Incompatible memories?
This week I’ve been working on a paper for a workshop on War and Memory. I read back through my writing on memorials I visited last year in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including this one for killed children; I wondered about my friend Amar who lives in Banja Luka, in Republika Srpska, and works so hard for an advocacy organisation that pushes for public recognition of war atrocities; and I thought about the parents of killed children in Prijedor, who are still fighting for a memorial over twenty years after the war ended. And then I was so wrapped up in trying to figure out what I wanted to say about the importance of remembering, that I decided to read David Rieff’s 2016 book In Praise of Forgetting: Historical Memory and Its Ironies.
I’ve not finished Rieff’s book yet, so I can’t tell you if it concludes with an ode to amnesia, but I keep thinking of a particular line:
Historically, it is only when there is no clear winner that both sides may be able to sustain their own incompatible memories. pp.13
Rieff suggests that Bosnia and Herzegovina after the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords is an example of this situation. What’s been bugging me is trying to elucidate the particular incompatibilities of public memory in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It’s not simply that each “side” has come to different figures for numbers killed, or different explanations for war crimes, though that’s certainly the case. A more striking incompatibility to me lies not in disputing claims, but rather choosing to commemorate particular historic atrocities while ignoring recent events.
For example, there is ample evidence that in 1992 many people were detained in concentration camps in Bosnia. In August that year the International Committee for the Red Cross visited the Banja Luka region and found 3718 prisoners in the Manjaca concentration camp and approximately 1435 at Trnopolje. Last year I went to the Museum of Republika Srpska to see if I could find any mention there of the camps. I did find an exhibition about a concentration camp, but it was about Jasenovac, the Nazi concentration camp that, according to the museum exhibition, killed 700,000 Serbs during World War Two. Ben Lieberman argues that the 1970s and 1980s saw a revival of a narrative of Serb victimhood which included crimes such as Jacenovac.
What was striking to me was not the fact that Jacenovac is held in collective memory, but the way in which the exhibition incorporated the stories of the Nuremburg trials with the word “genocide” used in the descriptions. When I looked around the same museum for an exhibition about war crimes and genocide committed against local residents in the 1990s, there was nothing.
Returning to Rieff’s line about “incompatible memories”, I wonder if the incompatibility here is not between different accounts of events at Jasenovac as such, but rather the jarring contrast between acknowledgement of this camp and the total lack of representation of other more recent camps. It is not that one “side” has chosen to represent Jasenovac in a different way to the other “side”, nor would it have been incompatible to have exhibitions about both Jasenovac and the camps of the 1990s. In this case, the incompatibility lies between the Jasenovac exhibition and the dreadful silence that accompanies it, making the museum look outdated under the most generous of interpretations, and wilfully exclusive under a more realistic one.
Categories
Your form does not work properly. It wiped out my response when filling in the Anti-spam word, which had disappeared the first time I entered it.
I wrote that it is highly offensive to hear the word ‘victimhood’ applied to Jasenovac. I lost many kin there. To call it ‘victimhood’ implies a false claim and undeserved attitude. Excuse me? As if there is a statute of limitations on genocide, and a falsity or irrelevance of suffering remaining among those whose families were butchered in such events. How gross. Particularly considering that that ethnicity, the Krajina Serbs of Croatia are now on the brink of extinction, far too small and far too scattered a Diaspora population to survive. We will all simply be absorbed wherever we land. The four percent left in country is shrinking, comprised primarily of the elderly, too old to leave and inevitably dying off.
There are many events occurring in the 90s, TO Serbs, that are weirdly ignored in the West, which Croatia aspires to be a part of. The only people in the 90s to be genocided to the point of near-extinction are my kin in the Krajina I just mentioned. My family’s hometown is now just an empty patch of 30-year-old woods.
The ethnicity that produced Tesla no longer exists. His birthplace is presently empty, his kith and kin genocided in near totality by the Ustasha. How can such a thing be minimized and ridiculed? I find that appalling. My black American kin and descendants find such a prospect appalling and unacceptable. It is. They’re absolutely right. At least my descendants will have an appreciation and reverence for the atrocities visited upon exploited and hated minorities. That’s the best cultural survival my Krajina ancestors can expect. All that’s been left to us.
And how can it be that two years of protracted genocide of the Serb minority outside Srebrenica is scarcely mentioned? And that was not mentioned to account for the retaliation that followed as a result? That isn’t also gross? What can clearly be characterized as survivors trying to isolate the perps, while bussing their families away, and retaliate in self-defense is then loudly touted as ‘genocide’ rather than the retaliations inherent in all warfare?
Yes, using a dismissive word like ‘victimhood’ IS a way of furthering an abominable 150-year-old genocide that started in Croatia and is still readily afoot.
I know what’s going on in Montenegro. Dear friends now silenced for fear of losing their livelihoods for merely speaking truth to power. If y’all are really so hell bent on being in the EU, you’ll do well to acclimate to a culture of freedom of speech.