ABSTRACT
At the end of the nineteenth century many people in cities were still of recent origin and had trouble identifying with the city they lived in. Their ability to identify was further hindered by the denial of political participation and by social and national discrimination. One can therefore question the patriotism of the land, for one could argue that it was only the expression of educated people. Still, since the majority of newcomers originated in the immediate neighborhood, identification with the city as regional capital was rooted in the collective consciousness. Thus, the city was not foreign to the migrants; neither religious nor linguistic isolation awaited them for there were already existing communities which they could join. The appropriation of space was rapid and facilitated by the presence of landmarks shared by all members of the community (churches, schools, and cultural associations). Some of them were historical buildings pointing to the ancient multicultural character of the town, and serving as a justification of its diversity, and an explanation of its attraction. Hence city patriotism was not only the privilege of the majority and could equally be expressed by minorities, who considered themselves equally legitimate inhabitants as the old town’s burghers. The “struggle” for the city was also a fight to define the town as an open and shared space.
