Империя и нация в зеркале исторической памяти: Сборник статей
Long shadow of the past (in the words of Aleida Assmann) darken the present, affecting our views, values, behavior. Cultural memory intertwined with social memory (for example, generational memory) being both stable and dynamic, is significant for societal life as a whole. Commemoration, as a part of the politics of history, has an impact on cultural memory, bringing to life some remembrances and erasing those which might be deemed uncomfortable or even “useless” for those caught up in the politics of history. This article examines the visualization of memory and of forgetting the Revolution of 1917 in one of the most popular Soviet weekly illustrated magazines - Ogonek, applying the concepts of cultural memory and social memory to the politics of history and commemoration. Photographs played an important role in the magazine, translating and transmitting the reigning ideology but also reflecting the search for artistic methods as well as the specifics of social consciousness at the time. How were photos used in commemorations of the Revolution of 1917? What visual image of the Revolution was constructed and how did it evolve from the 1920s to the 1990s? How did the memorialization (or “mummification”) of the Revolution manifest itself in the photographs published in Ogonek, transforming the “lived” memory into a mythological and “alien” past? This article shows the visual evolution of the memory of the Revolution into an anniversary celebration by which the past was to be replaced by the “Present” and “Future” and how photography was used to eliminate the “shadows of the past”.
The book deals with a national identity of Russians in a context of their historical memory. Different forms and layers of collective identities, factors of ethnocultural development of Russia are considered. The multicultural and multiethnic composition of Russia is emphasized and specified.
The article highlights the results of field research conducted in Tanzania in August-September 2018, focused on historical memory about Arab slave trade in East Africa and Indian Ocean in the 19-th century and its influence on modern-day interethnic relations in the country.
The article analyzes the evidence of the extremal tourists about their visit in the late 1980s-1990s the so-called "Dead Road". Based on the reports of the expeditions visiting the remains of the railway and GULAG camps, the article investigate’s reasons for the interest of tourists to these objects, their perception of material evidence of repression, knowledge of the latter and attitudes towards them.
The article is devoted to the history of the formation of museums in the places of the former Gulag camps in the Perm region, primarily the "Memorial complex of the history of political repressions" in Kuchino village, better known as "Perm-36". The conditions of its creation and conflicts around the museum are considered, continuing until the change of its leadership in 2013. Drawing on the experience of working with the "negative heritage" in Europe after World War II, the article demonstrates the features of preserving and using such resources in Russia by the example of the Perm region, where were preserved the remains of the former Gulag camps. Unlike Germany and Poland, where the places of former Nazi concentration camps were turned into museums and memorial complexes as early as the late 1940s, Russia began to work with the legacy of the Gulag only after the collapse of USSR. In post-Soviet Russia, Stalinist camps are almost not preserved: most of them have collapsed from time, and the surviving buildings are most often at a distance from populated areas, especially in the north and north-east of Siberia. The main emphasis is the role played by former prisoners, guards and historians in creating museums. The article traces the differences in the perception of Stalinist repressions among the participants in the process of memorialization. So, in response to the creation in 1994 of the memorial complex "Perm-36" on the site of the former Gulag camp, where the Stalinist repressions and the Gulag were shown from the standpoint of the victims, on May 9, 1998, on the site of another previous camp in the village of Tsentralny was established another museum, its exposition tells the story of the correctional institutions and the camp schedule from the point of view of personnel and employees of the state correctional system. Prisoners in it are considered exclusively as criminals, regardless of the article on which they were convicted. Despite the fact that "Perm-36" in its structure is an analogue of the memorial museums on the sites of the former concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the approaches and conditions for its creation were completely different. In Europe, most of the former camps were restored and museumed at the expense of the Ministry of Culture of Germany, Poland and other countries where the concentration camps were located, while in Russia these were private proposals from below. This leads to the fact that the "different memories" of people about the Soviet camps of the Gulag system are represented differently in museums, reflecting opposing views and assessing the events of that time.
Analyzed the transformation of the mechanisms of formation of historical memory and commemorations at the change of rationality types / models of science. The problem is considered in the context of source studies of historiography and the study of narrative. Hypothesis: for the classical model of historical science peculiar to the meta-narration and coupled with the hierarchical structure of narratives, that forms the basis of “natural” commemorations; for non-classical science in the history of history is a landmark occurrence that contributes to the destruction of the “natural” commemorations, in postnonclassical science problematization of narrative is accompanied by destruction of the commemorations, which a new construction begins in a situation of postpostmodern and is accompanied by a process of renarration.
The chapter by Dmitri Bondarenko, is on the role of historical memory in shaping the relations between African Americans – descendants of slaves forcibly brought from Africa to America centuries ago – and first-generation African immigrants in the USA. Basing on the first-hand evidence from the filed, the author argues that they do not form a single ‘black community’ and that among the reasons explaining this disunity, an important part is played by the different reflection of the past in their historical memory. Most African Americans and African migrants do not have an integral vision of history – of their own history and even more so of each other’s. Their historical consciousness is discrete: there is no history as a process in it, but there are several isolated bright topoi – the most important events. Although all these topoi are directly or indirectly related to the socio-political and spiritual resistance of black people to the whites’ exploitation in or outside Africa, they can be different or be of different importance to African Americans and Africans. There is no concept of ‘black history’ as common history of all the people whose roots are in Africa in the minds of most African Americans and African migrants, especially poorly educated. Bondarenko shows that the key events in African American and African history (namely, the pre-slave trade and pre-colonial period in Africa, transatlantic slave trade, slavery and its abolition in the USA, colonialism and anticolonial struggle in Africa, the civil rights movement in the USA, and the struggle against apartheid in South Africa) are reflected differently and occupy different places in the historical memory and collective consciousness of African Americans and contemporary African migrants to the USA. To some extent, visions of the past promote Africans and African Americans’ rapprochement as victims of long-lasting white domination. However, a deeper analysis shows how the collective historical memory of both groups works more in the direction of separating them by generating and supporting contradictory and even negative images of each other. In general, the relations between African Americans and recent African migrants are characterized by simultaneous mutual attraction and repulsion. Among all ethnoracial communities in the country, the two groups (and also African Caribbeans) consider themselves as the closest to each other; nevertheless, myriads of differences cause mutual repulsion.