, if a community shares memories that underpin its collective iden-
tity (Halbwachs 2001), can it share silence as well? Yes, a community can
share both memories and silence and the latter, just like memory repre-
sents the cornerstone of the collective identity, an example being the Ital-
ians in Istria.
There is also silence of those who exploit the crisis to climb up the social
ladder or in their struggle for power, which was also the case of the Italians
in Istria. Silence is often a consequence of emotionally charged memories
that people try to avoid to protect themselves from traumatic pain. It is
worth noting that silence not only means the absence of words or voice,
but can be detected in the embodied memory or everyday physical mem-
ory practices, because a ‘body always remembers.’ Beautiful stories about
humanity among those migrants who left and those who came are also
recorded, bearing witness to the omnipresence of silence which people, in
a society that refuses to hear them out, learn to live with.
The silent ‘detabooisation’ of the ‘exodus’ and ‘foibe’ only started with
the democratisation of Yugoslav society, although the silence still exists
today. In the period of Yugoslavia, multi-ethnic collaboration in the com-
mon partisan fight was at the forefront. In Italy, by the 1980s literature
concerning the ‘suffering of the Italians’ under the ‘barbaric communist
rule’ had already started to pile up. Whenever the ‘exodus’ was discussed
on the Croatian and Slovenian sides, it was made relative by the allegation
that the Italians only lived in towns, which is an old and deeply rooted
idea of the Italian urban and Slavic rural population. The gap in Slovenian
memory may be attributed to the foundations of the collective identity
that leans on the anti-fascist resistance and the national-liberation strug-
gle, deeming any self-reflection on the consequences inappropriate. Not
many Slovenian politicians have succeeded in shattering this standpoint
by questioning the unequivocal historical truth, making room only for the
anti-fascist struggle and ignoring the co-operation of the Italian Istrians,
while stereotyping the latter in public discourse as fascists.
A similar ‘memory gap’ can be identified in all nations that were in-
cluded in population transfers after the Second World War. These nations
in Eastern and Central Europe perceived themselves as victims, whereas
the expulsion of Germans was morally justified by the horrors they had
inflicted during the war. The memory was preserved only within the inti-
macy of a family circle. After the expulsion, history was either rewritten
or silenced, while the symbols and monuments of the native inhabitants
were destroyed or deleted.
256
