Memory and Justice: www.memoryandjustice.org
Discussion of Choeung Ek
Some Cambodians have made the objection that the preservation and presentation of skulls in Choeung Ek’s stupa violates Buddhist custom. In an appeal for the cremation of the human remains displayed at Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng, the former King Norodom Sihanouk decried what he perceived to be the political use of human remains, saying that he was “trying to lay to rest not just the souls of the dead, but the deep divisions between the coalition partners in the new royal government – those placed in power by Vietnamese ‘liberators’ and those who fought a war of ‘liberation’ against Vietnamese ‘occupation.’” Other Cambodians argue that the skulls present no conflict with Buddhist teachings, and insist that their presentation is part of an essential historical record.
In the context of this debate, it is important to examine the popularity of Choeung Ek as a tourist site. Why do so many tourists come to Choeung Ek? Are they motivated by a morbid interest in the site’s blunt display of skulls and raw open graves? Are they genuinely interested in confronting and understanding what happened in Cambodia? Or are they drawn by a complicated combination of motivations?
Related Site
References
This essay was adapted in part from this article: Moore, Lisa. “Recovering the Past, Remembering Trauma: The Politics of Commemoration at Sites of Atrocity.” Journal of Public and International Affairs, Princeton: Princeton University, Spring, 2009.
About this Article
"Discussion of Choeung Ek" was posted June 10, 2009 and last updated October 12, 2009.
There have been 2 comments so far. We welcome yours.
Comments
The memorial at Choeung Ek definitely generates controversy with its use of human remains. The question, however, is whether or not this memorial is an effective tool of transitional justice. Does this memorial effectively remind us of the atrocious genocide that took place? In order to better answer this question, I shall attempt to stand in the shoes of a victim.
To be honest, if a family member of mine was brutally murdered in genocide, I would be obviously enraged. Would I want their deaths to go on forgotten? Of course not. In my opinion, their bodies would serve a better purpose being placed in a memorial, rather than underground. Another issue that arises is the matter of costs associated with the memorial. I would agree with activists that charging to visit the memorial is a bad idea. I can understand how governments need to raise money, but the purpose of the memorial is somewhat diminished by charging a fee. The people of Cambodia should be able to view the past atrocities committed against them whenever they want.
The memorial at Choeung Ek definitely generates controversy with its use of human remains. The question, however, is whether or not this memorial is an effective tool of transitional justice. Does this memorial effectively remind us of the atrocious genocide that took place? In order to better answer this question, I shall attempt to stand in the shoes of a victim.
– Bierko24 (Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:42:50 -0500)
When a genocide occurs nobody knows what to expect, but the outcomes are devastation. It is unbelievable on what human beings do to each other. This affects the community as a whole and it is unforgettable. The Choeung Ek Memorial is located in Cambodia. This memorial is unique because it exhibits the human remains of the victims. But it has become a controversy because tourist has to pay a fee to go and see the Memorial.
Despite of the critiques that this Memorial has encountered it helps many see the atrocities that were committed against the Cambodians. It is imperative for this type of atrocities to not happen again. In my opinion the victims remains should have proper burial and instead of displaying their remains. One alternative would be a wall with each victims name engraved or a Museum for the tourists to see.
– Maria Reyes (Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:39:47 -0500)
Page 1 of 1 pages of comments
via RSS feed