Physical daily contexts are replete with traces of the past. A statue in a park, the name of a street, or an old advertisement can all remind people of specific historical moments or periods. Often, they recall glorious episodes, but traces of less glorious pasts also persist. Among them, the most self-censored ones refer to past immoral actions that tarnish the overly idealized moral standard attributed to the group. As a case in point, material traces of the colonial past became the focus of controversies within formerly colonizing countries during the last decade. European anti-racist movements questioned the colonial heritage of European societies in an unprecedented manner and active social minorities also brought to the fore some traces still in the background of physical environments. Part of public opinion reacted by denouncing the “cancel culture” or the danger of “erasing” history. This chapter outlines a social psychological approach about contemporary perceptions and interpretations of still self-censored material traces of Italian colonialism. Results of a qualitative survey on Italian participants’ representations and attitudes toward a candy with a colonial wrapping will illustrate how Italian participants of different generations question this ephemeral trace and take on the challenge of a cumbersome past.

European capital cities are replete with material traces of colonial times, not only institutional reminders but also ephemeral objects, created to glorify colonial domination. Reactions of descendants of former colonisers to these traces suggest that colonial tropes are still present in their contemporary imaginary about the past. A comprehensive effort of decolonisation, therefore, needs to aim not only at including previously despised minorities, but also at raising majorities’ awareness about the aggressive side of leaving the permanence of material traces of colonialism unquestioned. Moreover, this awareness of implications of material traces could help to redesign European physical contexts to become more welcoming places for descendants of former colonised groups. Our research explores reactions of different generations of descendants of Italian colonisers when presented with an ephemeral trace of past violence—a candy still sold with a colonial wrapping. About 175 participants were presented with the image of the candy, either wrapped in its original colonial package or a neutral one. The image was followed either by a brief explanation of its colonial meaning or not. Reactions to such an apparently inconspicuous reminder of the Italian colonial crimes—still self-censored in the social representations of the Italian national past—proved to vary across experimental conditions and different ages of respondents. In particular, when questioning these ephemeral traces of adult participants show more intense group-based negative moral emotions. Relations between the generational renewal of former colonisers’ group and collective elaboration of intergroup violence are discussed.

Referring to the mainstream studies based on the personalization’s hypothesis, which positively evaluates signals of dominance shown by leaders, the analysis of Obama’s rhetoric stays a relevant exception. His risky recall, during his political talks, of his social difficulties as a child of a mixed couple was in fact one of the more surprising aspects of his success. Nevertheless, reactions to his autobiographical sharing were scarcely explored. Based on the idea that these self-disclosures signal his responsivity toward the audience of low social condition and can, therefore, be defined as a sign of humility, this research aims to test if coherence between Obama’s words and his facial expressions of contempt, due to the seriousness of social injustices endured in his childhood, may influence the receivers’ perception of such unexpected communication. Before reading a brief autobiographical sharing taken from a “Back-to-school” speech, a highly ritualized monolog the US President addresses each year to students, 175 Italian participants were presented with a photo of Obama displaying either an expression of contempt (taken from the video of the speech) or a neutral expression. Comparisons between self-assessments of perceptions and reactions of participants assigned to the two experimental conditions show that a facial expression of contempt, coherent with words describing his school difficulties, has been crucial for perceiving this humble political discourse as authentic and not as a simple socially desirable posturing. More studies seem to be needed, however, to understand how humble speech could enhance the positive face of leaders or backfire against them.