Page 76 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 76
Trans-Border Region of Istria
in the region – Italians – felt and behaved as a culturally superior nation
for centuries, which triggered discomfort and resistance among the Slavs
(Ashbrook, 2006; Orlić, 2012; Pirjevec, 2015; Rožac-Darovec, 2010; Rusi-
now, 1963a; Strčić, 2011; Verginella, 2009b; 2010; Yriarte, 1883).¹⁴ After
wwii, the reversal of a sense of superiority occurred in the Yugoslav terri-
tory (Hrobat Virloget, 2015). Istria was, consequently, known as a region
of conflicts, intolerance and lack of understanding (Ashbrook, 2006, p.
28; Orlić, 2012, p. 13; Šetić, 2008, p. 105).¹⁵ Cooperation and conflicts were,
and still are, influenced by public opinion, which is linked in different
ways to the interpretation of past events and memory (D’Alessio, 2012a).
The ‘Istrian-style memory’ depends on relations between Slavs and Ital-
ians, especially in the 20th century, and reflects the ways in which na-
tional memory has preserved and exploited. The territorial contestations
between nations, though formally (legally) resolved, remain unresolved
and unforgettable in the community memory (Wolff, 2006, p. 95). If we
ignore the extreme right-wing movements and their nationalist views,¹⁶
we can, as an example, mention the movement Free Territory (Territo-
rio Libero, Svobodno Ozemlje),¹⁷ which problematises the abolition of the
Free Territory of Trieste and the related agreements between Italy and
Yugoslavia (Territorio Libero – Svobodno Ozemlje – Free Territory of
Trieste, 2013). Interesting and simultaneously worrying, the present state
borders therefore remain an open issue for some social groups and indi-
viduals.
Tunjić (2004, pp. 395–396) metaphorically describes the above-men-
tioned solutions (ideas) as ‘Intermediate Europe,’ which marks the for-
mation of the region in the geopolitical interest area and the interweav-
ing of the territorial borders of the wider functional territorial systems,
usually in line with geopolitical relations/agreements among great pow-
ers. Accordingly, Pelc (2009, pp. 115–116) and Miklavcic (2008, pp. 442–
443) described an interesting transformation of the former Italo-Yugoslav
border from one of the most conflicting¹⁸ to one of the most open bor-
¹⁴ This term had/has, primarily in fascist circles, a negative, even offensive meaning (Orlić,
2012, p. 16).
¹⁵ Rožac Darovec (2010, p. 224) claims that this applies to the whole Upper Adriatic.
¹⁶ More can be found in Pontiggia (2009), D’Alessio (2012a; 2012b) and many others.
¹⁷ The movement is an open, plural, internationally and democratically oriented group of
people of the Upper Adriatic.
¹⁸ More can be found in D’Alessio (2012a) and Pirjevec (2015).
76
in the region – Italians – felt and behaved as a culturally superior nation
for centuries, which triggered discomfort and resistance among the Slavs
(Ashbrook, 2006; Orlić, 2012; Pirjevec, 2015; Rožac-Darovec, 2010; Rusi-
now, 1963a; Strčić, 2011; Verginella, 2009b; 2010; Yriarte, 1883).¹⁴ After
wwii, the reversal of a sense of superiority occurred in the Yugoslav terri-
tory (Hrobat Virloget, 2015). Istria was, consequently, known as a region
of conflicts, intolerance and lack of understanding (Ashbrook, 2006, p.
28; Orlić, 2012, p. 13; Šetić, 2008, p. 105).¹⁵ Cooperation and conflicts were,
and still are, influenced by public opinion, which is linked in different
ways to the interpretation of past events and memory (D’Alessio, 2012a).
The ‘Istrian-style memory’ depends on relations between Slavs and Ital-
ians, especially in the 20th century, and reflects the ways in which na-
tional memory has preserved and exploited. The territorial contestations
between nations, though formally (legally) resolved, remain unresolved
and unforgettable in the community memory (Wolff, 2006, p. 95). If we
ignore the extreme right-wing movements and their nationalist views,¹⁶
we can, as an example, mention the movement Free Territory (Territo-
rio Libero, Svobodno Ozemlje),¹⁷ which problematises the abolition of the
Free Territory of Trieste and the related agreements between Italy and
Yugoslavia (Territorio Libero – Svobodno Ozemlje – Free Territory of
Trieste, 2013). Interesting and simultaneously worrying, the present state
borders therefore remain an open issue for some social groups and indi-
viduals.
Tunjić (2004, pp. 395–396) metaphorically describes the above-men-
tioned solutions (ideas) as ‘Intermediate Europe,’ which marks the for-
mation of the region in the geopolitical interest area and the interweav-
ing of the territorial borders of the wider functional territorial systems,
usually in line with geopolitical relations/agreements among great pow-
ers. Accordingly, Pelc (2009, pp. 115–116) and Miklavcic (2008, pp. 442–
443) described an interesting transformation of the former Italo-Yugoslav
border from one of the most conflicting¹⁸ to one of the most open bor-
¹⁴ This term had/has, primarily in fascist circles, a negative, even offensive meaning (Orlić,
2012, p. 16).
¹⁵ Rožac Darovec (2010, p. 224) claims that this applies to the whole Upper Adriatic.
¹⁶ More can be found in Pontiggia (2009), D’Alessio (2012a; 2012b) and many others.
¹⁷ The movement is an open, plural, internationally and democratically oriented group of
people of the Upper Adriatic.
¹⁸ More can be found in D’Alessio (2012a) and Pirjevec (2015).
76
