Each region communicated with the imperial centre and the centre distinguished
national regions preferentially, because they expressed the national idea best of all.
Juxtaposing national regions upon each other the centre remained the arbiter in solving
problems with national territories so that national regions did not regard themselves
inferior. Each region was multiethnic. So, imperial and regional identity constituted an
element of a complex hierarchic system of identities. The element of regional identity
evolved depending on traditions and modernization.
Local population worked out images of towns or localities which, in its turn, formed
certain stereotypes. For example, in descriptions of XIX c. Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odessa
regions acquired a strong identifying status of an agricultural, commercial and enterprising
region [25], Donbas – a stereotype of an industrial region [11], the Crimea’s population
were proud of the beauties of nature and touristic attractions [22], which facilitated
building water-supplies and canalization to a considerable extent. Moreover, the
continental part of Tavria region always distinguished itself from the peninsular. The
Crimea had the priority in all aspects and criteria, whereas the continental part was much
more similar to Kherson and Katherinoslav regions. The continental part of Tavria region
belonged to the Crimea only administratively, not in regard to its identity. The regional
identity, in its turn, caused the formation of town’s identity or city’s patriotism, which
reflected individual priorities in commerce, enterprising, trade and tourism spheres.
According to a system of values residents of towns distinguished their city or town
from another one and towns got cliché-stereotypes which differed them from others,
for example: «the prosperous city of Kherson» or «the cradle of the Black Sea Navy»,
«the Admiralty centre – Mykolaiv», Odessa – «The southern pearl» or «Eldorado»,
«Sebastopol – the city of glory». Each town of the Katherinoslav region chose a certain
branch of industry for self-identity.
Municipal self-government strengthened such preferences in a necessary way. For
example, Kherson self-government always regarded Mykolaiv as its rival city,
Odessa’s region distinguished its priority not only in the region, but in the whole
country, towns of the Crimean peninsular opposed to the continental ones. Each civil
government identified itself and the city as an individual and independent institution,
not similar to others and defended its interests in different ways.
In each municipal report an attention was drawn onto an individual form of
economic measures, at the same time, they were not in a hurry to share their experience
with other municipal structures. Town’s population identified itself with its own town
or city, with certain values and regarded municipal self-government not as a system on
the whole, but as a separate representative body of a city, appropriating «our self-
government» nominations, which referred only to a body of civil government in a
separate town, likewise to their own wishes, criteria for estimating municipal figures
- 983 -