Page 14 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 14
Introduction
June 2014 in Strunjan near Piran, for example, a persimmon sapling was
planted, a descendant of a tree that survived the devastating explosion of
an atomic bomb in Nagasaki at the end of w w i i (Občina Piran, 2014),
which clearly demonstrates the peaceful orientation of this part of Istria.
That was observed in the Croatian part of Istria by Katunarić (2010, p. 9),
who identified a peace culture in the area, complementary to democratic
culture; an Istrian way of coexistence is demonstrated in Figure 1.1 (bilin-
gualism, pluralism). It seems that the slogan of the former Yugoslav fed-
eration, ‘Brotherhood and Unity,’ was still alive in Istria in the late 20th
century and especially at the beginning of the 21st century, although in
a completely different context and not without problems. These circum-
stances enable the opportunity to transfer narratives and their meaning to
the next generations in order to preserve individual and collective mem-
ory (Cooper, 2006; Dunkley et al., 2011). These transfers are thus similar,
comparable, if not part of the intergenerational transfer of the elements of
identity, cultural, behavioural and other convictions (Zadel, 2016, pp. 58,
332). Based on these relevant findings, a new (general) issue that presents
itself in this study is how and where the preservation and transmission
of traumatic historic events occurs to today’s generations in multi-ethnic
Istria. In relation to this, we can metaphorically say that Istria as a whole
is one of the richest European regional museums, with an equally repre-
sented tangible and intangible heritage, and is interesting from the eth-
nological (Urošević, 2012, p. 95) as well as sociological aspect; some other
perspectives are also relevant, e.g. historical, geographical.
Bufon (2008b, pp. 41–44) takes into account historical and cultural cri-
teria when studying trans-border regions. The author highlights the in-
dividual or micro-social perception of space arising from cultural pat-
terns of a certain living environment. Hence, he claims that people living
near the border try to link something that has been politically divided
in the past. This is the process of disassembling and reassembling terri-
torial systems or systems of social life (Bufon, 2008a, pp. 22–24), which
are historically significant for the Istrian case, where the Schengen border
regime represents to the people of Istria a sort of second Berlin Wall and
return to 1947 (Free Territory of Trieste) (Pipan, 2007, pp. 231–232). Thus,
the claim that cultural space has been shifted from the national to the re-
gional/local level (Bufon, 2008a, p. 17) means that (trans-border) regions
as social constructs can be considered independently.
All these circumstances justify the separate treatment of Istria and its
residents in respect to the other parts of Croatia, Slovenia and Italy. In
14
June 2014 in Strunjan near Piran, for example, a persimmon sapling was
planted, a descendant of a tree that survived the devastating explosion of
an atomic bomb in Nagasaki at the end of w w i i (Občina Piran, 2014),
which clearly demonstrates the peaceful orientation of this part of Istria.
That was observed in the Croatian part of Istria by Katunarić (2010, p. 9),
who identified a peace culture in the area, complementary to democratic
culture; an Istrian way of coexistence is demonstrated in Figure 1.1 (bilin-
gualism, pluralism). It seems that the slogan of the former Yugoslav fed-
eration, ‘Brotherhood and Unity,’ was still alive in Istria in the late 20th
century and especially at the beginning of the 21st century, although in
a completely different context and not without problems. These circum-
stances enable the opportunity to transfer narratives and their meaning to
the next generations in order to preserve individual and collective mem-
ory (Cooper, 2006; Dunkley et al., 2011). These transfers are thus similar,
comparable, if not part of the intergenerational transfer of the elements of
identity, cultural, behavioural and other convictions (Zadel, 2016, pp. 58,
332). Based on these relevant findings, a new (general) issue that presents
itself in this study is how and where the preservation and transmission
of traumatic historic events occurs to today’s generations in multi-ethnic
Istria. In relation to this, we can metaphorically say that Istria as a whole
is one of the richest European regional museums, with an equally repre-
sented tangible and intangible heritage, and is interesting from the eth-
nological (Urošević, 2012, p. 95) as well as sociological aspect; some other
perspectives are also relevant, e.g. historical, geographical.
Bufon (2008b, pp. 41–44) takes into account historical and cultural cri-
teria when studying trans-border regions. The author highlights the in-
dividual or micro-social perception of space arising from cultural pat-
terns of a certain living environment. Hence, he claims that people living
near the border try to link something that has been politically divided
in the past. This is the process of disassembling and reassembling terri-
torial systems or systems of social life (Bufon, 2008a, pp. 22–24), which
are historically significant for the Istrian case, where the Schengen border
regime represents to the people of Istria a sort of second Berlin Wall and
return to 1947 (Free Territory of Trieste) (Pipan, 2007, pp. 231–232). Thus,
the claim that cultural space has been shifted from the national to the re-
gional/local level (Bufon, 2008a, p. 17) means that (trans-border) regions
as social constructs can be considered independently.
All these circumstances justify the separate treatment of Istria and its
residents in respect to the other parts of Croatia, Slovenia and Italy. In
14
