Archiving the Unspeakable: Silence, Memory, and the Photographic Record in Cambodia

By Michelle Caswell

Roughly 1.7 million people died in Cambodia from untreated disease, starvation, and execution during the Khmer Rouge reign of less than four years in the late 1970s. The regime’s brutality has come to be symbolized by the multitude of black-and-white mug shots of prisoners taken at the notorious Tuol Sleng prison, where thousands of “enemies of the state” were tortured before being sent to the Killing Fields. In Archiving the Unspeakable, Michelle Caswell traces the social life of these photographic records through the lens of archival studies and elucidates how, paradoxically, they have become agents of silence and witnessing, human rights and injustice as they are deployed at various moments in time and space. From their creation as Khmer Rouge administrative records to their transformation beginning in 1979 into museum displays, archival collections, and databases, the mug shots are key components in an ongoing drama of unimaginable human suffering.

Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions

Caroline Sturdy Colls

Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions aims to move archaeological research concerning the Holocaust forward through a discussion of the variety of the political, social, ethical and religious issues that surround investigations of this period and by considering how to address them. It considers the various reasons why archaeological investigations may take place and what issues will be brought to bear when fieldwork is suggested. It presents an interdisciplinary methodology in order to demonstrate how archaeology can (uniquely) contribute to the history of this period. Case examples are used throughout the book in order to contextualize prevalent themes and a variety of geographically and typologically diverse sites throughout Europe are discussed. This book challenges many of the widely held perceptions concerning the Holocaust, including the idea that it was solely an Eastern European phenomena centered on Auschwitz and the belief that other sites connected to it were largely destroyed or are well-known. The typologically, temporally and spatial diverse body of physical evidence pertaining to this period is presented and future possibilities for investigation of it are discussed. Finally, the volume concludes by discussing issues relating to the “re-presentation” of the Holocaust and the impact of this on commemoration, heritage management and education. This discussion is a timely one as we enter an age without survivors and questions are raised about how to educate future generations about these events in their absence.

Talking to a journalist in Nairobi this weekend, he mentioned something that I thought was as unnerving as it was interesting. The journalist lamented at the fact that it seemed the world had gotten so tired of Darfur that the news of soldiers raping at least 221 women and girls in the village of Tabit last October hardly caused a ripple. The first allegations of the 36-hour rape ordeal came in November when Radio Dabanga (The Hague) initially reported on the crimes. In December, the ICC prosecutor decided to shelve the war crimes probe after almost five years of stagnation by the world court, stating she needed more support to address Sudan’s lack of cooperation, and that the rape of the 200 women and girls in the village “should shock [the] council into action.” Sudanese security forces killed approximately 200 protesters in 2014 and the Sudanese state has been so confident that nothing would happen to it, it created a new force, the Rapid Support Forces, which was accused of having burned 3,000 villages in 2014.

We have come a long way from events that sought to raise awareness such as ‘Rock for Darfur’ (which according to Voice of America had 22 concert in 2006 alone), a long way from buying, and proudly donning, t-shirts with ‘Save Darfur’ emblazoned on them. Syria, Iraq, Liberia, South Sudan, and Central Africa Republic have overtaken Darfur in the attention sweepstakes in the news. In previous posts I have talked about Compassion Fatigue and the four horsemen of the apocalypse whenever atrocities were covered in the media. However, when is it ok to say enough is enough? When do we, as global citizens, stop shaking our heads and going “tsk tsk, it is so sad what is happening in that country”?  These are questions I have asked myself over the past few years. As a graduate student, I have often wondered if my keeping an eye on Darfur is influenced by the fact that my research is in the region. Would it matter as much if my research was on, say, farming practices in Africa?  I would like to think it would, if for no reason other than the fact that my country (Kenya) shares a border with South Sudan. I would like to think that whenever I opened the local daily at a coffee shop, or on my way to work in the morning, I would read the news about Darfur and seek out like-minded individuals to try and help in some way, shape or form. What form of help this would be I’m not sure as of yet. So to the question, what have I done for Darfur lately? My honest answer is not as much as I would have liked to do. As Darfur has morphed into a conflict occurring in the shadows (a dreadful prospect) my sense of hopelessness has also increased. What will your answer be?

Wahutu Siguru is the 2013 Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and PhD candidate in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. Siguru’s research interests are in the Sociology of Media, Genocide, Mass Violence and Atrocities (specifically on issues of representation of conflicts in Africa such as Darfur and Rwanda), Collective Memory, and perhaps somewhat tangentially Democracy and Development in Africa. 

Event Review: International Symposium “Reframing Mass Violence: Social Memories and Human Rights in Post-Communist Europe”

(IAS Collaborative)

March 4-6, 2015

An international symposium on “Contested Past, Contested Present: Social Memories and Human Rights in Post-Communist Europe” took place at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities on March 4-6. It was organized by the IAS Collaborative “Reframing Mass Violence”, and sponsored by the Human Rights Program and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, among other supporters.

The symposium opened with akeynote lecture by Prof. John-Paul Himka , who spoke about the reception of the Holocaust in post-Communist Europe, especially its legacies in Poland and Ukraine. OnThursday and Friday, sessions covered different aspects of contested memories in post-Communist European countries, from depictions in theater, museums, and film, to transitional justice policies, and the current conflict in the Ukraine. The presentations and ensuing discussions illustrated that the past of post-Communist states remains, indeed, a contested space, negotiating narratives of rising nationalism, victimhood, responsibility, retribution and rehabilitation.

Several themes emerged as central to the discussion of post-Communist memory. First, one theme highlighted the tension, but also interaction between a multiplicity of vernacular memories and often more hegemonic, official ones. Dr. Lars Breuer addressed this in the German and Polish context, as categories of perpetrator and victim appear fluid, and memories multidirectional. Prof. Matti Jutila also focused on challenging interpretations of the past by examining the film “The Soviet Story”. He argued that the film illustrates the “Double Genocide” thesis, which seeks to posit Soviet atrocities on par, if not as exceeding those committed during the Holocaust, and asked how might it be possible to criticize the political use of mass atrocities without denying or downplaying their significance.

The second key theme was the potentiality of creative spaces to deal with past atrocities, but also their limitations. Prof. Sarah Wagner addressed this in her talk about Srebrenica, noting that parallel sites of commemoration exist in the space, symbolizing the divided publics not in conversation with one another. The potentiality of creative spaces as redemptive was also highlighted during the last session of the symposium, where Prof. Michal Kobialka presented on a 1944 staging of “The Return of Odysseus” by Tadeusz Kantor in a bomb-damaged room in Krakow as a radical event, bringing into question the distinction between being and appearance, use value and uselessness, and the role of art as autonomous. Referencing a more contemporary context, Margarita Kompelmakher spoke about the Belarus Free Theater’s performance as one of a human rights paradigm, aiming to be universal, but also limited by the very explicit body it uses to make its point.

The third theme was that of transition, justice and rehabilitation. Prof. Jelena Subotic spoke about the ways a mythologized Communist past shapes how former Yugoslav states imagine their future, at times building on problematic and nationalist pre-WWII narratives and mechanistic assessments of success by ICTY standards. Thomas Wolfe questioned the nature of the field of transitional justice. Its assumptions, its philosophical sources and allegiances, its methodological orientations, and most of all, its understanding of how the past exists in, living through the present. Dr. Ryan Molz addressed the lustration policies in Macedonia, Croatia and Serbia, arguing that each of the states had a differing level of implementation of this vetting process due to internal factors, while external factors, such as the international community, have largely been unsupportive of lustration policies. Later, Prof. Adam Czarnota addressed the tension between a demand for formal “rule of law” in countries in transition and the realities of lived memory and informal rule of law already existing in the states. Czarnota noted that there is often a “supply of law”, but no matching demand in transitional contexts. Finally, Prof. Nadya Nedelsky spoke about Slovakia’s struggle with its past, pointing out that societal and academic discourse often do not intertwine on the ground, leading to deeply problematic issues, such as the downplaying of the Nazi-aligned state of the 1930s.

The symposium also held a session on the Ukraine conflict, where professors John-Paul Himka, George O. Liber and J. Brian Atwood addressed the different aspects of the current events. Himka spoke about the role of the regional specifics of Ukraine, and historical differences between them, while Liber addressed Vladimir Putin’s response to the Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-2015 and Russia’s current aggressive foreign policy in the region. Atwood provided an informative view on the current crisis from a U.S. perspective, based on many years of experience in various state institutions, including USAID.

Overall, the event foregrounded issues of how long a transition lasts, what are ways contested pasts are conceptualized and dealt with, legally, commemoratively, and artistically, and how memories can be and are at times used for political purposes. The symposium also highlighted a need to balance contested memories, interpretations of the past with long-term policies that are not merely cosmetic and mechanistic, but often demand a true reevaluation of a country’s history. However, this demands interest and a willingness to do so by the communities in the states themselves. Arguably, the race for EU accession and externally shaped Transitional Justice policies may have resulted in speedy formal establishment of institutions to this effect, but equally seems to have in some instances created a space for hegemonic and reductionist narratives to take hold.

(Full video recordings of all sessions available here, here, and here.)

Arta Ankrava holds an MA in Social Anthropology from Goldsmiths, University of London and is currently a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Minnesota. She is interested in diasporic identity, transnationalism, and collective memory. Arta is working on a dissertation about anti-Communism in the Latvian American exile community during the Cold War and through the collapse of the USSR. It is based on her research in the Latvian American Periodicals Collection at the Immigration History Research Center, University of Minnesota.

The Dark Heart of Hitler’s Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government

by Martin Winstone

Even amidst the horrors of Nazi rule in Europe, the tragic history of the General Government – the Nazi colony created out of the historic core of Poland, including Warsaw and Krakow, following the German and Soviet invasion of 1939 – stands out. Separate from but ruled by Germany through a brutal and corrupt regime headed by the vain and callous Hans Frank, this was indeed the dark heart of Hitler’s empire. As the principal ‘racial laboratory’ of the Third Reich, the General Government was the site of Aktion Reinhard, the largest killing operation of the Holocaust, and of a campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing against Poles which was intended to be a template for the rest of eastern Europe.

Utjiua Muinjangue is the chairperson of the Ovaherero and Ovambanderu Genocide Foundation. Ms. Muinjangue spoke on behalf of the school of Social Work at the University of Minnesota on the genocide of the Herero on November 10, 2014.

Q: Is there an official count and is it different from people’s own memories of the number of victims of the Ovaherero genocide?

A: The estimated number is that before the genocide, the Ovaherero people were more or less 95,000. After the genocide, they were reduced to 15,000.

Q: Were there other communities that were targeted in the same way?

A: We have 11 ethnic groups in Namibia and all these groups have been living there…during the time of the Germans as well. But for reasons known to the Germans they targeted mainly two groups. The Ovaherero and the other group, called the Namas. The Hereros then by that time they were living mostly in the central parts of Namibia, while the Namas were in the southern parts of Namibia. They had cattle and their cattle were targeted, their land was targeted and what is very interesting is that during war it’s difficult to differentiate who is not Herero or who is a Namas and so on. But what is interesting is that they, the Germans, issued an extermination order on the 2nd of October 1904, which was specifically directed towards the Ovaherero people. So for us, it’s like they knew there were other groups, but their aim was that specific group. And then in April 1905 they issued a similar order to the Nama people.

Q: How is the memory of the genocide kept alive? Not just among activists and activist groups but also among survivors?

A: There are very active commemorative events that are happening on an annual basis. Since we started, or since the establishment of the Genocide Foundation, we have been having commemorative events. We singled out the more important dates in the history. Like the 12th of January which commemorates the first bullets that were shot against our people. We have the 30th of March, we call that the reparation walk – we started with that one in 2007 when we erected a monument at the place which was a concentration camp. So we go there every year, and that is in another town, it’s a town called Swakopmund which is one of the coastal towns and that was and still is German. You still feel and see the German influence in the architecture, the numbers on the buildings, some buildings still have numbers like 1902, 1904 and so on…and it’s a tourist attraction. Then we have the 11th of August, that was the battle of Ohamakari, that was when people were driven into the Omahake desert; and then there is the 23rd of August, which  is a very important day also in the Ovaherero community – that is the day after the war, the Hereros fled to neighboring countries. Samuel Maharero, who was the chief of the Ovaherero fled to South Africa, where he died. Before his death he used to say “when I die I want my remains to be transported back to Namibia…”

Q: Considering that the genocide happened 100 years ago, how do you help non-Namibians make sense of it?

A: We started talking about the genocide because many Namibians needed this education and awareness. Many of them were ignorant. But today it’s in the schools, in the history books. Learners are becoming aware of it. And of course we have a lot of public lectures. We get lawyers and international speakers to come and talk about the genocide and compare it with other genocides that were committed. And especially the Jewish…the Holocaust. Because what happened to the Jewish people – they (the Germans) just copied what they did to the people in Namibia and they applied that to them. I remember also there was a time we had connections to a Jewish association in South Africa, to learn from them how they went about it…and so on. And of course some people are saying but this is something that happened over 100 years ago we should forget and move on. But we want to see justice prevail and done.

Q: Considering that the genocide convention came about almost 44 years after this genocide, have you received any push back against using the term genocide in the way that you see fit to use it to explain what happened to the Herero?

A: You know for us murder is murder, whether you committed it 100 years ago, today or tomorrow, it will remain murder. And we were happy when a German minister visited Namibia and attended one of our commemorative events. She said “on behalf of my government I want to say that what happened 100 years ago could be seen today as genocide and I want to apologize.” The German government was very unhappy about what she said and when she went back home she was severely criticized. When did the Jewish Holocaust take place? If they could see that as genocide what makes our case different? So we are saying, you have created that model already, so apply that to us as well. We cannot allow things to be discussed on our behalf, as if we don’t have voices. So that’s our motto: It cannot be about us without us. Anything about us without us is against us.

Q: Do the Herero now consider themselves survivors of the genocide or victims of the genocide? Or do they view the two as the same thing?

A: I would say the educated ones see themselves as descendants of survivors of genocide but you find the older generation who see or consider themselves as victims of genocide. Victims in the sense that they have no place to stay – we have been marginalised economically, socially, politically. As I said the other day, whether we like it or not, politics in Africa is organized along ethnic lines. So, today we are like the fourth largest group, about 200,000. If we are today 200,000 what would our numbers have been should there have been no genocide? So there are those who see themselves as victims but of course there are others who see themselves as survivors. If you see yourself as a victim there is a negative connotation to that. You know, you develop this “pity me” attitude which we don’t want. Some people are saying “but why can’t you just forget?” We are saying we want to talk about the past in order for us to understand the present. We want to talk about the past in order for us to liberate ourselves from what happened in the past and move on.

Wahutu Siguru is the 2013 Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and PhD candidate in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. Siguru’s research interests are in the Sociology of Media, Genocide, Mass Violence and Atrocities (specifically on issues of representation of conflicts in Africa such as Darfur and Rwanda), Collective Memory, and perhaps somewhat tangentially Democracy and Development in Africa.  

CHGS is pleased to welcome Jennifer Hammer, new program associate in the Institute for Global Studies with special responsibility to support the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and the Center for Austrian Studies. Jennifer completed her degree at the University of Minnesota in Anthropology and Japanese, and has done graduate work in the history of design. Jennifer comes to us from the Department of Communication Studies and has programming and management experience at a number of non-profit organizations including JSTOR, Artstor, and the Minneapolis Institute of Arts.

We will have the thankless task of proving to a world which will refuse to listen, that we are Abel, the murdered brother.
                      – Ignasy Shiper (historian, killed at Majdanek in 1943)

In his acclaimed book Survival in Auschwitz, Primo Levi recounts a recurring dream he and other inmates had in the Nazi death camp: that he returned home to his family and told them about it, but nobody listened. “The person standing in front of me doesn’t stay to hear, turns around and goes away,” he writes.

Levi’s nightmare became a reality for survivors in the immediate postwar years. Many made great efforts to bear witness to their ordeal under the Nazi yoke, to assure that the victims’ memory would not vanish into the abyss. They wrote testimonies, chronicles and other texts, many of which were never published. But few people were listening then. The meaning of the survivors’ testimony remained largely personal.

It was not until decades later that the witnesses were awarded a new social identity, that of survivors. They became the bearers of a singular and unique history – that of the Shoah – and also of fundamental moral and political lessons. They started talking to the media, in schools and at commemorative events. By sharing their stories they expanded their audience’s knowledge of the Holocaust but the primary functions of their testimony were to keep the Holocaust – not only the event in history, but also the potential for its repetition – before everyone’s eyes.

In a time when few eyewitnesses remain who were adults during the Holocaust, Primo Levi’s ghastly premonition could become an appalling reality again. As philospher Avishai Margalit has skillfully put it, the survivors have borne witness with the hope “that in another place or time there exists, or will exist, a moral community that will listen to their testimony.” The survivors of the Holocaust are leaving us, but their stories are preserved in oral history and video projects, museums, books, art and films. It is now our task as educators to ensure that new generations can become witnesses of the survivors’ historical experience and assume responsibility for the events that occur in the present. In other words, to remember the past but also to identify the warning signs and know when to react.

Alejandro Baer is the Stephen Feinstein Chair and Director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He joined the University of Minnesota in 2012 and is an Associate Professor of Sociology. 

The Bloomsbury Companion to Holocaust Literature

Edited by Jenni Adams

The Bloomsbury Companion to Holocaust Literature is a comprehensive reference resource including a wealth of critical material on a diverse range of topics within the literary study of Holocaust writing. At its centre is a series of specially commissioned essays by leading scholars within the field: these address genre-specific issues such as the question of biographical and historical truth in Holocaust testimony, as well as broader topics including the politics of Holocaust representation and the validity of comparative approaches to the Holocaust in literature and criticism.

A Conversation with Gabriel Gatti (Professor of Sociology, University of the Basque Country, Spain)

Due in large part to humanitarian law and transitional justice, the categories of detained-disappeared and forced disappearance are today well established – so much so that in some places like Argentina and Uruguay an intense social life has taken shape around them and in their wake. Victims mix with institutions, laws, and professionals (forensic anthropologists, social scientists, jurists, psychologists, artists, archivists, and writers), occupying intersecting positions and doing so with varied narratives, from the epic and heroic to the tragic and traumatic. Based on extensive fieldwork in Argentina and Uruguay, Gatti analyzes these worlds in an attempt to understand how one inhabits the categories that international law has constructed to mark, judge, think about, and repair horror.

Gabriel Gatti is Professor of Sociology at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. His research and teaching focus on contemporary forms of identity, in particular those constituted in situations of social catastrophe, rupture, and fracture. He is the author of Identidades débiles, Identidades desaparecidas, Les nouveaux répères de l’identité collective en Europe, and Basque society. His latest work, Surviving Forced Disappearance in Argentina and Uruguay: Identity and Meaningwas published in august of 2014. He is also a main researcher behind the Mundo(s) de victimas (World(s) of victims) a study of four cases that deal with the construction of the “victim” category in contemporary Spain.

Professor Gatti’s visit is part of the Reframing Mass Violence Collaborative Series. Sponsored by the Institute for Advanced Study, the Human Rights Program, the Department of Sociology, the Department of Political Science and the Department of Spanish & Portuguese.