CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
21
Remember Forget
Debate Score:45
Arguments:49
Total Votes:47
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Remember (22)
 
 Forget (18)

Debate Creator

tafadzwa(18) pic



Remembering v Forgetting! How can a society achieve reconciliation?

DEBATE ONLY OPEN TO MTJ STUDENTS GENEVA ACADEMY

When a society is torn apart by years of conflict or under the rule of a repressive regime, one of the challenges it faces is achieving reconciliation. How it collectively narrates and commemorates that painful past will play an essential role in the society’s path towards a peaceful and inclusive future –or the recurrence of confrontation and violence.

Victims of human rights abuses cannot forget. Memorials and acts of collective remembrance can demonstrate that a community is honestly and thoroughly reckoning with the past. These perennial reminders aim to restore the dignity of the victims who suffered serious violations and prevent atrocities from happening again. On the other hand, after periods of war or repression, many countries opt to bury the past for the sake of peace, arguing that remembering would only reopen old wounds.

Remember

Side Score: 24
VS.

Forget

Side Score: 21
3 points

In 1964, the president of Brazil was Joao Goulart, populist, known by his welfare policies and support to the working class. Elites, fearing that Brazil would become another Cuba, took to the streets in protest against the government. They advocated free market economy, and believed that this would Just be possible through military intervention.

The result was military dictatorship. During the years 1964-1985, Brazil was governed by the military force, who imposed violence and repression on citizens, kidnapping, disappearances, torture, deaths and exiles.

Today, 33 years later, Brazil faces a similar situation. The party that has been in power in the last years, also known by pro-worker and welfare policies, does not please the elite. In addition, concerned about the high incidence of crimes and the “human rights” protecting the criminals, people have been taken the streets clamoring for military intervention in favor of national security.

The brazilian president-elect, Jair Bolsonaro (inauguration on 1/January/2019), supports this idea. According to him, Dictatorship was a very good Period, and is the only way to bring order to the country.

Most Brazilians defend the idea of "human rights for the right humans" (or human rights only for non-criminals). Because they do not have in mind what really was the military dictatorship, they dont know that the concept of "right" and "criminal" varies according to the time and with who is in Power. They are not aware of the fact that, in the future, this concepts might change and address them as “criminals”.

History is currently repeating itself in Brazil. What happens today has happened in the past, in the pre-dictatorship period. I am sure that this only happens because there is a “general ignorance” regarding what the dictatorship was. Although transitional justice mechanisms have been adopted, including the establishment of a truth commission, the reality is that only the people who were alive at the time, or those who really like to study history, know what the military dictatorship was. For most people, however, dictatorship was a good and orderly period. Education has failed, and the new generations, unfortunately, support the idea that the military regime should return.

It is impossible to predict what will happen in the country from 2019. Hopefully, atrocities will not happen again. However, due to these facts, my opinion is that the only way to prevent atrocities from happening again in the future is to remember what happened in the past.

If Brazilians remembered the atrocities that were committed in the dictatorship, they would not have elected a president who supports the military regime and would not run the risk of suffering it all again.

Side: Remember
1 point

Maya, I'm not part of the debate, but I just wanted to say that's a great post.

Side: Remember
tafadzwa(18) Clarified
1 point

Mayara do you think remembering alone would have prevented what you term a repeat of history? Is there no need for us to look beyond memory to actually address the socio-economic and political factors that lead to the rise of dictatorship? You also highlight how history is repeating itself notwithstanding the fact that a truth commission was established, what then is the value of remembering, has this all not been futile?

"The brazilian president-elect, Jair Bolsonaro (inauguration on 1/January/2019), supports this idea. According to him, Dictatorship was a very good Period" : doesnt this point to the danger of remembering, especially when the president-elect is referring to history in order to drum up support for himself?

Side: Remember
Yasamin_Ka(3) Disputed
3 points

In agreement with what Mayara said about Brazil (which I found very interesting), I also want to share our experience in Iran in this regard.

Of course there are also socio-economic factors which drive people to vote for populists, but not having a historical memory as a nation also contributes to it.

In Iran case, after 40 years of a theocratic authoritarian regime, people again are leaning towards a 'good dictatorship', as some people call the previous dictatorship of Iran (Pahlavi dynasty), forgetting that it was years of repression in those years that lead into 1979 revolution in Iran.

I entirely understand Iranians who are tired of any reform in Iran and affiliate even with their previous repressive regime to get rid of the current one!

However, I do believe if the peacful revolution in Iran had not been not stolen by radicals and we could have had a transition in which not all other parties were eliminated, and if we have had a trustworthy government after revolution which could operate a truth-seeking program, now pro-monarchists could not take advantage of the current situation in Iran to create a false narrative of the previous regime, and the notion of 'good dictatorship' could not attract these many people again.

So I do believe in remembering. My problem is on how to create an objective narrative in complex situation of a transition which not results into another circle of tension and conflict.

(p.s. The irony in Iran case: remembering the atrocities of the previous regime have always been an important mandate for the current regime. However, as the regime is not trusted by people and they don't believe in this narrative, the remembrance does not help in this case for not repeating the past. Which again raises the question of an objective trusted narrative.)

Side: Forget
Lindsey_Nong(3) Clarified
1 point

I think the point you are raising here is the exact notion of "intentionally selective truth" or partial truth, which I find very toxic and have great manipulative power to shape how people should perceive an event or an incident.

I suppose this phenomenon has happened in the whole history and in almost all regimes -be it democratic, liberal, socialist, communist or authoritarian- as governments, people in power, victors always try to create their narratives and legitimize them not by distorting the fact, but rather trying to hide most of the facts, and only reveal those that are beneficial for their reputation, or that help reinforce their power.

After all, can we ever create a "truth" that is objective, neutral and free from creeping politicisation?

Side: Remember
mayarapetry(3) Clarified
1 point

The problem in Brazil is: there is no forgetting about the existence of the dictatorship, but on its content. It is a sort of “partial remembering”.

I would even go as far as to say that, perhaps, the question is not forgetfulness, (because it only forgets those who one day remembered), but ignorance/lack of knowledge (due to failure in education/communication).

At the time of the military dictatorship, technology was almost non-existent, and the atrocities were not widely publicized. Only those who suffered and their relatives knew how it really was. Over time, the atrocities were forgotten. Brazil, unlike other countries in South America, has never fully investigated the crimes, perhaps due to the pressure exerted by the military (even after the re-establishment of democracy). Just a few records of the atrocities committed came to the public. Most of the records of atrocities committed have been destroyed, and those that have not been, remain in secrecy. In addition, there is no significant public pressure to deal with the past. The president-elected, Jair Bolsonaro, when asked about it, stated that "There is no more file. This is a wound that has to be healed. Forget it, that's it from now on. I will not open anything. I do not know these files, the papers are gone. "

For this reason, many people have a distorted view of the dictatorship. Some of them believe that the dictatorship existed, but also believe that it was not so bad, and only “conventional perpetrators” (murderers, robbers...) were tortured. There are others who believe that the dictatorship existed, but was a “necessary evil”, and that as long as you “walk in the line”, you won’t suffer the consequences. And, finally, there are people who have taken advantage of the military dictatorship, especially the military and their families.

Jair Bolsonaro is a career military man. In general, the military, until today, defend the military dictatorship by saying that “it was necessary”. His approach to military dictatorship is sometimes seductive, since he argues that, in this scenario, the country would be totally safe and free from violence (which is a big problem in Brazil).

I believe that "remembering", in order to be effective and avoid repetition of atrocities in the future, must be complete. Otherwise, by remembering only the "good points" / forgetting the negative points, the society might be nostalgic in the future.

Side: Remember
1 point

Nothing can be resolved without remembering. Healing cannot begin without an acknowledgment (remembering) of the past. And you can't force someone to forget....

Side: Remember
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

What do you mean by healing? Is this reconciliation? Is it then empirical that once there is remembering of the past there is healing/reconciliation? Is it also not possible to acknowledge the past and then still make a conscious decision to forget?(see the following online article

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/01/06/turning-away-from-painful-chapters/forgetting-in-order-to-move-on) )

Supporting Evidence: Forgetting in Spain (www.nytimes.com)
Side: Forget
Agustina(3) Disputed
1 point

The act of forgetting is the act of telling certain history. When we decide to forget part of the history, we decide also what remember. We decide to silence certain voices and experiences. With that act of violence, we are choosing to maintain certain wounds opened but silenced, ignored. In that context, the aim of not re-opening wounds could be restated as the aim of allowing certain people to live in “peace”. Characterizing as peace or democracy a situation where part of the society is condemned to amnesia would be based on (at least) narrow understandings of “peace” and “democracy”.

In fact, the article “Forgetting, in Order to Move On” shows that. Why should victims accept such a decision of being eliminated of the official history? Which is the value of the decision of forget adopted in such circumstances and for such actors? Even in the democratic setting, we could require certain qualities for a decision to be valid. In the case of the article, we could question the decision-making process. The decision of forgetting is upheld because actors involved in the abuses are still empowered. In contrast, others, particularly the main affected by the decision of forgetting have not had serious participation in the decision-making to express their reasons for remembering.

In the same vein, when people have not access to certain part of their own history, they cannot make informed decisions about their present and future. Democracy and “the rule of law” would be again undermined.

---

I would like to share an interesting quote of an Uruguayan writer:

Eduardo Galeano, Memorias del fuego (Memories of fire), Umbral. “Yo fui un pésimo estudiante de historia. Las clases de historia eran como visitas al Museo de Cera o a la Región de los Muertos. El pasado estaba quieto, hueco, mudo. Nos enseñaban el tiempo pasado para que nos resignáramos, conciencias vaciadas, al tiempo presente: no para hacer la historia, que ya estaba hecha, sino para aceptarla. La pobre historia había dejado de respirar: traicionada en los textos académicos, mentida en las aulas, dormida en los discursos de efemérides, la habían encarcelado en los museos y la habían sepultado, con ofrendas florales, bajo el bronce de las estatuas y el mármol de los monumentos. A lo largo de los siglos, América Latina no sólo ha sufrido el despojo del oro y de la plata, del salitre y del caucho, del cobre y del petróleo: también ha sufrido la usurpación de la memoria. Desde temprano ha sido condenada a la amnesia por quienes le han impedido ser. La historia oficial latinoamericana se reduce a un desfile militar de próceres con uniformes recién salidos de la tintorería. Yo no soy historiador. Soy un escritor que quisiera contribuir al rescate de la memoria secuestrada de toda América, pero sobre todo de América Latina, tierra despreciada y entrañable”.

Side: Remember
ChrisRmembrs(2) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, in order for healing and a moving forward to occur during a transitional justice period, remembering, such as in the context of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or a memorialization project, must be accompanied by measures that promote healing and help victims to forgive, if not forget. For example, Archbishop Tutu, who was as we know a member of South Africa's TRC, prescribed a process for healing from atrocities in his book - The Book of Forgiving: The Four-Fold Path of Healing for Ourselves and our World: 1) admitting the wrong and acknowledging the harm, 2) telling one's story and witnessing the anguish, 3) asking for forgiveness and granting forgiveness, 4) renewing or releasing the relationship. This prescription is about remembering and forgiving, not forgetting. How can someone forget the types of traumas that people in South Africa were subjected to under apartheid? The healthiest and most psychologically holistic path leads to forgiveness which can allow someone to at least not have every day tainted by the memory of the harm.

Side: Remember
1 point

According to Nelke Doorn, the notion of reconciliation could be understood as the ultimate goal in a transitional justice process, that aims to restore and, in some cases, build a relationship of trust (Doorn, 2008: 291). In my opinion, that definition of reconciliation could be related to the notion of justice from a restorative approach and, in that sense, the historical memory of a certain episode could be useful to understand the reasons behind the conducts of perpetrators, in order reintegrate them into the society and allow them to co-exist with their victims in the future. Theoretically, and depending on contextual circumstances, the restorative justice approach would be better than the punitive approach, to avoid a conflict or a dictatorship to start again.

Bearing that in mind, "remembering" should not constitute an obstacle to obtain peace and reconciliation, since it won't be used with a purpose of vengeance or as a way to express resentment and perpetuate hates. Conversely, as Tzvetan Todorov states, the memory of the past should help us to "ask ourselves about the reasons that gave rise to the evil" (Todorov, 2009: 448) and look for the moral well-being of the community, through helping the criminals to improve their behavior. In that way, the resort to memory musn't be used to "build an impassable wall" (Todorov, 2009: 448) between victims and perpetrators, but to help them to live side by side.

---

Nelke Doorn, ‘Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Transitional Justice Practices’, 15:3 Ethical Perspectives (2008), 381–398.

Todorov Tzvetan, "Memory as Remedy for Evil", Journal of International Criminal Justice 7 (2009). 447-462.

Side: Remember
1 point

If we consider the concept of 'community of memory' developed by Margalit (2002), we see that this latter can both derive from/overlap with the broader 'national community’ - which is the overall beneficiary of governmental policies of memorialization. Alternatively, a ‘community of memory’ can shape national policies of remembrance and it can be at the source of governmental strategies of memorialization. A ‘community of memory’ constructs herself around a given event to be remembered and can be composed of, for instance, a group of victims and their relatives.

Different and opposing 'communities of memory’ may emerge in the same national context: what is meaningful to remember for some groups can be outrageous or considered as to must be forgotten by others. When there is no consensus on the policies of remembrance adopted at the national level, different positions may emerge in relation to the significance and the prioritization to be attributed to the remembrance of an event over another.

Different readings of the history of the past may emerge. When these alternative readings base themselves on dichotomic visions of the past - where “enemies”, “allies”, “heroes" and “evils” are identified and associated with groups or parties to a conflict, for instance -, they may engender radical and rooted societal divisions in the present so to exacerbate political discourses, radicalize feelings and sentiments of belonging to the ’national community’ or to a specific ‘community of memory’. Thus, policies of memorialization can be a driver of further division inside a society.

Considering the delicate and complex nature of remembering, Todorov (2009) suggests to build our remembering efforts on the awareness of the non-automatic character of the attribution of the category of “evil” to a given 'otherness’. Thus, the author argues that it is important to investigate the root causes of contested deeds: this allows to take into account men and women for their actions, which have to be contextualized and understood in a critical way. In this sense, the actors are not to be labeled in relation to the dichotomy “evil” / “good” in an abstract and fixed way. Each human can be “evil” and “hero” in his essence and in relation to the possibilities and choices that he has to deal with.

The awareness of the vulnerable and fragile character of the activity of remembrance requires the readiness to interpret our own stories, belongings, and essence as multiple in their nature. This kind of personal awareness is the unique possible critical and reflexive attitude that can inspire the co-construction of policies of remembrance which may pretend to ‘reconciliate’ opposing visions of the past.

Sources:

Avishai Margalit, The Ethics of Memory, Harvard University Press, 2002

Tzvetan Todorov, Memory as Remedy for Evil, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press, 2009

Side: Remember
1 point

I have chosen to support the remember position because I believe it is not possible to completely erase what it has happened in the past. Indeed, even though the willingness to forget comes from the victim himself, a number of scientific researches have proven that traumatic memories indelebly mark people's brain (https://www.focus.it/comportamento/psicologia/ricordi-traumatici-traccia-indelebile-nella-memoria). Which therefore means that deliberately ignoring traumatic events from the past is equivalent to lying to oneself and to the surrounding community.

Instead, also according to the psychoanalytical approach, facing one's memories often leads to a series of beneficial results - in primis to the catharsis of the more directly involved subject, but also of the social framework within which he lives and interacts.

Side: Remember
1 point

Since the magnitude of violence committed during the conflict or authoritarian regime is too huge and it could be too painful for victims to remember what they suffered, forgetting seems like the way for victims and society to move on.

But does willful forgetting genuinely lead to harmonious society? The past scars linger around victims and the society as a whole.

Forgetting means denial of moral significance the victims have, failing to recognise them as an equal rights-bearer. It would deliver wrongful and damaging message that victims' suffering doesn't matter by reinforcing victims' 'inferiority'.

On the other hand, memorialisation is a way of showing respect to individuals who were wronged by keeping victims suffering from fading from the public consciousness (Blustein, 2014). Remembering can rehumanise the victims as it acknowledges that they were wrongfully treated. It can dignify even the deceased.

Also, collective remembering can have deterrent effect. By reminding the public of wrongful past, it can demonstrate commitment that the society will not allow abhorrent events to happen again.

Side: Remember
1 point

12 000 missing people from in the conflict in Balkan …

I believe that when we say ‘let forget and move forward’ means that we have failed to accomplish one of the tools of the ‘right to know’ for the families of missing persons. For them the conflict doesn’t end if the bodies of their loved ones are not found, or an answer for their fate is missing. Is doing so we produce hate and reconciliation is then far away for people with different ethnic background to live in the same place they once lived before the conflict.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2017/aug/30/day-of-the-disappeared-remembering-victims-of-the-bosnian-war-in-pictures

Side: Remember
1 point

When arguing in favour for remembering, I believe that there is a need for an holistic approach in order to enhance the practice of creating an inclusive collective narrative that will narrow rather than increase the division created during a conflict. However, reaching a consensus on this collective memory where everyone feels heard might lead to complications as seen during the TRC of South Africa where prioritisation of different narratives (such as personal narrative, empirical data) lead to an incomplete or unequal collective memory, according to those who feel excluded or can not relate . I believe that symbolic gestures can be a valuable contribution to creating this national (inclusive) movement of transcending towards a unified collective memory, which is crucial for sustainable nation building practises in post conflict situations. These symbolic gestures, i.e. monuments, public spaces etc, can help construct the collective condemnation of all passed atrocities and the conflict as a whole, without it being exclusive as long as these gestures are accessible and relatable to everyone.

Side: Remember
1 point

Other than right-based arguments, I believe by forgetting we would only drag the tension between contender groups of society to the future, and it would bring about another conflict or suppression in the future. We need to address the hostility to find a solution for that.

Side: Remember
1 point

To remember is an integral part of a society's quest to achieve reconciliation. Memory within transitional justice invites us to confront the past with a view to securing the present and shaping the future; consider former Justice Albie Sachs's reflection on the South African Constitution:

".....The Constitution's been called a bridge from the past to the future but it could also be seen as an archive, an archive of history up to a certain moment, organised in a certain way, to ensure that all that's valuable in the past can be retained and used as a basis for preventing repetition of the pain, the hardship, the injustice'". - As derived from Sachs, Albie. We, the People: Insights of an Activist Judge. NYU Press, 2016.p.98

Side: Remember
1 point

As most of the important merits of remembrance have been covered, I want to raise here two arguments about how we should remember.

First, I contend that the "right to truth" is the right to challenge and contest the existing "official truth". Drawing on experience from my country, for instance, the government creates one single narrative about the Vietnam war - ie our victimhood, how immoral the war was, how victorious and mighty the current government has always been at all times, through all kinds of platforms, history textbooks (from primary school to university!), museums and old detention centres to the media, without leaving any room at all for public dissent. As different groups in the society are not allowed to voice how they perceive the past, this "one single narrative" policy risks creating doubts and skeptics, and even leads to the denial of the "official truth" imposed by the authority. Put in a bigger picture, for truth to gather momentum within the society, and truly serve to build (or rebuild) civic trust, it must be constructed by the whole community, not just a body of experts, scholars, historians, and imposed from above.

(If you are interested in seeing how a single story may create preconceptions and biased perceptions, watch the video I attach below).

The second argument I want to make here is the importance of not only how we should remember our own story, but also how our "enemies", the offenders should remember what they did to us. This inspiring story of a UK-funded memorial to commemorate Kenyans killed and tortured by British forces during the Mau Mau uprising in the 1950s strongly depicts that. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34231890

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-kenya-shared-history-recognition-and- reconciliation

It is, in my opinion, the highest level of recognition of and respect to victims' dignity, it creates a great window of opportunity for both to reconcile, rebuild their relationship and move forward. To quote Dr. Christian Turner CMG: "although we should never forget history and indeed must always seek to learn from it, we should also look to the future, strengthening a relationship that will promote the security and prosperity of both our nations".

Supporting Evidence: The danger of a single story (www.ted.com)
Side: Remember
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

To those advocating for remembering, I have the following questions: Is remembering a virtue or a choice? Are you saying we should remember because it is the "right" thing to do? If so, on what basis do you make such an ethical argument ? On the contary if you concede that remembering is a choice, then this means as with any choice a decision (which can vary from context to context; case to case, and situation to situation) should be arrived at following a value judgement. This however still poses questions as to who makes the decision and on what basis is this decision made?

Side: Forget
Tashacg(1) Clarified
1 point

As a last minute contributor, and someone on the remembering side, I want to address these new questions.

Is remembering a virtue or a choice? Remembering occurs naturally and passively on the individual level, as does forgetting. However, in the context of this discussion "forgetting” (history) suggests an active repression of information. A lack ofacknowledgmentt on behalf of a state or society does not translate to forgetting for victims, those who witnessed the events, or even those who chose to “forget”. Forgetting as a form of silencing is extremely active. It is rewriting and revising history in a purposefully deceptive manner. While remembering is perhaps not virtuous or morally superior to genuine forgetting over the passage of time, I do believe that remembering is morally superior to the repression of information and misinformation. Labeling an active process of revising history as forgetting is deeply flawed and misleading. It begs the question, why? Who is benefitting from this forgetting and who is getting hurt? While there may be many truths in this post modern world, isn’t a concerted effort to hide “the truth” still wrong?

More generally speaking, a common argument on the remember side is, broadly speaking, remembering could help us not repeat mistakes from the past. Of course, many factors, can contribute to similar events repeating themselves, even if a society remembers their history. Remembering alone cannot make up for all current factors informing a society’s movement and choices, but it is a powerful tool. We can recognize patterns, analyze risk, and make choices to improve current conditions using what we know of the past. This does not guarantee success, but the alternative is bleak. Imagine trying to make choices in a society where you had little to no knowledge of your history or events elsewhere. How do you begin making choices? The accumulative knowledge and lessons learned through trial and error are lost.

However, I recognize a powerful argument on the forgetting side when we consider cases where deep intergenerational memories have lead to seemingly unending conflict. I could see, in specific cases, true forgetting as an understandable response to this type of situation. However, how do you truly create forgetting? Even if it may theoretically aid reconciliation, is it possible? When memory is so engrained in the culture and history, what does a policy of forgetfulness look like? Could this process look ethical, protect free speech, and acknowledge victims’ rights?

Side: Remember
ValeriaReyes(3) Clarified
1 point

In my opinion, remembering in the context of mass human rights violations would be a virtue, and would be related to the recognition of victims pain and the necessity to restore their value of citizens within a society. It can be said that the "duty to remember" doesn't really exist and that it is a choice context-dependent, however, I believe that besides the particularities that each country/society/culture could have, mass atrocities represent violations against the whole humankind, and in that sense is possible to talk about general rules regarding memorialization.

Side: Remember
1 point

I would agree that remembering has an element of choice in as far as it is utilized in the endeavor of reshaping the relationship between the public and the state as an aspect of reconciliation. This is situated in the politics of memory which Brito (2010) describes as "the various ways that political elites, social groups and institutions reinterpret the past and the breakdown of civility and propagate new interpretative narratives about the ‘what happened’ to legitimate a new political dispensation and develop a new vision of the future for the polity." In this process, she makes reference to Mnemonic communities (such as Victims’ and ‘perpetrators’, political parties, trade unions or churches in the context of transitional justice) that socialize its members on what should be remembered and what should be forgotten. In my opinion, inherent in this is a contested space as each group possesses a 'cognitive bias' that will have a bearing on the pursuit of the narrative equilibrium described by Doorn (2008) as a key ingredient for reconciliation.

sources:

1) Alexandra Barahona de Brito (2010) Transitional Justice and Memory: Exploring Perspectives, South European Society and Politics, 15:3, 359-376, DOI: 10.1080/13608746.2010.513599

2) Nelke Doorn, ‘Forgiveness and Reconciliation in Transitional Justice Practices’, 15:3 Ethical Perspectives (2008), 381–398.

Side: Remember
1 point

I consider it is very conflicting to point out that remembering is a value with absolute aplication. If this were the case we would have to accept that a victim would be bound ethically to make efforts to remember. This approach ignores that not all people deal with the past in the same way. In short, it openly attacks the principle of freedom and diversity. And in a more serious way, it directly attacks the dignity of the victims. Taking away the agency to remember or not the past is to take away the ability to control that past and their own life project. To take away that control means to take away the condition of enlightenment (Kant) as well as the full exercise of citizenship. For that reason, I believe that remembering is a choice and is legitimate by the victim.

However, the previous approach supports the premise of the right to remember, as an individual. I think the difficulty appears when remembering is constructed as a public or merely collective experience. For example, this discussion is difficult if someone should contribute to the collective truth from his personal narrative. I think that the debate surfaces at this point. In this regard, it considers that the victims are full political subjects and as such, they are not only subjects of rights but also of duties. Their membership in a State Project makes them responsible as individual political subjects. In that case, if the reconstruction of historical memory benefits the common good only, the right to not remember from the victims perspective could be restricted.

Side: Remember
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

Luisa I think we need to be cautious about using the term "right" especially when its not clear whether we are referring to the existence of a justiciable fundamental right i.e. under International Human Rights Law or in the colloquial sense as a general 'claim'. In which of these contexts do you argue that there is a "right to remember" and what are the implications of formulating such an argument on the entitlements to the individual and the obligations of the state?

Side: Forget
0 points

Tafadzwa, thank you for encouraging me to be more precise. I understand your concern about using the term “right” to remember. Actually, I spoke in that way intentionally. First, from my point of view, rights exist even if we don’t give them a specific label. Just because a right does not have a known name it does not mean that right does not exist. In this case, when we are talking about remembering, I think we are facing the “establishment” of a new right that does not yet have a popularized name. I called that “nameless right” as the “right to remember”. Second, in practice, you can see the widespread of the recognition of the right to remember through by the judicial rulings or the political acts of the government. Although judges or politicians do not refer explicitly to right to remember, in practice, they are doing it. The public memorialization would be a proof of that recognition. Maybe the memorial practices have been carried out on behalf of other rights, as truth and guarantee of non-recurrence. But in the end, we are building a sort of distinct right, the “right to remember”. Actually, in strict sense, I do not consider remembering just as a part of the right to truth or of the guarantee of non- recurrence. According to Mendez, the right to truth can be described as a “State obligation to reveal to the victims and society everything known about the facts and circumstances of massive and systematic human rights violations of the past, including the identity of the perpetrators and instigators”. It does not necessarily include the memorial practices or maybe just in an extended perspective on the basis that telling the truth belongs not only to the disclosure ground but rather memorializing ground. In terms of “right to remember” as part of the guarantee of non- recurrence, I think that to remember is not a necessary means to achieve non- recurrence. For instance, if that were true, the Holocaust in the Second World War would have prevented the genocide in Rwanda. I put on the table those examples just for arguing that we are facing an emerging right, “the right to remember”. And currently, in practice, both victims as State are recognizing that remembrance expresses intrinsically valuable attitudes. That I why, I canvas, we are seeing several examples in which Governments are covering the victim's claims related to memorial practices. (This is an argument under construction, so I will happily receive all the feedback.)

Side: Forget
2 points

Even though I do not support the idea of "letting go of the past", I find that the emerging legal concept of the right to be forgotten may raise interesting debates among supporters and opponents of "remembering the past". It asserts that information (often on the Internet) on an individual should be suppressed if it affects the honor, dignity, reputation, or privacy of that person. Even though this right is still controversial, and not yet used by public persons such as politicians, to erase their misdeeds from the public consciousness, it raises an interesting question of whether or not the offender's rights and dignity should be respected, and to what extent. It has also been supported and endorsed by the European Court of Justice, some judges in Argentina, and data-protection regulators in several European countries.

Side: Forget
1 point

Very interesting point.

In some countries, life imprisonment was abolished (Brazil, Portugal, Croatia, Norway, Colombia, Venezuela). In this sense, and in order to get Rehabilitation/Reintegration (which is one of the purposes of punishment),

the right to oblivion is discussed. Considering that, in these places, there is no perpetual punishment, some argue that, after serving the whole sentence, the defendants have the right to be forgotten: not remain stigmatized in it for the rest of their lives.

Moreover, the Individualization of Punishment must be taken into account. In this sense, I would also add this excerpt from Martha Minow's book (Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, pag. 134): "Is the response to genocide or collective violence addressed by a successor regime or by members of the very regime that presided over the wrongs? How many members of the military and police force are still the same as when the atrocities occurred?".

Side: Forget
1 point

Despite being a common-used equation in the transitional justice narratives, Remembering v. Forgetting carries out an unfinished and imperfect formula in the debate on "how to deal with the past of Human Rights violations and serious crimes". It sheds light on one of the most relevant dialectic summoned by transitional justice: on the one hand, the urge to "deal with the past" marked by truth, acknowledgment, and remembrance of victims; on the other hand, the impulsive survival mechanism to ensure that "there is a future", a forthcoming and non-recurrent one. This dialectic underpins as well a division between those who calls for a duty to remember and those who see it as a vehicle to more resentment and rancor rather than peace and reconciliation.

In fact, how can we forget? And, at the same time, how can we live while remembering? As Amnesty International referred on the Letter "Suharto's human rights abuses should not be forgotten", 'forgetting is one thing, but we cannot simply forget the number of human rights violations committed in his name'. And, for the Transitional Justice purposes, what means "not forget"? It means "justice"? It means "truth"? It means "reconciliation"? Or it simply means "remembering"?And 'who decides whether to remember or forget'? Is remembering of a past of serious violations and abuses incompatible with reconciliation? It is a truly complex picture, I assume.

In Timor-Leste, for example, the dilemma is well-vivid, after more than 15 years of the country's independence. Despite the initials efforts to deal with the past through the innovative Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation, and through the Special Panel for Serious Crimes, the Timorese society seems to be now emerged in a new era symbolically expressed in a government slogan "Goodbye Conflict, Welcome Development" widely diffused by one of the nation more acclaimed leader Xanana Gusmão. The urge to remember is today resumed in a few symbolic actions centralized by the heiress institution of the CAVR (Centro Nacional Chega! da Memória à Esperança - Nacional Centre Chega! From Memory to Hope) and the narrative seems now to be focus on the development issues. Furthermore, impunity of the old perpretators has been replaced the old urges for accountability, reparations were exchanged by political aspirations centralised in the development program and victims wails were appeased by social benefits. The democratic rule of law seems to be functional, despite some basic concerns regarding the institutions maturity. The Timorese people seems to be in a "new wave" of prosperity and hope, emphasised in the recent "new deal", between Timor-Leste and Australia regarding the establishment of maritimes boundaries in the Timor Sea, under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, an intergovernmental organization based at The Hague, and witnessed by the high level UN representatives.

In the end, perhaps, the decision to be made is not about choosing to forget or to remember. The two elements seem to be the kind of ones that we can not renounce. Perhaps, the decision is about resilience, either to live while remembering, with eyes fixed in the past, or to live while forgetting, convalescing the wounds, with the eyes fixed in the future. It seems that for the Timorese people the future and hope is a means to reconciliation with the past and to the pathway to the guarantee the non-repetition of the past abuses.

Side: Forget
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

It is not clear which hypothesis you support Patricia, but either way proponents of forgetting are not denying the need to deal with the past, instead they are actually arguing that the best way to deal with the past is just to make a conscious effort to forget it, this is because collective memory can be poisoned to fuel conflict SEE David Reiff's book In Praise of Forgetting.

Side: Remember
pcoutinho(2) Clarified
1 point

Dear Tafadza, in my view, in transitional justice, forgetting is not necessarily the contrary of remembering. I strongly believe that serious and atrocious human rights violations are unforgettable and thus the remembrance is inevitable, in a powerful way, as a means to ensure non-repetition, whether for the victims or for the society, as a whole. For the former, it is unrealistic to think about any possible way to forget the past atrocities and for the last, it is a matter usually addressed by the political forces in power. It is precisely in the political dimension where the proposed question arises. It is not an individually targeted question, rather it is collective-centered. The question is about the emphasis (or the prioritization of remembering) that a society chose to put on the remembrance in order to deal with the past.

Side: Remember
1 point

Forgetting is a way for establishing political stability after a mass atrocity. Truth Reconciliation Commissions (TRC) are used as a transitional justice mechanisms for remembering, but it is short lived and in reality it can be a mechanisms for forgetting. For example few recommendations of the TRC in South Africa had been implemented and most of it had already been forgotten.

TRC in South Africa institutionalised forgetfulness and undermined the rule of law as it sacrificed meaningful justice in a foreshorten effort to move on and establish stability (Minow:1998, p.15). After Apartheid in SA, the nation moved towards democracy that needed to forge new relationships of trust and to establish a foundation for collective self-government. These goals however were at risk of being jeopardised by retrospective justice such as prosecutions and punishment. Instead prospective justice mechanisms such as forgiving and forgetting were implemented to move on (Minow:1998, p.14)

When there is no punishment for those responsible for mass crimes of dehumanisation and instead official grants of impunity or amnesty is given, does society generaly imply forgiveness or fear? (Minow:1998, p.16). Forgiveness therefore, may be interpreted as forgetting or putting aside the harm even when other victims may be willing to forgive in order to move on with moral prospects of peace and a somewhat stabilised liberal democracy (Minow:1998, p.16).

Side: Forget
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

The question though that still remains is that by forgetting is a society not only postponing the envitable..papering over the cracks...sweeping its problems under a very thin rug?Case in point, is South Africa, after the TRC policy of forgiveness and forgetting which you argue brought stabilility, the country still reels from societal inequalities that stem from the pervasive effects of apartheid which were never addressed by the TRC and to this day the ugly head of racial tensions continues to rock the dream of achieving a truly stable rainbow nation. The peace vs justice dichotomy is frowned upon by most scholars and is viewed as a "dangerous seduction" (See a Report by the Human Rights Watch entitled: ‘Seductions of ‘Sequencing’ The Risks of Putting Justice Aside for Peace”, March 18, 2011. Accessed at https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/03/18/seductions-sequencing) ) Does forgetting really lead to peace? By peace are you not just describing negative peace (Johan Galtung) i.e. the mere absence of violence? Is this what we call reconciliation?

Supporting Evidence: The dangerous seduction (www.hrw.org)
Side: Remember
1 point

Memory is always a battle!

In the Preface to Against Remembrance, Pablo de Greiff (UN Special Rapporteur) writes:

"People . . . of my class and interests, tend to spend far too much time bemoaning the indifferent ignorance that has become the default position of so many of their fellow citizens, above all the young, toward the past. We should be more careful what we wish for. The wars of the Yugoslav Succession were inflamed by remembrance—above all the Serb remembrance of the defeat at Kosovo Polje in 1389. In the hills of Bosnia, I learned to hate but above all to fear collective historical memory. In its appropriation of history, which had been my abiding passion and refuge since childhood, collective memory made history itself seem like nothing so much as an arsenal full of the weapons needed to keep wars going or peace tenuous and cold. What I saw after Bosnia in Rwanda, in Kosovo, in Israel-Palestine, and in Iraq, gave me no basis for changing my mind."

Side: Forget
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

If our concern is the future generations, then we are at a higher risk of relapsing into conflict by forgetting rather than remembering our history. In an attempt to enforce societal amnesia, we create the optimum conditions for radical elements to hijack, manipulate and weaponize history in order to poison future generations. Instead by consciously confronting our history we can ensure that through public education we can take measures to ensure non-recurrence. This is because as aptly put by Pablo de Greiff, " education can contribute to shaping new norms, mediating between contending narratives of the past and nurturing a culture of dialogue and democratic citizenship across generations." https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Truth/A-HRC-30-42.pdf

Supporting Evidence: Education as prevention (www.ohchr.org)
Side: Remember
IrinaSofi(2) Disputed
1 point

No one is against the right education - teach our children what is bad or good. All we need that understanding and the right book at the right age. However, there are different forms of education and different ways to deliver information. Remembering the atrocities does not make our life easier. We have to focus on a bright future and teach our children to remember good deeds.

It is important to teach our children to never join an anti-war movement but join a peace movement.

Forgetting does not mean do not acknowledge the past and violations. Going into too many details may also lead to a misuse of information for educational purposes.

A poem of an 11year old child about II WW:

I am familiar with the war from books

And old movies and pictures.

There are no dead in this war,

But the memory in the family is alive ...

Hopes did not come true,

Dreams didn't come true,

The war prevented them from coming true.

Instead of studying - work up a sweat,

A short dream and work again.

All forces for the front

For our victory.

For peace on this good planet

War is horror

War is a moan

War is mothers crying

Loss of fathers

And orphans full house

Ruin and hunger all around.

The war is needed neither you nor me

Neighbour does not need it.

So you want to live in a peaceful land,

And do not know what war is.

Source: https://znanija.com/task/13030870

Side: Forget
1 point

Thank you for the rich debate so far. I believe that transitional justice should be exactly this: an ongoing conversation. Since not many have taken the “forget” side, I just want to introduce a somewhat provocative thought by the historian Tony Judt emphasizing – in a very subtle way – the importance of forgetting after mass atrocity. In his masterpiece “Post-war”, Judt argues in the epilogue that some measure of forgetting might be “the necessary condition for civic health” when societies are emerging from periods of political evil. But he immediately adds a caveat: “To say this is not to advocate amnesia. A nation has first to have remembered before it can begin to forget”. This might suggest that the answer to the above question is not either/or. There might be a time for memory and a time for forgetting. But this still leaves open many questions: When can a nation start “letting go” of its past, leaving it behind? And what is the role of history in all this? For Judt, only history (“the professional study of the past”) can stand effectively guard against the abuse of memory (which, he insists, is "inherently contentious and partisan" and therefore "a poor guide to the past").

Side: Forget
ValeriaReyes(3) Clarified
1 point

Frank,

Your post makes me think about the Peruvian case. The narrative of the existence of the Peruvian armed conflict has been strongly disputed during the last years clearly for political purposes. It is pretty common to hear MP of the political party of Alberto Fujimori to say that "it is time to leave the hate behind" and that we should not "re-open wounds". In my opinion, it is ironic to even start a discussion of "re-opening wounds" when I consider that the wounds have not even healed yet. The amount of victims that have received a reparation from the State for the atrocities suffered is still minimal. The efforts invested by the Government in finding our disappeared are highly criticizable. Moreover, even when the final report of the TRC identified as root causes of the conflict the tremendous economic inequality between Andean people and those who live in the coast, this is a reality that, almost 40 years later, has not changed.

I accept the proposal of Judt (forgetting after remembering) even when I think that is highly problematic to identify a key moment to change the focus. Perhaps, when the root causes of the period of violence are overcome, there can be space to start a responsible process of forgeting.

Side: Remember
1 point

To those advocating for remembering, I have the following questions: Is remembering a virtue or a choice? Are you saying we should remember because it is the "right" thing to do? If so, on what basis do you make such an ethical argument ? On the contary if you concede that remembering is a choice, then this means as with any choice a decision (which can vary from context to context; case to case, and situation to situation) should be arrived at following a value judgement. This however still poses questions as to who makes the decision and on what basis is this decision made?

Side: Forget
1 point

To those advocating for remembering, I have the following questions: Is remembering a virtue or a choice? Are you saying we should remember because it is the "right" thing to do? If so, on what basis do you make such an ethical argument ? On the contary if you concede that remembering is a choice, then this means as with any choice a decision (which can vary from context to context; case to case, and situation to situation) should be arrived at following a value judgement. This however still poses questions as to who makes the decision and on what basis is this decision made?

Side: Forget
Yasamin_Ka(3) Disputed
1 point

I am usually against extending the scope of human rights, which is referred to as 'rights inflation'. (For this reason, I still don't understand the so-called third generation of Human Rights, and since 'the right to truth' is a new notion in human rights paradigm, I used to think it was created to add to this rhetorics of rights.)

But if we base our theory of rights on the agency of human being which requires freedom and resources for humans to make a decision and be the moral agent of their lives, I believe the right to truth has a vital role in providing resources for a person to act on his/her free will.

But for me remembering is more of a collective notion, and I defend it as a choice for a nation based on the context and situation of the society after a transition. So it must be decided by the society itself (for example like plebiscite for the peace deal in Colombia), and I believe the final decision varies in different social and historical context and it also depends on the model of the transition.

Side: Remember
1 point

I agree. Remembering or forgetting should be a sovereign choice of peoples to discuss in the political arena, where they can decide if and how to remember the past. It exceeds the realm transitional justice and we cannot set international standards of what is right or wrong on that.

It is interesting the case of Uruguay where the Amnesty law has been upheld by the majority of people several times. The former president of Uruguay, Mujica, ex tupamaro that has been tortured during the dictatorship supported people's choice. He expressed that peoples may be wrong, but that they the right to make wrong choices. Even if the example is linked to punishment and not directly with forgetting, we could make a parallel.

(eventually, the IACHR ruled against the validity of Amnesty laws).

Side: Remember
1 point

Hi Team,

My apologies for my late contribution. Thank you Tafadzwa for initiating this conversation.

I’d like to preface my viewpoint by saying, quite honestly, that, I cannot draw a hard line in the remembering v forgetting debate. In fact, I find it difficult to imagine a post-conflict setting that has either entirely forgotten or remembered their past, collectively or individually. I think both approaches converge at some point and perhaps it is through this convergence that societies can reconcile and find peace. Of course, reconciliation and its functions are contingent on a few variables: the context (e.g. the conflict and history), the perpetrator-victim dynamic, and the external influences/actors (TJ mechanisms initiated either internally and/or externally).

As I reflect on this debate, many questions come to mind, reminding me of the inherent multiplicity of reconciliation. First, what is the aim of remembering and/or forgetting? Is it for the purpose of attaining peace? If so, how do we define peace? Second, how do we know when reconciliation has been achieved? What types of indicators should we look for, if at all? Third, can both remembering and forgetting foster individual and collective healing? Finally, as Tafadzwa highlighted, is remembering the right thing to do, or is it a choice?

Peace commonly delineates one of the key aims of forgetting or remembering, often appearing through various forms. No peace without justice is a common claim, but this is only one piece of the puzzle. Likewise, Johan Gultang says, “peace serves as a means of obtaining verbal consensus” (Violence, Peace, and Peace Research 1969: 167). The point is, there are variants in defining peace, be they in the form of justice, harmony/consensus (as stated by Gultang), non-violence, state-building, and/or truth-seeking. So where does reconciliation stand in the peace-building paradigm?

Moreover, I find it very difficult to determine when Reconciliation has been achieved. In Theorizing Reconciliation (2009), Ernesto Verdeja says, “reconciliation is a complex, multileveled process that is best understood as disjunctured and uneven, with multiple moral claims often in competition with one another” (p 3). I agree with Verdeja’s point on ‘multiple moral claims’. I think this highlights the fact that truth is not homogeneousus concept or experience, and therefore cannot be viewed linearly, with a single story or desired outcome. Historically, reconciliation has been achieved in various ways. For example, many Rwandan victims of the 1994 genocide, found peace through forgiveness. A powerful testimony published by the Guardian (2017), titled, "My neighbor murdered nearly all of my family, but now we are friends", captures a reality that is not unique in Rwanda. I wonder, to what extent was forgetting an essential factor for Laurencia to forgive the man who killed her family? After all, forgetting is not denying. This, as she describes, is what healed her. I think this also speaks to the point I raised about how context and perpetrator-victim dynamics matter. The conflict in Rwanda was essentially between neighbors. The Hutus and Tutsis co-existed for decades before and even after the conflict broke out, which played a role in how both victims and perpetrators saw themselves and each other.

Furthermore, it was interesting to hear Professor Schabas talk about reconciling with varying truths and confronting the concept of forgetting within the criminal justice context. In relation to the Statute of Limitation and its implications on investigating the Armenian Genocide, he questioned whether there should be a limit to how far back into history we go to uncover the truth? Is it worth it, in some contexts, to reopen wounds for the purpose of retribution? This is especially true for modern day Armenia and Armenian diaspora. This leads me to the question: is remembering the right thing to do, or is it a choice? I think it depends on the actors involved, such as, the international community, the ICC, international organizations, civil society, local NGOs, and of course, the victims. Of course, remembering and/ or forgetting should be up the victims to decide, but domestic, regional, and international law functions on the basis of ‘responsibility’ and retribution, and therefore view remembrance as a vehicle to operationalize their moral apparatus.

Achieving reconciliation is a multidimensional process. Both remembering and forgetting have contributed to processes of healing, peace, and justice for victims, in various contexts. My position therefore, advocates for the co-existence of the two, rather than the desirability or emphasis of one over the other.

My apologies if my thoughts appear convoluted, it’s a reflection of how I feel about the topic. Still trying to come to terms with a lot of issues in this debate.

Side: Forget
0 points

Hi everyone, sorry for my late contribution. For the sake of debate, I also take the position that in certain instances it is better to forget. I am drawn to identify Spain as perhaps an example of where forgetting may be the more appropriate option in the sense that the established narrative ideolising Franco is so inherently rooted in the official history that it may do more damage to undermine that narrative than good. The balance here is if we insist upon bringing truth to light then we risk political turmoil and probably greater opposition from the majority of the population which could lead to further victimisation of those seeking to bring to light the truth. However, I do note that the victims of the attrocities should be redressed and I do not believe that it is fair to have their grievances disregarded. Interestingly, I read this article and it was an interesting one so I will cite it here as reference for discussion: "Transitional Justice against the State: Lessons from Spanish Civil Society-Led Forensic Exhumations" by Jonah S Rubin which discusses, among other things, the tension between the ethics of transitional justice and its bureaucratic-legal form. In a very small portion of discussion on page 105 of the article, it discusses how families that had quietly and without much media attention exhumed graves of disappeared and how the private nature of these exhumations allowed it to remain uncontroversial. This led me to think, perhaps societies like Spain could lead to the development of an entirely new context of transitional justice as it is unique in so many ways. Perhaps a sort of transitional justice which allows those that remember to make peace with the atrocities of the past through private redress but at the same time allowing the rest (which appears to be the majority) to forget or more, accurately, remain oblivious. My thoughts for discussion. I am very interested in your views on this.

Side: Forget
tafadzwa(18) Disputed
1 point

Your hypothesis is thought-provoking Augustine. What immediately came to my mind is that for such a hypothesis to work it presupposes a clean divide between the public and private spheres of life.This would not take into account the interplay between the two. As can been seen in the case of Rwanda, fomenting racial hatred in the public sphere by politicians had ripple effects in the private sphere as well. In this regard, I can't imagine a "private" neo-nazi commemoration having no effect beyond its intended participants. Can we elevate some historical figures to the status of heroes and heroines without all at once intentionally or unintentionally relegating those who opposed them to the status of villains?

Side: Remember