Page 185 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 185
8.6 Discussion on History-Centric Dark Commemorative Events in Istria
and Dimitrije Čudov (1986), where Istria is also included. These exam-
ples from the 20th century show that the internationalisation of dark
commemorative events and monuments has no tradition in Istria at all.
In general, Kennell et al. (2018, p. 948) would conclude that such events
‘are often highly significant occasions for local communities and might
not be understood by tourists.’ Moreover, the example of young resi-
dents of Croatia illuminated by Šuligoj (2016) shows that visits to dark
commemorative events in the dark tourism context are not necessar-
ily always understood as a tourist activity alone; their perceptions were
more related to the elements of collective memory as described before
in sub-chapters 3.1 ‘Context and Definitions’ and 3.2 ‘Memory and His-
tory.’ Interestingly, the level of development of tourism infrastructure in
the case of Svetvinčenat and especially in Pula, which is among the most
touristically developed and recognisable tourist destinations in Croatia
or in the Eastern Adriatic, appears as a not entirely relevant circumstance
for the internationalisation of dark commemorative events. Moreover, it
is difficult to place the memorial event in Pula into the dark tourism con-
text – as per the types defined by Seaton (1996) or Stone (2006) – since
it basically relies on sites and warfare events of the 1990s outside of Pula
and Istria, but is nevertheless crucial for contemporary Croatia. Accord-
ing to Kennell et al. (2018) and Šuligoj and Kennell (2022), however, it
can be treated as a dark commemorative event.
The above-mentioned example of the anniversary of the Battle of Kući-
breg – the ‘dark conflict site’ as defined in general by Stone (2006) is
completely different as it attracts the international public of the Upper
Adriatic; this was the most internationally marked of all cases involved.
Paradoxically, considering this event as distinctively international would
be, on the other hand, exaggerated. This is not in fact an event intended
for foreign visitors/tourists, but an event that arises from the local and
regional (multi-cultural Upper Adriatic) collective memory, and its pur-
pose is to preserve this memory and transfer it to younger generations.
Positioning it into a natural environment without a special (tourism) in-
frastructure could be a restrictive circumstance – infrastructure is one of
the main elements of the tourism system (see Figure 2.3). Locals (organ-
isers) neutralise this weakness with a great deal of improvisation, which
shows the many years of experience (tradition) of the organisers.
With the last indicator within rq2, we tried to identify and understand
the main reason for the visits, which is completely in line with Light’s
(2017, pp. 279, 285–286) claims on the postmodern obsession with the un-
185
and Dimitrije Čudov (1986), where Istria is also included. These exam-
ples from the 20th century show that the internationalisation of dark
commemorative events and monuments has no tradition in Istria at all.
In general, Kennell et al. (2018, p. 948) would conclude that such events
‘are often highly significant occasions for local communities and might
not be understood by tourists.’ Moreover, the example of young resi-
dents of Croatia illuminated by Šuligoj (2016) shows that visits to dark
commemorative events in the dark tourism context are not necessar-
ily always understood as a tourist activity alone; their perceptions were
more related to the elements of collective memory as described before
in sub-chapters 3.1 ‘Context and Definitions’ and 3.2 ‘Memory and His-
tory.’ Interestingly, the level of development of tourism infrastructure in
the case of Svetvinčenat and especially in Pula, which is among the most
touristically developed and recognisable tourist destinations in Croatia
or in the Eastern Adriatic, appears as a not entirely relevant circumstance
for the internationalisation of dark commemorative events. Moreover, it
is difficult to place the memorial event in Pula into the dark tourism con-
text – as per the types defined by Seaton (1996) or Stone (2006) – since
it basically relies on sites and warfare events of the 1990s outside of Pula
and Istria, but is nevertheless crucial for contemporary Croatia. Accord-
ing to Kennell et al. (2018) and Šuligoj and Kennell (2022), however, it
can be treated as a dark commemorative event.
The above-mentioned example of the anniversary of the Battle of Kući-
breg – the ‘dark conflict site’ as defined in general by Stone (2006) is
completely different as it attracts the international public of the Upper
Adriatic; this was the most internationally marked of all cases involved.
Paradoxically, considering this event as distinctively international would
be, on the other hand, exaggerated. This is not in fact an event intended
for foreign visitors/tourists, but an event that arises from the local and
regional (multi-cultural Upper Adriatic) collective memory, and its pur-
pose is to preserve this memory and transfer it to younger generations.
Positioning it into a natural environment without a special (tourism) in-
frastructure could be a restrictive circumstance – infrastructure is one of
the main elements of the tourism system (see Figure 2.3). Locals (organ-
isers) neutralise this weakness with a great deal of improvisation, which
shows the many years of experience (tradition) of the organisers.
With the last indicator within rq2, we tried to identify and understand
the main reason for the visits, which is completely in line with Light’s
(2017, pp. 279, 285–286) claims on the postmodern obsession with the un-
185
