• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
    • Editorial Staff
      • Bryan Strawser, Editor in Chief, Strife
      • Dr Anna B. Plunkett, Founder, Women in Writing
      • Strife Journal Editors
      • Strife Blog Editors
      • Strife Communications Team
      • Senior Editors
      • Series Editors
      • Copy Editors
      • Strife Writing Fellows
      • Commissioning Editors
      • War Studies @ 60 Project Team
      • Web Team
    • Publication Ethics
    • Open Access Statement
  • Archive
  • Series
  • Strife Journal
  • Contact us
  • Submit to Strife!

Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

  • Announcements
  • Articles
  • Book Reviews
  • Call for Papers
  • Features
  • Interviews
You are here: Home / Archives for Series on Memory

Series on Memory

Series on Memory, History and Power: Which door to which city? The Vraca Memorial Park and anti-fascism legacy in Sarajevo

July 7, 2021 by Renata Summa

View from Vraca Memorial Park, 2015. Photo by the author

This article is a part of our Series on Memory, History, and Power. Read the Series Introduction here.


From the slopes of mount Trebavić, you have a privileged view over Sarajevo. To get there, it is only a 20-minute walk from Grbavica, a popular residential neighbourhood built during Socialist Yugoslavia. Although short, the climb is quite literally breath-taking: the air pollution hits dangerous levels during the winter, the road doesn’t have proper pavements to protect you from high speed cars and, as soon as you arrive you are struck by a panoramic view over the whole capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, it is not hard to understand why the original site’s name is Vratca, meaning ‘small door’. As soon as you get there, the view over Sarajevo gives you the impression that the place is a door to the city.

Due to its strategic place in the city, Vraca was coveted by different groups over the centuries. Successive occupying powers curated the place according to the role they attributed to Sarajevo. Whilst under the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1898, it was a military fortress. Later, during the Second World War, the site was transformed into a death field and burial ground, where Ustaše[1] executed thousands – mostly Jews, Serbs, communists and Partisans. Moreover, due to its position as ‘a door to the city’, it was used as a deportation hub, where prisoners were taken to concentration camps throughout the region. In total, at least 12,000 inhabitants of Sarajevo were killed by fascist forces. Their names were inscribed into the monument, which would be built almost four decades later at that site.

The Vraca Memorial Park was first conceived by veterans’ groups and authorities in Sarajevo as early as 1965. Around this time, other monuments and memorials were built to celebrate the National Liberation War, or Narodnooslobodilačka borba (NOB), as it was called in Yugoslavia the guerrilla-style liberation war led by the Yugoslav Partisans against the Axis occupying forces and their puppet regimes in the region. From the 1950s onwards, the Yugoslav authorities invested in the construction of thousands of monuments and memorials to the NOB, including large structures, such as the Monument to the Battle of Sutjeska, and many other smaller initiatives, such as plaques and sculptures. The NOB monuments occupied a special place inside the narrative of Yugoslavia, publicly demonstrating the centrality of the shared struggle against fascist forces, thereby creating an intra-ethnonational memory of suffering.[2] The abstract modernist-brutalist sculptures and memorials recall the days when Yugoslavia promoted ideals such as modernization and statehood, avoiding, at the same time, association with any particular ethnonational group.

Unlike other NOB monuments, that were built after Second World War and laid the basis for official narratives and memories of that period, Vraca Memorial Park took a long time to be constructed, in a moment where the economy was not so prosperous any longer. It was only in 1981 that the six-hectare memorial was built, in an attempt to transform a place associated with suffering into a site of tribute and socio-political gathering. The memorial itself comprises several monuments addressing different categories of victims: one tomb is dedicated to ‘the city’s national heroes’, there is a memorial wall inscribed with around 12,000 names of those who were killed during the war, a tribute to women fighters and a monument to Tito, the leader of the Partisans through NOB/Second World War and Yugoslav leader until his death, in 1980.

Even though the Vraca Memorial Park was built in the 1980s, at a time of resurgence for ethno-nationalism in Yugoslavia, the memorial – which precisely claimed an anti-ethnonationalism approach - has played an important role in the life of the city for some time. It became a place that hosted mass gatherings, such as the Young Pioneer political youth group; a place to celebrate public anniversaries and holidays or to simply sit down and enjoy the view. A page dedicated to the monument states that ‘Vraca without a doubt was (…) a cultural landmark for the city and stood as one of Sarajevo’s enduring and unifying symbols during this time period’.

Ironically, despite being an antifascist memorial, Vraca was transformed ten years later, into one of the sites from which Bosnian Serb paramilitary forces (VRS) conducted the siege of Sarajevo, from 1992 to 1995. From Vraca, the VRS fired against the Bosnian capital, using heavy artillery or snipers. VRS operations against the people of Sarajevo were never recognized as genocide by an international court, but have been labelled an urbicide, a deliberate targeting of urban life, which involved the ‘destruction of buildings as a condition of possibility of being-with-others’.[3] From Vraca (and elsewhere), the agenda of ‘ethnonational cleansing’ targeted the shared histories, cultures and heritages in Sarajevo on a daily basis, destroying the city’s social tissue and hampering any possibility of a ‘normal life.’[4] As VRS general Ratko Mladic said, ‘go on with the artillery fire. Don’t let them sleep. Let’s make them crazy.’

The agenda of total destruction was carried out from the site. When VRS retreated, they left Vraca Memorial Park completely devastated, and its outskirts littered with anti-personnel mines. As politics of memorialization in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina were produced along ethnonational lines,[5] there have been a myriad of new monuments dedicated to the suffering of each constituent people (Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats). In a city such as Brčko, there are three different memorials in the main square dedicated to the victims of each ethnonational group. As churches and mosques were being rebuilt through the country, not surprisingly the Vraca Memorial Park, a unifying symbol, remained abandoned and vandalized. Many other NOB monuments suffered the same fate, not only in Bosnia but also in Croatia, Kosovo and North Macedonia. Some have completely vanished, much like the regime which constructed them.

Since 2005, Vraca Memorial Park has been declared a National Monument thanks to civil society groups, such as SABNOR (Association of Antifascists and Fighters of the People’s Liberation War in the Sarajevo Canton). Until very recently, however, this was not translated into a better care of the site, nor into its reintegration into the city’s public life.

Last year, memories of Second World War regained the streets of Sarajevo. On the 16th of May, a mass devoted to honour Ustaše troops and Axis-aligned civilians killed by partisans in 1945[6] was celebrated in Sarajevo Cathedral. Even though the city, and the world, was under the yoke of the Covid-19 pandemic, thousands of activists, members of anti-fascist organisations and citizens took the streets to protest against the religious service. One woman held a poster reminding people that ‘it doesn’t take that many fascists to make fascism’. The protest was a clear message that thousands of people will still stand against far-right movements that claim memories both from the Second World War and the 1990s wars. They showed that, although monument-building is a crucial practice to establish official narratives, ‘anti-fascism is not a monument’. It depends a lot on how people enact those positions, what they do and how they practise those memories from the past. From everyday practices such as cleaning, caring and curating Vraca by volunteers[7], to more public spectacles, such as the 2020 protest against the mass, it is clear that anti-fascism stances are very well alive. Both the May protests and the everyday silent work of curating Vraca are signs that citizens are willing to enact anti-fascism practices whenever they feel memories from the wars are being challenged, instrumentalized or simply facing oblivion. Recently, there was also a sign from Sarajevo authorities in the same direction. In 2019, at the anniversary of liberation of Sarajevo from fascist forces, the Eternal Flame at Vraca was again relight, after 27 years.

[1] Ustaše, led by Ante Pavelić, is the Croatian fascist movement that nominally ruled the Independent State of Croatia during Second World War. Among its aims, the Ustaše movement sought independence from Yugoslavia, and, once it was achieved, their goal was to create a ‘purely Croatian state’. Hundreds of thousands of Serb, Jewish, Muslim and Gypsy inhabitants were brutally killed in such attempt.

[2] Vladana Putnik, “Second World War Monuments in Yugoslavia as Witnesses of the Past and the Future,” Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 14, no. 3 (2016): 206-21.

[3] Martin Coward, Urbicide. The Politics of Urban Destruction (London and New York: Routledge, 2008).

[4] Ivana Macek, Sarajevo Under Siege. Anthropology in Wartime (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009).

[5] Jelena Subotić, Yellow Star, Red Star: Holocaust Remembrance after Communism (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 2019).

[6] The memorial mass is organized annually by the Croatian Church and held in Bleiburg, Austria, where sympathisers of Ustaše regime were killed by partisans. The commemoration has attracted thousands of people, and, more recently, has increasingly attracted overtly pro-Ustaše fascists. Due to sanitarian restrictions to prevent the spread of Covid-19, last year the borders with Austria were closed and, therefore, the mass was held elsewhere.

[7] Lydia Cole, Curating Vraca Memorial Park: Everyday Practice, Counter-Politics, and Counter- Monumentalism (Forthcoming).

Filed Under: Blog Article, Feature, Series Tagged With: Anti-fascism, Memorial, Renata Summa, Sarajevo, Series, Series on Memory

Series on Memory, History and Power: Portugal - The Return of the Colonial War

July 6, 2021 by Miguel Cardina

Praça do Império, Lisbon, 2021 | Photo by Olivia Borges

This article is a part of our Series on Memory, History, and Power. Read the Series Introduction here.


Early this year, discussions around Portugal’s colonial past and its legacies reappeared in the country, restored by three episodes. The first was related to Lisbon City Council’s proposal to renovate the gardens of Praça do Império. The square, situated in west of Lisbon, was inaugurated in 1940, during the Portuguese World Exhibition. The event, organized by the Estado Novo dictatorship, was a celebration of both Portuguese nationality and its colonial empire. In the 1960s, when Salazar’s regime pursued colonial wars in Africa, flowers were introduced to the gardens of Praça do Império. The floral arrangements were designed as coats of arms representing the capitols of each district of the country and the ‘overseas provinces’ – a name that from the 1950s onwards would be used as an effort to internationally conceal the fact that Portuguese colonialism had ‘colonies’. The fact that the renovation proposed by the Lisbon City Council does not include the restoration of the coats of arms was enough for some to raise their voices against what would be an attempt to ‘erase History’, mobilising sectors from the right and the far-right and even two former presidents, António Ramalho Eanes and Aníbal Cavaco Silva.

Marcelino da Mata, 1969 | Public Domain via WikiCommons

The second episode, which also occurred last February, happened after the death by Covid-19 of Marcelino da Mata, a military leader who became renowned during the colonial war for commanding an extremely aggressive Portuguese squad of Africans soldiers at Guinea. As in other colonial wars (such as the French in Algeria), Portugal instituted, especially in the final years of the conflict, a process of Africanization of the war, integrating thousands of black men into its forces. None were as distinguished as Marcelino da Mata, known for his particular aggressiveness, he led various actions against civilian populations and the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), including secret operations condemned at the time by the United Nations in neighbouring countries, such as Guinea-Conakry and Senegal.

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa and several military chiefs attended Da Mata’s funeral. The Minister of Defence under the current centre-left Socialist Party (PS) government praised Da Mata’s ‘commitment and dedication’ in serving Portugal. In the Parliament, several right-wing parties and PS approved a vote of honour for Marcelino da Mata. The bureaucratic language used in the vote’s text is a symptom of its omissions: by referring abstractly to his ‘individual courage and bravery’, the text forgets the concrete translation of certain horrific acts, that Da Mata himself was responsible for, and that would constitute war crimes. Several voices appealed to a formalistic argument that consisted in affirming that Da Mata was the most decorated soldier in the war, but omitted the fact that such honours were awarded by a dictatorial and colonialist regime whose fall on the 25th of April 1974, in the context of a political defeat in the war, marked the beginning of the Portuguese democracy.

The case provoked debate in the Portuguese political context and had peculiar shock waves. The Social Democratic Centre (CDS), a conservative right-wing party, suggested a state funeral and national mourning. Far-right party Chega – created over a year ago and currently polling at 8% nationally – said it would submit a complaint before the Prosecutor-General’s Office against Mamadou Ba, a well-known anti-racist activist, who had questioned the fairness in celebrating, as a hero, someone that was a ‘torturer of the colonial regime’. CDS has also asked for Mamadou Ba’s removal from a public working group on racism and a petition, which garnered around 20,000 signatures, proposed the Senegalese born, Portuguese naturalised activist to be ‘expelled from the country’. At the same time, a large movement in solidarity with Mamadou Ba has emerged, condemning the racism, the outrage and the irrationality of deporting a black Portuguese citizen. In Portugal, colonialism is a living dead. Democracy in the country is a close relative of the defeat of this late colonial project, maintained by the dictatorship against international dynamics even stronger after Second World War. From the 1950s on, Salazar’s regime strived to affirm the influence of luso-tropicalism, an ideology appropriated by Estado Novo that contributed to define Portuguese colonialism as more benign and less violent than other colonialisms. When, in Africa, countries were beginning to declare independence, Portugal started a colonial war on three fronts – Guinea, Angola and Mozambique – against liberation movements. The 25 April 1974 Revolution against Estado Novo dictatorship resulted from the deadlock of a war that lasted thirteen long years, dragging thousands of young men away from their homes and unleashing a parade of violence whose repercussions remain, until today, unknowable in their totality. At the same time, atrocities committed during the war remain clouded by collective amnesia. Espousing the heroism of Marcelino da Mata is only possible in a country that voluntarily forgets the ‘genetic mark’ of its democracy and that does not want to remember the colonial violence that is an inherent part of its imperial history.

The third and final episode occurred few months later, during the official commemorations of the 25 April Revolution’s anniversary. In his official speech, president Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa decided to address the Portuguese colonial past and its colonial wars, a strong and unprecedented move. The intervention was almost unanimously approved by politicians from different parties and political analysts. Such a high endorsement might be explained by the ambiguous nature of the speech itself: while recognizing the need “to study the past and to dissect it” and going against glorifying vision of the empire, the president also warned about the danger of “excessive global self-punishments”. Nonetheless, a speech that addressed the issue of colonial violence, racism and slavery – even when it affirmed this false and inexistent symmetry – is not something to be dismissed in a country where public memory is still characterized by readings that imply the greatness of the ‘Discoveries’ and the singularity of the ‘Portuguese presence in the world’. Even though the weight of dissident voices have grown in the public sphere (that is, in academia, arts, social movements and among some sectors of the political left), images of a great imperial past remain socially embedded. The country still lives in, what one could describe as, a melting pot of imperialphilia, definer of discourses around Portuguese identity and history. The weight of a denied colonial history emerges in the racism manifested in police operations, housing and segregation politics, nationality laws, as well as in the self-representations of the country, its people and its past permeated by the lasting trail of luso-tropicalism and in the maintenance of the old rhetoric about ‘martyrs’ and ‘heroes of the Overseas’.

Portugal had a prominent role in European imperial history that persists in keeping itself alive as a national imaginary and that has different social reverberations, among which racism is one of the most visible traces. Conscious of the necessity to deal with this past, French president Emmanuel Macron commissioned a report to compile an inventory about Algerian colonisation and the independence war. Subsequently, the historian Benjamin Stora delivered, last January, a list with 22 recommendations to the French president: among them, the clarification of massacres and crimes committed during the war; the opening of archives and a common investigation on this past; the renovation of educational curricula; the promotion of exhibitions and conferences on the multiple facets of the war, including the refusal to acknowledge it, and on African independences. Similar initiatives have not been supported by Portuguese governments and it is not the case of replicating this same exact process. But the truth is that, in Portugal, the war still plays as a background loud silence. And colonialism, as its ultimate background, continues to act as a recomforting past, even though it is increasingly questioned. So, maybe the time of the benevolent images of the colonial past are coming to an end.

Filed Under: Blog Article, Feature, Series Tagged With: Miguel Cardina, Portugal, Series on Memory

Series on Memory, History and Power: Introduction

July 5, 2021 by Luciana Martinez

The fallen Columbus after a group led by American Indian Movement members tore it down in Minnesota, 2020 | Photo by Tony Webster, used under Creative Commons.

Over the last years, we have seen disputes over statues and monuments all over the world. Memorials dedicated to military achievements, war heroes, colonialists and slave traders have been at the centre of debates on the deconstruction of history and the ways some events and national groups have been inscribed in the public space. In 2019, for example, we saw Santiago, the capital of Chile, being occupied by protesters waving the flag of the indigenous Mapuche people. One particular image went viral all around the world: in the photo, dozens of protesters climb a military monument in the centre of Santiago and at the top of the statue, a man raises the Mapuche’s flag, a people that has been under attack in Chile since the arrival of Spanish colonizers, in the 16th century. In South Africa, the campaign Rhodes Must Fall led to the removal of a statue in honour of British imperialist Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town. The withdraw flared up a discussion regarding what to do with other monuments to Rhodes around the country. In 2020, we saw similar scenes being repeated throughout Europe, United States and Latin America, when statues of slave trader Edward Colston, Columbus, Belgian King Leopold II and Portuguese Jesuit missionary Father António Vieira, just to name a few, woke up either, at the bottom of a river, painted in red, headless or wearing signs saying: ‘decolonize’. Such movements intended to problematise what is remembered in the public sphere and how those monuments relate to the way we conceive a country’s history or the history of colonialism and slavery.

‘There is no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism’[i], writes Walter Benjamin on his 7th thesis on the philosophy of History. For some, statues such as those of Colston, Rhodes and Vieira are symbols of civilisation. For many others, they are memories of massacres and genocides, symbols of barbarism. Monuments as, for example, the Padrão dos Descobrimentos, built in the memory of the infant Henry the Navigator – considered the patron of the 16th century Portuguese colonial expansion – represent the memory of the victors, they anchor history the way power wants it seen. That is the reason why, if we take Benjamin’s critique of history as a guide, we need to deconstruct such monuments built by hegemonic historical narratives. And what we have been seeing over recent years throughout the world are precisely such moments of such deconstruction.

That is to say that the debate over monuments and statues should be considered under a broader scope of history, memory and dynamics of power intertwined in both phenomena. In a recent article in the French newspaper Le Libération, Paul B. Preciado described statues as ‘prosthesis of historic memory that remind us the lives “that matter”’. They inscribe on public space the bodies that deserve to be immortalized in stone and metal. ‘Public sculptures’, he writes, ‘do not represent the people, they build it: they depict a national pure body and determine an ideal of colonial and sexual citizenship’. To critique history as celebrated by statues is, then, to critique the construction of the nation state itself. This series analyses both how events and characters are chosen to be marked in a city or a country’s landscape, and how art might disrupt national and imperial ideals, functioning sometimes as a sort of counter-memory.

Series Publication Schedule

  • Part I: Portugal: the return of the colonial war, by Miguel Cardina
  • Part II: Which door to which city? The Vraca Memorial Park and anti-fascism legacy in Sarajevo, by Renata Summa
  • Part III: Indigenous Uruguay: monuments, histories and memories, by Henrique Gasperin
  • Part IV: The Red Atlantic: modernity and markers of discrimination, by Victor Coutinho Lage
  • Part V: The Memory Sewing: alternative history(ies) of the past and present, by Mariana Caldas

[i] Walter Benjamin, ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’ in Illuminations (New York: Schocken Books, 2007), p. 256.

Filed Under: Blog Article, Feature, Series Tagged With: history, History and Power, Luciana Martinez, Memory, Monuments, Series, Series on Memory, Strife series

Footer

Contact

The Strife Blog & Journal

King’s College London
Department of War Studies
Strand Campus
London
WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

[email protected]

 

Recent Posts

  • The cyber domain: capabilities and implications
  • The Case of the Wagner Group: the problematics of outsourcing war
  • From Physical Shift to Psychic Shift: Anne’s Move From 37 Merwedeplein to 263 Prinsengracht
  • Beyond Beijing: Russia in the Indo-Pacific
  • Book Review: The Father of Modern Vaccine Misinformation - “The Doctor Who Fooled the World: Science, Deception, and the War on Vaccines” by Brian Deer

Tags

Afghanistan Africa Brexit China Climate Change conflict counterterrorism COVID-19 Cybersecurity Cyber Security Diplomacy Donald Trump drones Elections EU feature France India intelligence Iran Iraq ISIL ISIS Israel ma Myanmar NATO North Korea nuclear Pakistan Politics Russia security strategy Strife series Syria terrorism Turkey UK Ukraine United States us USA women Yemen

Licensed under Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivatives) | Proudly powered by Wordpress & the Genesis Framework