Memory and Reconciliation

Last night was a big activity time for me. I think not doing anything all semester added to the fact that I'd do just about anything right now to not look at my finals ended up with me having an incredibly positive and fun educational night:

The Journal of International Affairs presents

The persistence of Memory: Historical Reconciliation in the 21st Century

A panel on the theoretical and practical challenges of seeking justice and reconciliation

All the panelists were genius, and incredibly articulate on a topic that (for me at least) can be very hard to discuss. They were able to compare a number of different cases of reparations and restorative justice, from African American issues to Rwanda, the Holocaust to East Timor.

Jonathan Bush is a professor at Columbia Law School and his focus is mainly on the Nuremberg Trials, though he can certainly discuss everything under the sun. His initial discussion was on defining "victimhood" as a part of the reparations process. He turned first to the argument in favor of reparations of African-American slaves and the fact that it has been a contested issue in that community as early as 1875 and was written about by W.E.B. DuBois. Yet, there was no reparations made, rather the freedom was seen as enough and there was far more pity and economic incentives given to the white Southern gentry who had lost their unpaid labor. He related this changing sense of victimhood to Germans and Czechs post World War II.

Elazar Barkan (ISRAELI!) is co-director of the Human Rights Concentrations at SIPA. He defined two different forms of justice. Retributive and Restorative. Retributive would refer to trials, whereas restorative would be the reparations and apologies made as well as museums built. In the middle are truth commissions. His focus was on how history is constructed and shapes conflicts as well as conflict resolution. Over time the idea of justice changes as history and "facts" change. He advocated historians being active leaders in peace processes.

Peter Rosenblum, Clinical Professor of Human Rights Law at Columbia, focused on the fluidity of memory. That there is no "moment" of truth. He used as an example the defining of genocide in Rwanda, and how it was perceived as important when people "knew" it was genocide. That this plays back on the post-Holocaust "Never Again" which was allowed to happen again.

Priscilla Hayner, co-founder of the International Center for Transitional Justice, also added quite a bit to the discussion, but I have nothing for her in the notes I'm writing off of. Likewise, Alice Miller, the moderator, added a great deal to the discussion.

Memory is a political act. It is a process that changes in reaction to current events and shapes current events at the same time. It can be falsified and used, such as propaganda. An example that was given was on China and Japan. Japan has never forgotten their part in the destruction of Nanking. China, on the other hand, under the Communist regime has suppressed it because the image of "victim" is not desired.

Barkan also addressed a question on memory "dying" or key events being forgotten. His response was that such events will be remembered as long as they are useful and the pain remains. Those that go unaddressed won't disappear, as well the ones that do will no necessarily fade away either. He said this is light of the Holocaust, and that perhaps it will eventually no longer be necessary or needed in our cultural memory, but at the time being it certainly is and continues to define relationships.

There was also a discussion on practicality of truth commissions. They are cheaper than Marchall Plans, which would address the actual structural issues that often promoted the conflict. Also, truth commisions are somewhat more symbolic that providing actual justice. Those that participate in them, and are able to name their aggressors, expect more than just those memories to be recorded.

There is so much here that I want to apply to my own work. Specifically, how narratives and history have maintained the conflict in Israel-Palestine as well as how it can be used in their reconciliation. I am hoping to take a course with Barkan as soon as I can.

Brittany and I stuck around for the excellent food and wine afterwards, and then headed over to the CICE launch, a student journal at Teachers College addressing comparative education. Unfortunately we missed the panel, but were able to chat with peers and professors over more food. Then we went to our department social, which had not been advertised so it was a pretty small but sweet affair. Then back to I-House where we had some delicious rum eggnog and tried to discuss education policy with Prthvi and Druv before heading up for a sleepover (Brittany's train wasn't running).