So Chile just elected a far-right President, and when I mean far-right I mean someone whose immigrant father was an actual lieutenant of the Wehrmacht and Nazi party during World War II. The icing on the cake is not only that his brother held 2 government positions during the Pinochet military dictatorship but that he also expressed a positive assessment of the latter and supported the option to extend Pinochet's rule for eight more years during the 1988 Chilean national plebiscite electoral space.
It seems historical AMNESIA is the rule of the day everywhere in the world.
Shame on you Chile! I fear for the lives of the indigenous population and LGTBQI people.
Historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon not only because it undermines moral and intellectual integrity but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead.
Monster is a story with a very specific setting. Or rather, at least, if I can't always understand it within its narrative frame, I try and go and see what part of the spatiotemporal framework it occupies, in reality. And while the Cold war was a personal fascination for me, thorough my life (I am Ill informed and not knowledgeable, so fruitless passion or rather a mere fancy), I still find myself time to time arrested by this or that event. And to be upfront, while I have 0 capacity or qualifications to discuss it, I still want other more knowledgeable input.
What always seemed weird to me, in regards to the migrant workers/ guest workers, is the absence of mention, in east Germany, of north African workers. I assumed at the time, it might be just that they didn't have access. But it never fully made sense to me, because:
Around the 60 to 70, a socialist (especially post decolonization) and very Soviet leaning leadership was reigning. (Ofc not all, but most notably Algeria).
The georgraphical proximity (and the fact that as nascent countries with no caders or abundant elite (say doctors, surgeons, lawyers, highly specialized labour force etc...) would make at least the DDR/GDR a possible ground for collaboration (when international personnel was there and even Czeshoslovak for instance, was present in universities and schools).
The instinct, albeit still green, was slightly confirmed a bit later, by at least one if those 2 articles.
And while I don't want to specifically talk about the very direct impact of racism, I want to talk about something else, that I don't necessarily have the capacity to articulate yet, but plead for patience.
DDR/GDR historians speak of historical amnesia (and it's ramifications for it, differs for the east Germans, reparation and whatnot), I want to talk about the historical amnesia of minority groups across multitudes of contexts.
What is striking specifically to me about this is:
It was sort of burried news, (while the effect and scar was tangible), it got lost alongside the oral History / oral tradition heavy populaces, and lost in translation when it comes to these people and the Stasi documentation of them.
How their specific plight was buried and attributed to West infiltration (which isn't odd for the SED (ruling party) at the time), it still bears... noting.
How many of history was left out of footnotes and was just a gaping hole in the shape of the narratives?
How many stories, pain, injustices were lost to the passage of time because it was inconvenient to think about it, or it was unfitting of the categorization of the political retribution and correction and collective memory construction?
And no, I don't mean by that wanting to shame or attribute blame here, that's besides the point. It's not about the "oh of course it's racism" or such easy conclusions (I'm not denying it here) but I want to point to a broader phenomena of just .....not giving a fuck about certain voices in history because ....who cares lol? It's just some north Africans (and what's underlying there, and why those voices aren't given importance, regardless of opinion), and the underlying biases, and underlying localized / one track mind / one track localization when it comes to historical atrocities? Of course, I'm talking more about institutions here, not people, and I'm not discrediting the importance of starting by the most affected / obviously affected populations, in fact, this supports and consolidates those accounts.
If part of history is prevention, omition in itself is an act. Who do we permit to be cut off, to make our "herd immunity"? Who do we get to dispose of and unconsciously deem as unimportant?
And besides them, who else is getting lost? Who else doesn't get a say? Who else's story got put into a neat bow, while the wound still bleeds?
Course correction is never late, and while procedurally tedious, it gives, more than anything, a value to human voice and proof / tangible Message of: It's important, your voice and lifelihood is.
Of course the topic is way more complex and has many layers, I just want to point to one.
And with Algerian history specifially, (which I'm not knowledgeable about), it's in a lot of aspects systematically erased starting from narratives of "the country started in 1962", colonialism was civilizing as there was nothing before when:
There's buried histories / forgotten myths of:
Barbossa for example, Tyrkjaránið incident in Iceland in the 17th century, and much more. Where one civilization's history and reach, can be guestimated from outer to inner. Where we follow the traces of what's not known beyond name or not at all, to see its impact out. Of the 90s, where the whole nation adopted silence, to how it rippled further.
How the notion of identity, frought with having to establish itself in front of adversity, is also facing amnesia, much of it more structural than individual, or also.... The fact it's omitted out of the margines of existence of civil debate.
The fact that when something, a country, is deemed too other / too unfitting in form to be allowed any seat at any table to vocalize, that places where people still don't know how to voice it in a way that's understandable, translatable, legible, and at times given either one chance or none at all and preconceived as..... Too uncomfortable to be brought into writing, into the footnotes of History.
The elimination of any tangibility of substance strips identity, strips meaning, strips legibility and then what? Those same people whose markers you toss out, whose legibility is not allowed to form, whose "cellular marker" is not worth even interacting with, how can you expect a normally working cell when you don't allow it's differentiation? Then expect a whole ass function when the form isn't even allowed to be? The structure deemed a waste? What then?
What do you expect beyond conflict, as much as a malformed cell enters? Or a cancer? When the process of erasure created it?
Because that's what's also terrifying about this whole thing. Not just marginalization. Omission, erasure, lack of interest, lack of fucks about damage, when it doesn't have the shape you want.
And I understand care and empathy is a very limited currency. But this is one investment that I think, gets back dividends because listening, sometimes validating, while difficult is the most liberating and affirming thing a person can offer another.
And it's a coarse topic because what an institution has to bear, what a researcher has to bear, what a regular person can, if they want, and can afford do, are all different matters.
And of course, I'm not saying all of this should be shouldered by the individiual. Immune system issues / dysregulation as a means of analogy, don't mean one confuses the whole apparatus for its cells and molecules. Just.... Fait attribution and at least working on those things.
I don't just want to point at one molecule here (like Algerians for instance), but I also wanted to point at the pattern, motif, issue of marginalization, through narrow scope, to at least be able to give a mental picture, even if small. I hope my words didn't betray me, as this is just a translation in my weakest communication tool: english.
I wanted to shine a small light on an issue, through 1 component. And I hope it could reach..
But all in all that's just my rookie opinion, and thanks for listening
This MyEUIResearch story shows how Jan Daniel Schuberts work on racist riots against Algerian migrant workers in former East Germany revived
1975 jagten Hunderte Deutsche algerische Arbeiter durch Erfurt. Jan Daniel Schubert ist Mitinitiator des ersten Gedenkens an die rassistisch
We all like to imagine ourselves as the good guys in history. It is fun to fantasize about holding the line at Harper’s Ferry or refusing to ratify our compromised Constitution. It’s also very easy. ...
'History is as complicated as people are,' Munden says. 'We don’t have to come from a place of ‘people are right or wrong,’ but rather from a place of what we learn from them about how we can behave differently.'
The ‘Safe Space’ Where America's History is Debated in Real Time - POLITICO
The progressive myth of history also makes for arrogance and condescension. I said that the notion of history as a kind of force that blows through human affairs is like something out of physics—but really, it’s like something out of Christianity. It is a secularized version of the Holy Spirit. “History is on our side” is a secularized version of “God is on our side.” “History will judge them” is an update of “God will judge them.” To believe in the Holy Spirit is to believe that it acts through—that it fills—some people but not others. To believe in “history,” in progress as a metaphysical principle, is to believe in the existence of a progressive class: the ones who push history forward, the ones who are filled with the future.
In other words, us. “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Which means that we have the right—the duty—to teach others how to live. How to speak, think, eat, spend, make love, raise their children, vote. You know how enraging evangelical preachers can be, how insulting it is to hear them talk about how sinful and benighted the secular are? That is how most people, including a lot of rank-and-file Democrats, feel about the self-anointed progressive class.
Complicate the narrative. Don't boil down history, and historical figures, to saints and sinners. Be open to being wrong. Regularly revisit all the things you think are so obviously true you take them for granted.
For many, yours truly included, “I forgot,” is one of the most insincere and overused excuses when we are caught not having done something we said we would do. I confess that, even when it’s true, and betimes meant as a justification, it does not excuse the negligence it is meant to justify.
As I am often reminded, what it really amounts to is, however not consciously intended to be so, an act…
