Course:ARST573/Archives and Genocide

From UBC Wiki

The relationship between archives and genocide is complex and multifaceted. Archives can be used both as a tool through which perpetrators enact violence against genocide victims, through the creation of records documenting atrocities or the destruction of records, and as a tool for justice, activism, healing and reconciliation. Two of the most recognizable modern genocides, the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, generated diverse archives that also include records and testimonies created by witnesses and survivors. Archives, as places and programs, acquire, maintain, preserve and make available the memories and experiences of genocide survivors, as represented by archival material. Archives of genocide, as material, often provide legal evidence of genocide and other crimes against humanity. The phrase “crimes against humanity” was first used in 1915 by the Allied Powers to condemn the Ottoman government for the mass murder and deportation of the Armenian population in Turkey.

As the topic of archives and genocide is extensive, the relationship will be explored in sections based on the creators, nature, and use of the archives and illustrated through selected case studies. The themes are as follows: the destruction and (re)construction of archives; perpetrator-created archives; survivor-centered/community archives and activism; and international criminal justice and reconciliation.

Genocide

File:Lemkin.jpg
Raphael Lemkin with the representatives of four states who ratified the Genocide Convention (standing row, first from the right)

The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born Holocaust survivor, to describe and encompass all of the atrocities of the Holocaust, from mass murder to “assaults on all aspects of nationhood – physical, biological, political, social, cultural, economic, and religious.” [1] Other terms like “mass murder” and “barbarity” failed to convey the motive behind genocidal activities and were also applicable in other contexts. Lemkin needed a word that was specific to the attempted or complete destruction of a group of people that would incite condemnation and could be applied universally, not only in reference to the Holocaust. [2] The term genocide is a hybrid of geno, the Greek derivative for “race” or “tribe,” and cide, from the Latin verb caedere, “to kill."[3]

The definition of genocide has since broadened to include legal and scholarly definitions. The definition used by the International Criminal Court is outlined in Article 6 of the Rome Statute of 2002, which includes “the crime of genocide” as the first of four serious crimes within its jurisdiction, along with crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.[4] The ICC definition was first defined as the following in the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG) :

Template:Quote frame "Language is the foundation of the healing of our people" — said by a Mohawk student




Although controversial, and often unacknowledged by former colonial states, the violence perpetrated against indigenous peoples by colonizers includes many of the characteristics of genocide, such as systemic violence, forced assimilation and conversion, man-made famine and disease, destruction of culture and language, and displacement.

The destruction of the cultural memory of a group, through the destruction of archives and other cultural heritage, is not included in the international legal definition. Although outside of the definition, the term "cultural genocide" has been used to describe the destruction of cultural heritage and is considered a component of genocide.

Destruction and (Re)construction of Archives

Destruction of records during genocide

The deliberate destruction of records and cultural heritage has long been a component of war and conflict. In the context of genocide it serves to erase evidence of targeted groups, which then permits perpetrators to control the narrative of history and deny the existence of missing or murdered individuals. The 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which involved a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, included the widespread destruction of material culture, including archives and official government and state records.[5] Up to 90% of archival sources were destroyed in a number of archival centers, libraries, museums and registry offices. [6] Post-war, the loss of official records has been an immense obstacle for displaced persons returning to Bosnia and Herzegovina.[7] Author and anthropologist Hariz Halilovich states that the campaign of records destruction was a coordinated and systematic attempt to erase “any evidence that those who were ethnically cleansed once existed.”[8] In addition, evidence of the crimes committed by the perpetrators was also destroyed. Due to a lack of documentary evidence, survivor testimonies have been used to provide evidence of war crimes.[9]

To a lesser extent, the Khmer Rouge party in Cambodia also embarked on a campaign of records destruction at the beginning of the regime.

Reconstruction of archives by genocide survivors

Returning to the context of records and the Bosnian genocide, survivors have employed strategies, like the utilization of the internet, to reconstruct archives and deal with the loss of cultural memory and identity. In an ethnographic study of an online community, Žepa Online, Halilovich explores the virtual recreation of a previously physical space.[10] In 1995, the entire village of Žepa was 'ethnically cleansed' and destroyed, leaving survivors without a home to return to after the war. The community "recreated their sense of belonging to their local place through their relationships with each other as well as by sharing their memories in forms of photographs, documents and stories of their old home village with other fellow Žepa residents."[11] In addition to group chat forums and an online library, the website contains an archives of the history of the village and of the war. The virtual village is a communal archive and "a place where Žepa identity is asserted and performed in a variety of ways."[12]

…By recreating collective memory about and for themselves, the survivors from Zepa have created an archive including the records of the grave human rights violations and of the suffering of their village that would otherwise have gone unrecorded.[13]

Archives as resistance

Boxes and milk cans used to hide documents by Oneg Shabbat
Milk can used to store documents. One of the three milk cans used to hide the records has yet to be recovered.

When faced with potential erasure and annihilation, targeted groups have turned to documenting their existence as a method of survival and resistance. One of the best examples of this is the Oneg Shabbat Archives, also known as the Ringelblum Archives, which secretly documented everyday life and death in the Warsaw Ghetto.[14] Jewish historian and educator Emanuel Ringelblum established the program and trained others within the ghetto to record and preserve information, which was then hidden in milk cans and tin boxes and buried in three different locations.[15] Beginning in November 1939, the group collected approximately six thousand records, including maps, photographs, reports, drawings, testimonies, and other material, which are now housed in the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw.[16] Although they outlived the ghetto, Ringelblum and his family were murdered in the ruins of the ghetto in March 1944.[17] The documentation project and resulting collection, which continued until Ringelblum’s death, is a valuable resource for historical information on survival and resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.[18]

Perpetrator-Created Archives

See also: Archives and Power

In some cases, which will be explored further in this section, perpetrators of genocide have obsessively and meticulously recorded their activities. These records, which aid in the administration and organization of perpetrator's political parties and activities, including crimes against humanity, ensure internal accountability and normalize genocidal ideologies.

Case Study: Khmer Rouge

Between 1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia, lead by Pol Pot, systematically targeted and murdered specific ethnic groups and others perceived to be unsupportive of the party. [19] Records documenting the murder of millions of Cambodians, including records created and used at the Tuol Sleng Incarceration Center, were created, used and maintained by the government. Archivist Dawne Adam suggests that the Khmer Rouge documented their genocidal activities as a mechanism to codify ideology, evaluate progress, and re-write history. [20] Despite extensive documentation, many of the perpetrators actively denied or minimized the genocide until at least 1998. In response to the question of why the Khmer Rouge meticulously documented their activities, Adam argues that "obsessive documenting allowed them to reassure themselves that all measures had been taken to cleanse the country" and they documented to "defend their ideology."[21]

Chum Mey, one of twelve known survivors from the Tuol Sleng prison, at Toul Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh, 2010.

In May 2009, The Phnom Pehn Post reported that an agreement had been signed between Cambodia and Japan for a ‘Peace Museum' Cooperation Project that would ensure the ongoing preservation of the Tuol Sleng prison centre and archives.[22] Under the agreement, museum staff would receive preservation training and resources. Cambodia's Deputy Minister of Culture, Chuch Phoeurn, was quoted as stating that, "This is very useful because Tuol Sleng has key documents [from the regime], but we do not have tools to preserve them."[23] Also in 2009, the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum Archives were included in the UNESCO Memory of the World Register, a program to protect valuable documentary heritage from neglect, deterioration and destruction. The entry states that the archives contain photographs of 5,000 of the estimated 15,000 prisoners held, tortured and/or executed at Tuol Sleng, as well as biographical records of prisoners and prison staff and "confessions" extracted under torture.[24]

In another article on the Tuol Sleng archives, The Phnom Pehn Post explored the issue of the ownership of photographs taken by Khmer Rouge photographers.[25] According to the article, the museum provides copies of photographs to relatives of S-21 prisoners. The issues of ownership, copyright and the display of images are an ongoing site of contention, not between survivors and the museum, but between the museum and American photographers Doug Niven and Chris RIley. In 1993, Niven and Riley organized the preservation of Tuol Sleng's original negatives and made 6,000 contact prints.[26] The photographs have since been used in touring exhibitions and were published in a book, The Killing Fields, edited by Niven. Critics of Niven and Riley's exhibition at MoMA cited the lack of contextual information for the images as problematic and stated that the exhibit "was almost like a tribute to Khmer Rouge photography skills."[27]

Efforts have been made to ensure the accessibility of the photographs. The Cambodian Genocide Program at Yale University "now displays all the available photos on its website to help Cambodians identify missing relatives and build up a database of information about the prison."[28]

Case Study: Al-Anfal Campaign

See also: Archives and Repatriation - The Iraqi Baath Party Records

Records containing evidence of the Anfal genocide committed against the Kurds by the Baath Party in the late 1980s were seized by Iraqi Kurds, the group targeted by the campaign, in an uprising following the Gulf War. Much has been written about the repatriation of the Anfal archives.[29]

The reliability of perpetrator archives as evidence

It is perhaps the greatest irony that archives created by perpetrators of genocide in the course of their activities can be used as legal evidence of their crimes. Archivist Bruce Montgomery stated that "archives meant to serve the powerful may serve to indict them for their crimes, no matter how much they may attempt to practice national amnesia through the destruction of evidence."[30] In cases where perpetrator archives were then destroyed or hidden at the end of conflict, the records cannot be relied upon to provide a complete and comprehensive image of the crime.

Survivor-Centered/Community Archives

Community archival principals have been effectively employed by archivists in the management of archives of trauma. The principles of participation, shared stewardship, multiplicity, archival activism, and reflexivity shift the focus to a survivor-centered approach.[31] Archivist Michelle Caswell, at the forefront of this approach, has argued that archivists should adopt community-based principles and engage with survivors, share stewardship of archives with the survivors and communities they document, and frame archives of trauma as tools for activism and justice.[32] Central to Caswell’s argument is the assertion that survivors should have control, or at least shared control, of these archives. Among other advantages from this approach, community archival principles ensure that archival endeavours arise from within communities rather than being imposed upon communities.[33]

Memory and Testimony

When extant, records of crimes against humanity act as witnesses, often giving voice to individuals who can no longer speak for themselves. In cases where evidence of war crimes has been deliberately destroyed, however, survivor testimonies have been used as evidence in judicial proceedings. Caswell questions the assumption of authority of records over survivor testimony and argues for the inclusion of survivor voices in archival spaces.[34]

Many archives of genocide, such as the Genocide Archive Rwanda, engage with survivors through oral history programs in order to preserve individual memories. The video holdings of the Genocide Archive of Rwanda include "testimonies of Genocide survivors and perpetrators, Gacaca Justice System court proceedings, and remembrance ceremonies." [35] Archival outreach and the continuation of survivor engagement programs are even more important as survivor populations age and pass away. As this happens, communities and later generations will increasingly rely on archives as keepers of memory.

Witness testimonies humanize records and provide a fuller picture of the experiences of survivors. In the following clip from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM), author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel speaks about eliminating genocide and the importance of testimony:

Activism and Education

Many archives (and museums) of genocide include education as part of their mandate and aim to encourage awareness of the factors that lead to genocide in order to prevent future genocides. For example, Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to Holocaust victims, states as its mission the following "four pillars of remembrance:"[36]

Case Study: Stories for Hope - Rwanda

In “Stories for Hope–Rwanda: a psychological–archival collaboration to promote healing and cultural continuity through intergenerational dialogue,” a case study advocating survivor-centered/community archives, David Wallace et al report on the results of a research project that joined psychology and archival theory in order to foster dialogue and post-genocide healing. This approach is particularly interesting as it advocates the inclusion of psychology in archival practice. The project paired youth with elders (genocide survivors) to discuss and share questions and personal testimonies of the past. [37] The researchers advocate the application of their approach in other post-genocide communities as a method of breaking the silence surrounding traumatic past events and ensuring that youth are able to engage with the past and gain hope for the future. [38] The community-based intergenerational approach was successful in minimizing re-traumatization of survivors while recalling the traumatic events of the genocide.

International Criminal Justice and Reconciliation

Case Study: Khmer Rouge Tribunal

Nuon Chea, right hand man of Pol Pot, 5 December 2011

A tribunal operated by the United Nations and the Royal Government of Cambodia was established in 1997 to hold Khmer Rouge leaders accountable for crimes against humanity. The former head of Tuol Sleng was the first of five defendants to be brought to trial.[39] Records created by Khmer Rouge, preserved at the Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam) and the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum, comprised the physical evidence used in the trial. Despite the failings of the tribunal, archivist Michelle Caswell argues that the Khmer Rouge archives and the DC-Cam have fostered accountability, truth and memory and played a significant role in post-genocide recovery in Cambodia.[40]

Case Study: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

See also: Gacaca court

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established in 1994 to hold accountable individuals responsible for the Rwandan genocide.[41] Archivists Tom Adami and Martha Hunt call the record keeping practices employed by the ICTR "a multi-national inspired solution to the unique issues faced by this judicial institution."[42] Through the development of a legal records management training program for ICTR record-keepers, and by ensuring public access to the ICTR records, the ICTR was able to perform and facilitate activities related to catharsis, memory, teaching, and law simultaneously.[43] Adami and Hunt consider these practices part of the development of an international criminal justice archival theory and practice. Adami concludes that records created as part of the judicial process, and audiovisual archives created as part of the ICTR process in particular, have the potential to support reconciliation through access and outreach.[44] The ICTR Outreach Center in Kigali is "provided with copies of the audio and video recordings of the court sessions after they have been redacted."[45]

Srebrenica massacre memorial gravestones 2009

In 1998, the ICTR issued "the world’s first conviction for genocide in an international tribunal."[46]

Case Study: International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established in 1993. In gathering evidence, part of the activities included removing records and material remains from the custody of survivors for use in the tribunal. According to testimony given to anthropologist Hariz Halilovich, the ICTY destroyed records and material recovered from mass graves at Srebrenica without offering satisfactory explanation and justification to survivors and the families of victims.[47] Although the ICTY argued that the destruction of records and remains no longer of use in court proceedings was standard policy,[48] the act is reminiscent of the archival destruction that occurred during the war.

The term 'Bosnian Genocide' refers to the events at both Srebrenica and Žepa. As of April 8, 2015, the ICTY upheld the genocide conviction of Zdravko Tolimir, a former Bosnian Serb military commander, and confirmed that "the Bosnian Muslims of Žepa were, along with the Muslims of Srebrenica and Eastern BiH, the victims of genocide."[49]

Partial List of Archives of Genocide

Genocidal Events

The following lists include genocidal events listed in the Dictionary of Genocide, written by genocide scholars Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop. [50] The lists are not comprehensive and do not include numerous genocides, massacres, and genocidal activities carried out against ethnic and religious groups throughout history.

According to Totten and Bartrop, genocide has also occurred (or is ongoing) in the following countries:

Related Wiki Pages

Further Reading

Kaye, David. “Archiving justice: conceptualizing the archives of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.” Archival Science 14, no. 3-4 (October 2014): 381-396.

Millar, Laura. "Touchstones: Considering the Relationship between Memory and Archives" Archivaria 61 (September 2006).

Montgomery, Bruce. "Returning Evidence to the Scene of the Crime: Why the Anfal Files Should be Repatriated to Iraqi Kurdistan" Archivaria 69 (May 2010).

Robinson, Geoffrey. “Break the rules, save the records: human rights archives and the search for justice in East Timor.” Archival Science 14, no. 3-4 (October 2014): 323-343.

Citations

  1. ↑ Excerpt from Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide (Harperperennial Library, May 2003.) Handout from CENES 303, taught by Roberta Kremer, UBC, Fall 2012.
  2. ↑ Ibid.
  3. ↑ Ibid.
  4. ↑ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998, http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm.
  5. ↑ Hariz Halilovich,“Reclaiming erased lives: archives, records and memories in post-war Bosnia and the Bosnian diaspora,” Archival Science 14, no. 3-4 (October 2014): 231.
  6. ↑ Halilovich, 232.
  7. ↑ Halilovich, 232.
  8. ↑ Halilovich, 234.
  9. ↑ Halilovich, 232.
  10. ↑ Halilovich, 224.
  11. ↑ Halilovich, 224
  12. ↑ Halilovich, 225
  13. ↑ Halilovich, 225
  14. ↑ Totten, Samuel, and Bartrop, Paul R., Dictionary of Genocide, Volumes 1-2, Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Press, 2007, accessed March 18, 2015, ProQuest ebrary, 369.
  15. ↑ Ibid.
  16. ↑ Ibid.
  17. ↑ Roberta Kremer, "The Last Days of Emanuel Ringelblum," handout from CENES 303, UBC, Fall 2012.
  18. ↑ Dictionary of Genocide, 369.
  19. ↑ Dawne Adam, "The Tuol Sleng Archives and the Cambodian Genocide," Archivaria 45 (January 1998): 6.
  20. ↑ Adam, 18.
  21. ↑ Adam, 18.
  22. ↑ Neth Pheaktra,"Japan agrees to help preserve Tuol Sleng prison archives," The Phnom Pehn Post, May 27, 2009, http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/japan-agrees-help-preserve-tuol-sleng-prison-archives.
  23. ↑ Ibid.
  24. ↑ Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum Archives, UNESCO Memory of the World, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registered-heritage-page-8/tuol-sleng-genocide-museum-archives/
  25. ↑ Patrick Falby, "Who owns the Tuol Sleng photos?," The Phnom Pehn Post, August 16, 2002, http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/who-owns-tuol-sleng-photos
  26. ↑ Ibid.
  27. ↑ Ibid.
  28. ↑ Ibid.
  29. ↑ Bruce Montgomery, "The Iraqi Secret Police Files: A Documentary Record of the Anfal Genocide," Archivaria 52 (February 2001): 68-99.
  30. ↑ Bruce Montgomery, "Fact-finding by human rights non-governmental organizations: challenges, strategies, and the shaping of archival evidence," Archivaria 58 (2004): 24
  31. ↑ Michelle Caswell, “Toward a survivor-centered approach to records documenting human rights abuse: lessons from community archives,” Archival Science 14, no. 3-4 (October 2014): 307.
  32. ↑ Ibid., 320.
  33. ↑ Ibid., 319.
  34. ↑ Halilovich, 235.
  35. ↑ "Welcome to Genocide Archive Rwanda," Genocide Archive Rwanda, accessed April 8, 2015, http://genocidearchiverwanda.org.rw/index.php/Welcome_to_Genocide_Archive_Rwanda
  36. ↑ "About," Yad Vashem, accessed April 9, 2015, http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/about/index.asp.
  37. ↑ David A. Wallace, Patricia Pasick, Zoe Berman, and Ella Weber, “Stories for Hope– Rwanda: a psychological–archival collaboration to promote healing and cultural continuity through intergenerational dialogue,” Archival Science 14, no. 3-4 (October 2014): 276.
  38. ↑ Wallace et al., 303.
  39. ↑ Michelle Caswell, “Khmer Rouge archives: accountability, truth, and memory in Cambodia,” Archival Science 10, no. 1 (March 2010): 26.
  40. ↑ Ibid.
  41. ↑ Tom A. Adami and Martha Hunt, "Genocidal Archives: The African Context-Genocide in Rwanda," Journal of the Society of Archivists 26, no. 1 (2005): 107
  42. ↑ Ibid., 105
  43. ↑ Ibid., 118
  44. ↑ Tom A. Adami, “‘Who will be left to tell the tale?’ Recordkeeping and international criminal jurisprudence,” Archival Science 7, no. 3 (September 2007): 219
  45. ↑ Ibid.
  46. ↑ "Genocide Timeline," United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, accessed April 9, 2015, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007095.
  47. ↑ Halilovich, 242.
  48. ↑ Halilovich, 242.
  49. ↑ UN ICTY, "Press Release: Appeals Chamber upholds Tolimir's convictions for genocide and unanimously upholds life sentence," accessed April 10, 2015, http://www.icty.org/sid/11643.
  50. ↑ Totten, Samuel, and Bartrop, Paul R.. Dictionary of Genocide, Volumes 1-2. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Press, 2007. Accessed March 18, 2015. ProQuest ebrary.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:ARST573/Archives_and_Genocide&oldid=365355"