Page 74 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 74
Trans-Border Region of Istria
Crossing administrative, cultural and linguistic borders and shifting from
one identification to another, demands a lot of flexibility in being able to
live with them as well as to use them (D’Alessio, 2006, p. 18; 2012b, p. 56).
This is essential for the regional prosperity, ‘competitiveness and posi-
tion[ing] themselves in the growing Europe’ (Marcks et al., 2016). Con-
sequently, according to Bufon’s (2008b, p. 47) description, Istria could be
classified into a Central-European trans-border group of regions as a spe-
cial trans-border spatial system, well described by the above-mentioned
indications.
The Istrian peninsula is an area of contrasts not only from the phys-
ical geographic aspects, but from the cultural aspect as well. D’Alessio
(2006)¹⁰ found the first significant divergences in Istrian society in the
middle of the 1840s and during the 1870s, when a local political con-
test was initiated; the political and ideological contest was undertaken
by the Italian Risorgimento and the Croatian Narodni Preporod (National
Rebirth in both cases). Collaboration with Istrian Slovenes in this fight
was demonstrated by the common political party called The Croatian-
Slovenian People’s Party (Hrvatsko-slovenska narodna stranka), or by the
n g o called The Society of Sts. Cyril and Methodius for Istria (Družba
sv. Ćirila i Metoda za Istru; Ciril-Metodova družba za Istro) – see also
D’Alessio (2006, p. 34), Klaić (2014, 2015), Žerjav and Beltram (2017, pp.
68–69) and Šetić (2008). Many other organisations important for the cul-
tural, economic and political functioning of the Slavic population in Istria
are identified by Žerjav and Beltram (2017). However, Klaić (2014) identi-
fied some differences between Slovenian and Croatian views, which were
marginalised due to the common struggle against Italian irredentism.
The Italian part (especially politicians and intellectuals) expressed the
need to preserve and strengthen the role of the Latin and Roman legacies
and diminish the Slavic cultural traces in the region’s past, which made
interethnic relations more difficult.¹¹ After w w i and the annexation of
Istria to Italy, especially after Mussolini seized power in 1922, this turned
into state repression in order to facilitate assimilation and denationali-
sation of Croats and Slovenes. Numbers show that these measures were
not completely successful¹² – see Scotti (2008), D’Alessio (2006) and Mat-
¹⁰ See also Ashbrook (2006); Klaić (2014; 2015).
¹¹ Šetić (2008, p. 106), according to Bertoša, identified economic, political, cultural and
mental dimensions of the crack among the Istrian nations.
¹² For example: a number of surviving Slavs, a number of Italian and non-Italian cultural
74
Crossing administrative, cultural and linguistic borders and shifting from
one identification to another, demands a lot of flexibility in being able to
live with them as well as to use them (D’Alessio, 2006, p. 18; 2012b, p. 56).
This is essential for the regional prosperity, ‘competitiveness and posi-
tion[ing] themselves in the growing Europe’ (Marcks et al., 2016). Con-
sequently, according to Bufon’s (2008b, p. 47) description, Istria could be
classified into a Central-European trans-border group of regions as a spe-
cial trans-border spatial system, well described by the above-mentioned
indications.
The Istrian peninsula is an area of contrasts not only from the phys-
ical geographic aspects, but from the cultural aspect as well. D’Alessio
(2006)¹⁰ found the first significant divergences in Istrian society in the
middle of the 1840s and during the 1870s, when a local political con-
test was initiated; the political and ideological contest was undertaken
by the Italian Risorgimento and the Croatian Narodni Preporod (National
Rebirth in both cases). Collaboration with Istrian Slovenes in this fight
was demonstrated by the common political party called The Croatian-
Slovenian People’s Party (Hrvatsko-slovenska narodna stranka), or by the
n g o called The Society of Sts. Cyril and Methodius for Istria (Družba
sv. Ćirila i Metoda za Istru; Ciril-Metodova družba za Istro) – see also
D’Alessio (2006, p. 34), Klaić (2014, 2015), Žerjav and Beltram (2017, pp.
68–69) and Šetić (2008). Many other organisations important for the cul-
tural, economic and political functioning of the Slavic population in Istria
are identified by Žerjav and Beltram (2017). However, Klaić (2014) identi-
fied some differences between Slovenian and Croatian views, which were
marginalised due to the common struggle against Italian irredentism.
The Italian part (especially politicians and intellectuals) expressed the
need to preserve and strengthen the role of the Latin and Roman legacies
and diminish the Slavic cultural traces in the region’s past, which made
interethnic relations more difficult.¹¹ After w w i and the annexation of
Istria to Italy, especially after Mussolini seized power in 1922, this turned
into state repression in order to facilitate assimilation and denationali-
sation of Croats and Slovenes. Numbers show that these measures were
not completely successful¹² – see Scotti (2008), D’Alessio (2006) and Mat-
¹⁰ See also Ashbrook (2006); Klaić (2014; 2015).
¹¹ Šetić (2008, p. 106), according to Bertoša, identified economic, political, cultural and
mental dimensions of the crack among the Istrian nations.
¹² For example: a number of surviving Slavs, a number of Italian and non-Italian cultural
74
