Page 213 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 213
9.6 Discussion on History-Centric Dark Commemorative Events in Istria
period of Istrian history (still often excluded from the public discourse
and marked by social silence), while the quantitative analysis shows that
w w i i-related events account for a much larger proportion of all dark
commemorative events. However, both the qualitative as well as the quan-
titative part proved the following historical backgrounds to be more sig-
nificant for Istrian society: wwi i, the socialist revolution and the Italian
exodus (namely to a lesser extent), and the war for independence in the
1990s. Case studies from the qualitative part can thus be linked to the clus-
ters created in the quantitative part. The two approaches thus confirmed
the complementarity predicted in sub-chapter 7.1 ‘Research Philosophies
and Approaches.’ In addition, the comparison of the final results of both
approaches is interesting as well.
A higher visitor homogeneity was found within the qualitative anal-
ysis. The importance of the political aspect in both cases proved to be
less obvious (and less interesting for media reporting). Convivenza and
the oft-quoted ideas of multi-culturality/multi-ethnicity, coexistence and
plurality – see sub-chapter 5.2 ‘Istrian Identity’– in connection with dark
commemorative events, are not transferred to readers through regional
electronic media – in general, this results from the qualitative and quan-
titative analyses. The media obviously also do not pay special attention
to the symbols; observation in situ points to a completely different social
reality. Quite problematic in both analyses is the tourist aspect in con-
trast to the transfer of knowledge, memory and values of the past conflict
to the readers, especially to youth (the net generation). Although Istria
is the most developed tourism region in Croatia and Slovenia, electronic
media do not frequently report on the number of visitors: in 54.8 of
reports, visitors were not even mentioned (q14), in 56.3 of reports, for-
eign visitors were not mentioned (q18), and in 59.1 of reports, the pres-
ence of youth was not mentioned (q 15). If we look at it from a broader
perspective, they do not frequently report on either foreign politicians at
events (q20; in 60.3) or on multilingualism at events (q24a) – in 94.3.
This means that the tourism-related perspective of reporting on dark
commemorative events is rather neglected. Based on electronic media
reports (media-constructed social reality), Istrian dark commemorative
events consequently cannot be treated as international tourism events.
Does this mean that they cannot be discussed in the dark tourism con-
text, either? Domestic visitors of different ages were present, although it
is not possible to know whether they were locals or from other places.
Formally, domestic visitors cannot always and unconditionally be un-
213
period of Istrian history (still often excluded from the public discourse
and marked by social silence), while the quantitative analysis shows that
w w i i-related events account for a much larger proportion of all dark
commemorative events. However, both the qualitative as well as the quan-
titative part proved the following historical backgrounds to be more sig-
nificant for Istrian society: wwi i, the socialist revolution and the Italian
exodus (namely to a lesser extent), and the war for independence in the
1990s. Case studies from the qualitative part can thus be linked to the clus-
ters created in the quantitative part. The two approaches thus confirmed
the complementarity predicted in sub-chapter 7.1 ‘Research Philosophies
and Approaches.’ In addition, the comparison of the final results of both
approaches is interesting as well.
A higher visitor homogeneity was found within the qualitative anal-
ysis. The importance of the political aspect in both cases proved to be
less obvious (and less interesting for media reporting). Convivenza and
the oft-quoted ideas of multi-culturality/multi-ethnicity, coexistence and
plurality – see sub-chapter 5.2 ‘Istrian Identity’– in connection with dark
commemorative events, are not transferred to readers through regional
electronic media – in general, this results from the qualitative and quan-
titative analyses. The media obviously also do not pay special attention
to the symbols; observation in situ points to a completely different social
reality. Quite problematic in both analyses is the tourist aspect in con-
trast to the transfer of knowledge, memory and values of the past conflict
to the readers, especially to youth (the net generation). Although Istria
is the most developed tourism region in Croatia and Slovenia, electronic
media do not frequently report on the number of visitors: in 54.8 of
reports, visitors were not even mentioned (q14), in 56.3 of reports, for-
eign visitors were not mentioned (q18), and in 59.1 of reports, the pres-
ence of youth was not mentioned (q 15). If we look at it from a broader
perspective, they do not frequently report on either foreign politicians at
events (q20; in 60.3) or on multilingualism at events (q24a) – in 94.3.
This means that the tourism-related perspective of reporting on dark
commemorative events is rather neglected. Based on electronic media
reports (media-constructed social reality), Istrian dark commemorative
events consequently cannot be treated as international tourism events.
Does this mean that they cannot be discussed in the dark tourism con-
text, either? Domestic visitors of different ages were present, although it
is not possible to know whether they were locals or from other places.
Formally, domestic visitors cannot always and unconditionally be un-
213
