Page 265 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. V tišini spomina: "eksodus" in Istra. Koper, Trst: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Založništvo tržaškega tiska
P. 265
Summary
were more likely to migrate than peasants. People see the reason for this
in the anti-Yugoslav propaganda and the fear of ‘Slavs,’ which allegedly did
not influence the rural areas to such an extent because peasants already
co-existed with the Slovenians and Croats.
The prevailing Slovenian discourse in the interpretation of the ‘exodus’
is the ‘reckless following of the masses.’ Many families of the interlocutors
decided on the opposite just before the opting because they were emotion-
ally attached to their home and/or because of the catastrophic conditions
in the refugee camps and the negative reception of refugees in Italy, which
had put an end to the promises of a ‘better life.’ Both those who stayed and
the esuli were perceived as fascists, the latter also in their ‘promised land
of new opportunities.’ Some people who stayed were not involved in any
ideological-political system. Those who decided to stay were mainly Ital-
ian families with anti-fascist and socialist beliefs, but were later bitterly
disappointed that nationalism overrode the internationalist socialist idea.
They also included several thousand workers from Tržič/Monfalcone and
its surroundings who moved to Yugoslavia for ideological reasons, i.e. to
‘build socialism.’ The decision to stay had to be followed by the decision to
learn the new language so as to adjust to the new social environment. It
seems that those who stayed included some who had nothing to do with
one political system or the other. According to the testimonies, they were
poorer than the Italian elite who were strongly affected by the socialist
measures and felt that their freedom to express their ethnic belonging was
being threatened.
It turned out that the decision to migrate was a result of complex
changes in the new socio-political system with the new state border, which
again refuted the simplified, mainly Italian conceptions of ‘ethnic cleans-
ing.’ A question arises as to whether, from an anthropological perspective,
one can really talk about voluntary migrations, as is argued in the dom-
inant Slovenian and Croatian scientific discourse, based on the right to
opt under international treaties. Considering the indirect pressures, ow-
ing to which people no longer saw their future in the new state system
for ethnic, economic and social reasons alike, one can see that the difficult
life dilemmas were only seemingly ‘voluntary,’ as has been commonly per-
ceived. On the other hand, those who stayed, even if only 10 of them,
show that these decisions were indeed made ‘voluntarily.’ However, when
90 of the population decide to become refugees, ‘voluntariness’ may eas-
ily be questioned. Hence, voluntariness was perhaps true on a legal level,
but from the perspective of people’s experience it seems more like a push
263
were more likely to migrate than peasants. People see the reason for this
in the anti-Yugoslav propaganda and the fear of ‘Slavs,’ which allegedly did
not influence the rural areas to such an extent because peasants already
co-existed with the Slovenians and Croats.
The prevailing Slovenian discourse in the interpretation of the ‘exodus’
is the ‘reckless following of the masses.’ Many families of the interlocutors
decided on the opposite just before the opting because they were emotion-
ally attached to their home and/or because of the catastrophic conditions
in the refugee camps and the negative reception of refugees in Italy, which
had put an end to the promises of a ‘better life.’ Both those who stayed and
the esuli were perceived as fascists, the latter also in their ‘promised land
of new opportunities.’ Some people who stayed were not involved in any
ideological-political system. Those who decided to stay were mainly Ital-
ian families with anti-fascist and socialist beliefs, but were later bitterly
disappointed that nationalism overrode the internationalist socialist idea.
They also included several thousand workers from Tržič/Monfalcone and
its surroundings who moved to Yugoslavia for ideological reasons, i.e. to
‘build socialism.’ The decision to stay had to be followed by the decision to
learn the new language so as to adjust to the new social environment. It
seems that those who stayed included some who had nothing to do with
one political system or the other. According to the testimonies, they were
poorer than the Italian elite who were strongly affected by the socialist
measures and felt that their freedom to express their ethnic belonging was
being threatened.
It turned out that the decision to migrate was a result of complex
changes in the new socio-political system with the new state border, which
again refuted the simplified, mainly Italian conceptions of ‘ethnic cleans-
ing.’ A question arises as to whether, from an anthropological perspective,
one can really talk about voluntary migrations, as is argued in the dom-
inant Slovenian and Croatian scientific discourse, based on the right to
opt under international treaties. Considering the indirect pressures, ow-
ing to which people no longer saw their future in the new state system
for ethnic, economic and social reasons alike, one can see that the difficult
life dilemmas were only seemingly ‘voluntary,’ as has been commonly per-
ceived. On the other hand, those who stayed, even if only 10 of them,
show that these decisions were indeed made ‘voluntarily.’ However, when
90 of the population decide to become refugees, ‘voluntariness’ may eas-
ily be questioned. Hence, voluntariness was perhaps true on a legal level,
but from the perspective of people’s experience it seems more like a push
263
