Page 141 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 141
6.5 Discussion and Chapter Conclusion
alive (‘first-generation memory’ or ‘autobiographical memory’). In this
special context, ‘third-generation memory’ or ‘history’ do not make any
sense. The Independence or Homeland War, which especially marks to-
day’s Croatian society, is well introduced into the Istrian collective mem-
ory. However, the frequency and programmes of dark commemorative
events are, for rational reasons, not at the same level as in the rest of Croa-
tia, where the consequences of the war are still visible.
Past and present events and monuments identified in this chapter can
be typified according to the typification presented in sub-chapter 2.2
‘Dark Tourism Typology.’ In accordance with the typology of Fonseca
et al. (2016), the above-mentioned events and monuments are classified
into the group of ‘war tourism including battlefield tourism,’ which can
include most of the examples listed in previous sub-chapters. Visiting
sites of post-war extra-judicial executions can be (very conditionally and
one-sidedly) classified as ‘holocaust tourism,’ although, in fact, the scale
and inhumanity do not reach the level of the Nazi concentration camps,
where the largest part of the holocaust occurred. Purini (2010, pp. 223–
224) claims that post-wwi i events in the region are treated by the pro-
Italian propaganda as a ‘national genocide’ or ‘Julian holocaust.’ A similar
classification can be made according to the typification by Kužnik (2015,
pp. 331–332), and Kužnik and Veble (2017, pp. 147–148). What is also in-
teresting is their ‘communism tourism,’ where all tourist visits linked to
w w i i-related heritage in the post-socialist/communist Istria could be
included, e.g. the heritage of the national liberation struggle (e.g. com-
memorations at the monuments in Rovinj, Plovanija or Kućibreg) and
the socialist revolution (e.g. visiting events related to the post-wwi i ex-
ecution of priests).
In addition to Kendle (2008), who implemented ‘grief tourism,’ which
includes visiting sites related to war, Seaton (1996) similarly developed ac-
tivities related to travelling to sites of individual or mass deaths or memo-
rials or internment sites. The types that are very relevant for this research
are Stone’s (2006) ‘seven dark suppliers,’ also including ‘dark exhibition,’
and ‘dark conflict sites’ associated with war, strong political ideology and
historical centrism. Exhibitions related to the 100th anniversary of wwi
or to the work of the Catholic priest Bonifacio executed in the aftermath
of wwi i are interesting examples of dark exhibitions. ‘Dark conflict sites’
can include many w w i i-related memorial monuments/plaques, which
are constructed on the spot of the military conflict, e.g. in Kućibreg or in
Plovanija. Stone (2006) also defines the ‘dark camps of genocides,’ which
141
alive (‘first-generation memory’ or ‘autobiographical memory’). In this
special context, ‘third-generation memory’ or ‘history’ do not make any
sense. The Independence or Homeland War, which especially marks to-
day’s Croatian society, is well introduced into the Istrian collective mem-
ory. However, the frequency and programmes of dark commemorative
events are, for rational reasons, not at the same level as in the rest of Croa-
tia, where the consequences of the war are still visible.
Past and present events and monuments identified in this chapter can
be typified according to the typification presented in sub-chapter 2.2
‘Dark Tourism Typology.’ In accordance with the typology of Fonseca
et al. (2016), the above-mentioned events and monuments are classified
into the group of ‘war tourism including battlefield tourism,’ which can
include most of the examples listed in previous sub-chapters. Visiting
sites of post-war extra-judicial executions can be (very conditionally and
one-sidedly) classified as ‘holocaust tourism,’ although, in fact, the scale
and inhumanity do not reach the level of the Nazi concentration camps,
where the largest part of the holocaust occurred. Purini (2010, pp. 223–
224) claims that post-wwi i events in the region are treated by the pro-
Italian propaganda as a ‘national genocide’ or ‘Julian holocaust.’ A similar
classification can be made according to the typification by Kužnik (2015,
pp. 331–332), and Kužnik and Veble (2017, pp. 147–148). What is also in-
teresting is their ‘communism tourism,’ where all tourist visits linked to
w w i i-related heritage in the post-socialist/communist Istria could be
included, e.g. the heritage of the national liberation struggle (e.g. com-
memorations at the monuments in Rovinj, Plovanija or Kućibreg) and
the socialist revolution (e.g. visiting events related to the post-wwi i ex-
ecution of priests).
In addition to Kendle (2008), who implemented ‘grief tourism,’ which
includes visiting sites related to war, Seaton (1996) similarly developed ac-
tivities related to travelling to sites of individual or mass deaths or memo-
rials or internment sites. The types that are very relevant for this research
are Stone’s (2006) ‘seven dark suppliers,’ also including ‘dark exhibition,’
and ‘dark conflict sites’ associated with war, strong political ideology and
historical centrism. Exhibitions related to the 100th anniversary of wwi
or to the work of the Catholic priest Bonifacio executed in the aftermath
of wwi i are interesting examples of dark exhibitions. ‘Dark conflict sites’
can include many w w i i-related memorial monuments/plaques, which
are constructed on the spot of the military conflict, e.g. in Kućibreg or in
Plovanija. Stone (2006) also defines the ‘dark camps of genocides,’ which
141
