Page 83 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 83
5.3 Region of Istria: A Brief Historical Overview
the living memory related to the traumas of wwi i is even more distinc-
tive here than in Eastern Europe.³¹ Generally, East-European historians
must deal with the relation among living (individual) memories and the
collective (cultural) memories that create and preserve the (non)national
heritage and beliefs; they must continuously link historical facts and con-
temporary complex attitudes (Wolff, 2006, p. 115), where the principles
of damnatio memoriae should not be neglected.
At the beginning of the 1990s and the disintegration of socialist Yu-
goslavia, similarly as in Eastern Europe, the monopoly over the interpre-
tation of the past crumbled along with the political system, which cre-
ated new explanations about wwi i and the post-war period and, conse-
quently, new memorial and commemorative practices were implemented
in Croatia (Pavlaković & Perak, 2017). Something similar, but to a much
lesser extent, happened in Slovenia as well. Istria has not been excluded
from these changes, although there do not seem to be radically different
interpretations of Istrian history among Croatian scholars of the past and
the present, in the cultural, social, political and economic sense. How-
ever, historians of younger generations, like Dukovski and D’Alessio, in-
terpret regional history in the light of regional coexistence and cooper-
ation (Ashbrook, 2006),³² which is in line with the modern approaches
and concepts in examining the contact areas in Europe (Pelikan, 2012,
p. 282; Verginella, 2010, p. 2012). In addition, scholars pointed out some
research assumptions of the national-political historical paradigm, like
‘defining key controversial topics in which “national historiography” is
included in each national discourse and where the interpretations are the
most ideological and consequently controversial’ (Pelikan, 2012, p. 283;
see also Verginella, 2010). This is extremely relevant for the case of the
Upper Adriatic (including Istria) and the interpretation of the historical
facts of this space.
the development of istria in the shadow of pula
After the ruin of the La Serenissima in 1797, and finally with the Congress
of Vienna in 1815, Istria was annexed to the Habsburg Monarchy. After
³¹ Katunarić (2010, p. 10) identified memory based on w w i i (the Independent state of
Croatia) and its impact on the 1990s conflicts in Croatia.
³² Works of American anthropologist Pamela Ballinger (2002; 2006) illuminate the post-
w w i i period in this cross-border area of the Upper Adriatic, predominantly from the
perspective of the Italian people (one-sided). The same applies to Hrobat Virloget (2021).
83
the living memory related to the traumas of wwi i is even more distinc-
tive here than in Eastern Europe.³¹ Generally, East-European historians
must deal with the relation among living (individual) memories and the
collective (cultural) memories that create and preserve the (non)national
heritage and beliefs; they must continuously link historical facts and con-
temporary complex attitudes (Wolff, 2006, p. 115), where the principles
of damnatio memoriae should not be neglected.
At the beginning of the 1990s and the disintegration of socialist Yu-
goslavia, similarly as in Eastern Europe, the monopoly over the interpre-
tation of the past crumbled along with the political system, which cre-
ated new explanations about wwi i and the post-war period and, conse-
quently, new memorial and commemorative practices were implemented
in Croatia (Pavlaković & Perak, 2017). Something similar, but to a much
lesser extent, happened in Slovenia as well. Istria has not been excluded
from these changes, although there do not seem to be radically different
interpretations of Istrian history among Croatian scholars of the past and
the present, in the cultural, social, political and economic sense. How-
ever, historians of younger generations, like Dukovski and D’Alessio, in-
terpret regional history in the light of regional coexistence and cooper-
ation (Ashbrook, 2006),³² which is in line with the modern approaches
and concepts in examining the contact areas in Europe (Pelikan, 2012,
p. 282; Verginella, 2010, p. 2012). In addition, scholars pointed out some
research assumptions of the national-political historical paradigm, like
‘defining key controversial topics in which “national historiography” is
included in each national discourse and where the interpretations are the
most ideological and consequently controversial’ (Pelikan, 2012, p. 283;
see also Verginella, 2010). This is extremely relevant for the case of the
Upper Adriatic (including Istria) and the interpretation of the historical
facts of this space.
the development of istria in the shadow of pula
After the ruin of the La Serenissima in 1797, and finally with the Congress
of Vienna in 1815, Istria was annexed to the Habsburg Monarchy. After
³¹ Katunarić (2010, p. 10) identified memory based on w w i i (the Independent state of
Croatia) and its impact on the 1990s conflicts in Croatia.
³² Works of American anthropologist Pamela Ballinger (2002; 2006) illuminate the post-
w w i i period in this cross-border area of the Upper Adriatic, predominantly from the
perspective of the Italian people (one-sided). The same applies to Hrobat Virloget (2021).
83
