Page 105 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 105
5.4 Chapter Conclusion
a plurality of memories, a natural Istrian issue of coexistence in a def-
inite geographic area (see Figure 1.1). ‘Istrian-style memory’ is in fact a
regional version of Erll’s (2011; 2014, p. 178) transcultural memory, which
is in general affected by ‘different social classes, generations, ethnicities,
religious communities, and subcultures.’ However, the complete unifica-
tion/uniforming of identity as well as memories would be a utopian ex-
pectation, since the traumatic 20th century (if we focus only this century)
impacted significantly on the multicultural Istrian society.⁹⁵ In addition,
the findings of Urošević (2012) and the claims of Ban (2018) on contem-
porary problems with intolerance and stereotypes among communities
(not only between Croats/Slovenes and Italians), religious and cultural
division, and the negative consequences of the last war in Croatia, show
some cracks in Istrian society. However, a comprehensive analysis and
comparison of these issues with other areas in Slovenia and Croatia was
not made, as this would not be in line with the purpose and objectives of
this study.
‘Istrian-style memory’ is inseparably linked to the past conflict sit-
uations. During the second half of the 20th century and to a limited
extent even further, Slavic and Italian historians and scholars of other
branches fought over the interpretation of w w i i and its consequences,
and thus created two completely separate ‘truths’ – see Pelikan (2012) and
Verginella (2010); experts and scholars of younger generations show more
perceptiveness, knowledge and understanding of the specificity and com-
plexity of the whole Upper Adriatic – see Ashbrook (2006). Italo-Slavonic
cooperation during fascism and nazism is, however, a clear sign of pos-
sible Istrian convivenza in the most difficult times, although it often re-
mains in the shadow of the turbulent discussions. Similarly, the relations
between the Catholic church on one side, and fascists and communists
on the other, were also different in comparison to the other European
countries that experienced the extreme (totalitarian) regimes of the 20th
century – see Trogrlić (2008; 2012), Hančič and Podberšič (2008, p. 41).
It seems that some, by exposing extreme controversial cases, would like
to forget or deny all good examples of possible cooperation. All this can
also be understood as a cause and a consequence of the ideologies and re-
lated regimes of the 20th century in the Upper Adriatic, which carefully
selected, politicised and mythologised both events and heroes of the past;
⁹⁵ More about about the links between memory, community and nation can be found in
Benčić (2016).
105
a plurality of memories, a natural Istrian issue of coexistence in a def-
inite geographic area (see Figure 1.1). ‘Istrian-style memory’ is in fact a
regional version of Erll’s (2011; 2014, p. 178) transcultural memory, which
is in general affected by ‘different social classes, generations, ethnicities,
religious communities, and subcultures.’ However, the complete unifica-
tion/uniforming of identity as well as memories would be a utopian ex-
pectation, since the traumatic 20th century (if we focus only this century)
impacted significantly on the multicultural Istrian society.⁹⁵ In addition,
the findings of Urošević (2012) and the claims of Ban (2018) on contem-
porary problems with intolerance and stereotypes among communities
(not only between Croats/Slovenes and Italians), religious and cultural
division, and the negative consequences of the last war in Croatia, show
some cracks in Istrian society. However, a comprehensive analysis and
comparison of these issues with other areas in Slovenia and Croatia was
not made, as this would not be in line with the purpose and objectives of
this study.
‘Istrian-style memory’ is inseparably linked to the past conflict sit-
uations. During the second half of the 20th century and to a limited
extent even further, Slavic and Italian historians and scholars of other
branches fought over the interpretation of w w i i and its consequences,
and thus created two completely separate ‘truths’ – see Pelikan (2012) and
Verginella (2010); experts and scholars of younger generations show more
perceptiveness, knowledge and understanding of the specificity and com-
plexity of the whole Upper Adriatic – see Ashbrook (2006). Italo-Slavonic
cooperation during fascism and nazism is, however, a clear sign of pos-
sible Istrian convivenza in the most difficult times, although it often re-
mains in the shadow of the turbulent discussions. Similarly, the relations
between the Catholic church on one side, and fascists and communists
on the other, were also different in comparison to the other European
countries that experienced the extreme (totalitarian) regimes of the 20th
century – see Trogrlić (2008; 2012), Hančič and Podberšič (2008, p. 41).
It seems that some, by exposing extreme controversial cases, would like
to forget or deny all good examples of possible cooperation. All this can
also be understood as a cause and a consequence of the ideologies and re-
lated regimes of the 20th century in the Upper Adriatic, which carefully
selected, politicised and mythologised both events and heroes of the past;
⁹⁵ More about about the links between memory, community and nation can be found in
Benčić (2016).
105
