university of nova gorica graduate school contested spaces and ...

Albanian nationality. Both groups bring forth their own view points without
examining or mentioning the arguments of each other. This is not a coincidence as it is
not easy to confront the both views. But presenting only one way of arguments
without mentioning the others is not a scientific debate. This kind of a problem
remains unsolved today. In order to bring the solution I wrote this monograph titled
Himarë in the Historical Documents where I present and confront both arguments. In
this book I am publishing a summary of the main issues. As you will see, I draw the
conclusion that the inhabitants of Himarë belong without any doubt to Albanian
nationality […]. Sometimes the people of Himarë, in order to soften the objection of
the Albanians, try to introduce the viewpoint that people of Himarë were neither Greek
nor Albanian, but they are Himariotes and their political problem does relate neither to
Greek nor to Albanian country. Their aim is to create another small state or ethnicity
that will be the “little Republic of Himarë” that will include 7 or at least 10 or 12
villages (Frashëri 2005: 5 translated by Juliana Vera).
In his response to Frashëri’s essay a local intellectual Kristaq Jorgji criticized the writer’s
purpose to conjoin both views. Jorgji published his essays in a daily newspaper ABC in April,
2006 and later also on the website of the Association of Himarë/Himara (www.himara.eu). He
reproached Frashëri’s partial view of the history and ethnicity of Himarë/Himara area and
noted that Frashëri actially failed to confront “both views”. According to Jorgji, Frashëri’s
representation of the past of Himarë/Himara area misleads its readers as the work is meant to
promote the pro-Albanian position:
My first question while reading the paper of Mr. Frasheri was to whom this paper was
directed to? I would guessed that Mr. Frasheri as a historian should be directed to the
general public, including that of Himara, for clarifying some hot questioned topics. It
obvious for those who knew something about the debate, that there are different
standings even contrary ones, and he could choose as target of his work as recognized
professional to give explanations (including here the option that this topic should be
enlighten even further). Another option was to address the question by the nationalistic
rhetoric perspective, not understand yet that the Himariotes will not accept whatever
other people declare them to be. The second choice would have been less preferable
for any historian, as the Himariotes can and will write their own history after they will
be convinced by the facts, like they were doing it all these years (sic.) (Jorgji 2006: 2
and 2006c: http://www.himara.eu/articles/004-en.html).
Jorgji’s criticism of Frashëri’s writing is grounded on his argument of local dinstinction which
he defines with the following words:
[…] in difference with all the rest of the regions in Albania [Himarë/Himara] stayed
independent; who in difference to other regions suffered alone the assault of the three
most mightiest Turkish Sultans (including Suleiman the Law-Giver – during which
reign the Ottoman Empire reached the maximum of power); that unlike other regions
of Albania continued to keep their ancestor’s religion; which opened the first school in
today’s Albanian territory; that opposed the first communistic election in 1945 as no
other region of Albania [sic.] (ibid.).
121