Thinking comparatively about genocide memorialization

Abstract

This article argues for a comparative approach to studying genocide memorialization. Memorials and museums form an intrinsic part of state and society in post-conflict societies, and a comparative approach can capture the dynamics of memory politics and state building at play, especially the reception and instrumentalization in different national arenas of transitional justice mechanisms and the ways in which international agendas interact with domestic ones. The article first reviews the small existing comparative literature, and then offers a discussion of three potential comparative approaches: the transfer of representational strategies and discourses of remembrance by museum or memorial staff who serve as consultants for new projects; how genocide museums construct evidence or proof of genocide, and how these constructions might be received by victim and perpetrator groups in post-genocide societies, and by international visitors; and, finally, how the differences between official memorials and other places of memory might resist hegemonic state narratives.

An uncanny architecture of cultural heritage: Representations of the Japanese occupation in Harbin, China

“…59 Chinese museums and visitor expectations represent a mediation of traditional symbolisms of death, burial and remembrance which will catalyse different affect for those from other cultural traditions and possibly for younger Chinese visitors, more exposed to Western culture and high-tech animation. 60 Affect does not reside in an artefact, such as a report reproduction, enlarged and blurred, or a shiny metal can. It is mobilized in the museum through the rhetorical discourse refrains of the information panels through which the refrains of textual materialities, such as reports, photographs, bottles and cylinders, are read.…”

A 5* Destination: the Creation of New Transnational Moral Spaces of Remembrance on TripAdvisor

“…While both employ very different aesthetic languages and curatorial strategies, the globalisation of memory discourse and aesthetics is evident in the predominant focus on victims and the encouragement to identify with them. This curative strategy aims at personal experience and an educational strategy which focuses on learning about the past as a form of genocide prevention (Bickford and Sodaro 2010, 425;Jinks 2014). They differ in terms of their original role, given that TSGM is a so-called authentic place (or primary site) where atrocities were committed, while KGM was built later as a memorial and educational site (secondary site).…”

Remembering the Past in Diasporic Spaces: Kurdish Reflections on Genocide Memorialization for Anfal

“…Especially in cases of genocide, states draw from their traumatic past to put forward a particular narrative for political purposes 56 that, as in many other similar cases, is not free from political contestations. 57 The experience of the Anfal Campaign created a narrative of victimhood that has become a part of Kurdish collective memory and nation-building processes in the KRI.…”

“…Memorialization is a tricky terrain where different actors can stake their claims with a particular political agenda. As Jinks 77 states, "memorialization can be seen as an intervention into memory"; it is a performance that involves statements about what should be remembered and what should be forgotten. Indeed, within the KRI, though somewhat invisible to the international community, there are competing and conflicting memories and narratives with regards to commemorating Anfal.…”