Page 267 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. V tišini spomina: "eksodus" in Istra. Koper, Trst: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Založništvo tržaškega tiska
P. 267
Summary
sified and was counterweighted by massive immigration in response to
the setting up of new economic activities in the framework of the planned
economy and integration of Zone B of the ft t into the Republic of Slove-
nia. There was a great need for workers, as testified to by a company man-
ager who holding ‘a bunch of keys to flats’ lured craftsmen and other work-
ers from the Karst to come work in Istria.
The difference between the first and subsequent immigrants is that the
former arrived in a completely Italian environment, where it was impossi-
ble to live without knowledge of Italian, whereas after 1955 people arrived
in a completely Slovenianised environment where Italian fluency was no
longer required. Many immigrants came from the Croatian part of Istria,
both Croats and Italians, whereby Slovenians from central Slovenia were
not keen on moving to Istria because of the scarce accommodation pos-
sibilities and low standard of living. The advantages presented to highly
qualified workers and others so as to lure them to the ‘wild west’ aroused
unease and envy in native residents who were not receiving any such ben-
efits.
In contrast to the Primorska locals, who felt that by settling in Istria they
were ‘back home,’ the poor accommodation conditions and low standard of
living discouraged many other immigrants who were appalled by the non-
existence of public sewerage and water supply systems, the rat infestations
and abominable conditions in flats. Just a few of them saw life in Istria
as a ‘turn for the better,’ while privileges included the ‘zone bonus.’ Many
flats were inaccessible because the esuli placed them in the custody of their
neighbours and, according to the testimonies, also of immigrants who later
purchased them from the Yugoslav administration. The new authorities
also provided accommodation to the immigrants through the confiscation
of private property, as many interlocutors still remember the rented flats
and rooms in the former villas owned by Italians, due to which the latter
felt even more cornered. Immigrants thus resided in old degraded flats as
the unpredictable fate of Zone B of the ft t did not permit any large urban
development projects.
The privileges used by Yugoslav authorities to lure people out to the ‘wild
west’ were among the many factors that influenced the social boundaries
in the renovated Istrian society. Although they were of the same nation-
ality, immigrants were seen as the privileged ‘others’ in the eyes of native
residents. The setting of social boundaries among people of the same na-
tionality reveals the falseness of the assumption that including migrants
in a society characterised by ‘co-ethnic’ migrations is unproblematic (Čapo
265
sified and was counterweighted by massive immigration in response to
the setting up of new economic activities in the framework of the planned
economy and integration of Zone B of the ft t into the Republic of Slove-
nia. There was a great need for workers, as testified to by a company man-
ager who holding ‘a bunch of keys to flats’ lured craftsmen and other work-
ers from the Karst to come work in Istria.
The difference between the first and subsequent immigrants is that the
former arrived in a completely Italian environment, where it was impossi-
ble to live without knowledge of Italian, whereas after 1955 people arrived
in a completely Slovenianised environment where Italian fluency was no
longer required. Many immigrants came from the Croatian part of Istria,
both Croats and Italians, whereby Slovenians from central Slovenia were
not keen on moving to Istria because of the scarce accommodation pos-
sibilities and low standard of living. The advantages presented to highly
qualified workers and others so as to lure them to the ‘wild west’ aroused
unease and envy in native residents who were not receiving any such ben-
efits.
In contrast to the Primorska locals, who felt that by settling in Istria they
were ‘back home,’ the poor accommodation conditions and low standard of
living discouraged many other immigrants who were appalled by the non-
existence of public sewerage and water supply systems, the rat infestations
and abominable conditions in flats. Just a few of them saw life in Istria
as a ‘turn for the better,’ while privileges included the ‘zone bonus.’ Many
flats were inaccessible because the esuli placed them in the custody of their
neighbours and, according to the testimonies, also of immigrants who later
purchased them from the Yugoslav administration. The new authorities
also provided accommodation to the immigrants through the confiscation
of private property, as many interlocutors still remember the rented flats
and rooms in the former villas owned by Italians, due to which the latter
felt even more cornered. Immigrants thus resided in old degraded flats as
the unpredictable fate of Zone B of the ft t did not permit any large urban
development projects.
The privileges used by Yugoslav authorities to lure people out to the ‘wild
west’ were among the many factors that influenced the social boundaries
in the renovated Istrian society. Although they were of the same nation-
ality, immigrants were seen as the privileged ‘others’ in the eyes of native
residents. The setting of social boundaries among people of the same na-
tionality reveals the falseness of the assumption that including migrants
in a society characterised by ‘co-ethnic’ migrations is unproblematic (Čapo
265
