Memory and Justice: www.memoryandjustice.org
Discussion of Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park
Do multiple narratives enhance or hinder a memorial's meaning?
As is the case with most historical events, episodes of state violence and atrocity can be difficult to explain as single narratives. Causes and outcomes are often complex and contested. And even in cases in which victims and perpetrators are clearly defined separate groups, there can be internal disagreement over the proper means (and content) of memorialization.
With these concerns in mind, how can we assess the usefulness and feasibility of constructing memorials that allow for multiple and possibly competing narratives of the past?
Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park is one example of a memorial that seeks to sustain multiple narratives. The city has given space to a wide range of groups, and their memorials represent a diverse range of aesthetic and social concerns. The gradual growth of the park has also allowed for layers of history-telling; visitors can trace Japan's evolving attitudes toward its past.
However, the competing narratives of the park have not been without their tensions. For example, among the approximately 200,000 people killed by the bomb and its effects were around 35,000 Koreans, many of whom had been brought to Japan by force during World War II and not allowed to return home. In 1993, Yuri Kitaoka argued in this editorial that Peace Memorial Park had snubbed the Korean victims. In 1999, after long delays, the Monument in Memory of the Korean Victims of the Atomic Bomb was finally moved inside the park.
Meanwhile, the United States has criticized the memorial for not adequately addressing the wider context of Japan's military action during the war (particularly in China) and the prospect of continued land war that, in their view, necessitated atomic force. (Of course, this argument is highly contested as well).
Looking ahead, one can easily imagine other difficulties associated with incorporating multiple narratives into memorials. How, for example, can memorials adequately address situations in which violence was inflicted reciprocally or among several state and non-state actors? And how can we prevent memorials from institutionalizing historical narratives which marginalize certain affected groups? These questions force us to return to an important lesson learned from the history of monuments and memorials. These instruments, despite their ability to heal and reconcile, can also serve to incite existing group tensions.
Related Site
References
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, official site
External Link
About this Article
"Discussion of Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park" was posted June 11, 2009 and last updated October 30, 2009.
There have been 2 comments so far. We welcome yours.
Comments
For me, the difficulty in answering the proposed question (or precisely, the core of the answer) derives from the fundamental ambiguity of memory, i.e. its narrative function. from the origins of western society, we have tended to view memory as a narrative; a “Penelope work” in Benjamin’s terms (The Image of Proust). I need not list a catalogue of literary antecedents to prove this trope; instead, I will pose that history and memory have been viewed as conflicting processes through which the past is documented.
It’s fitting that I should open the first discussion up to issues/concerns that I think are symptomatic to talk of “memory sites”/“lieux de memoire”, and thus, that I feel will permeate or affect in some peripheral or otherwise obvious way, all discussions on this website. In the monument or memorial, moreso than in any other form, memory and history are concretized, represented on the same arena, problematically so.
We haven’t even gotten in to what exactly would designate a “failed monument” from an “effective monument”, but I am motivated to say that the effective site is precisely the one that also evidences the lacunae that exist in memory- and history-making, allowing for a plurality of narratives. The Hiroshima Peace Park is so interesting, in my eyes, because the grounds of the monument are changing, so it is a “living monument” (provoking narratives that also evolve), to accommodate a locus, the city of Hiroshima itself, that is abstracted in memorial and monumental terms (city of peace, etc.).
Lisa Yoneyama’s writings on Hiroshima are helpful to one even considering “plumbing” those monumental depths.
Hiroshima lends itself well to being memorialized. Another example—Japanese artist Masao Okabe’s exhibition in the Japanese pavilion at the 2007 Venice Biennale, titled “Is There a Future for Our Past? The Dark Face of the Light”. The work comprised over 1400 individual frottages that Okabe obtained with pencil and paper of specific areas of Hiroshima that were devastated in the bombing—an interesting take on a monument. According to the curator of the exhibition, Chihiro Minato, “Okabe [has] recorded the past by using the elemental tools of pencil and paper. With this lifework of Okabe as the centerpiece, the exhibition will attempt to consider, from the perspective of art, the possibilities and conditions for the human past being inherited into the future.” http://www.jpf.go.jp/venezia-biennale/art/e/52/index.html
– N.D. (Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:49:14 -0600)
I’d like to bring up the following statement:
“Meanwhile, the United States has criticized the memorial for not adequately addressing the wider context of Japan’s military action during the war (particularly in China) and the prospect of continued land war that, in their view, necessitated atomic force.”
The fact that Hiroshima is barely mentioned in WWII curriculum in the public school system of the United States is appalling. While monuments may preserve memory for those in Hiroshima, how can criticism be accepted from a country that refuses to acknowledge the actual events of Hiroshima?
Yes, multiple narratives are important, but I believe that is what education is for. Memorials, to me, are meant to resonate for people affected by an event, person, or institution. They are not built to provide the multiple layers of opinion. Hiroshima is a special case, but I believe that it reflects the beauty of time and evolving opinion and acceptance. I do not believe that the memorials are expected to present an entire background to the situation. If that were the case, I would expect every monument/museum in the United States to have a detailed explanation of how the US was involved (including the internal displacement of natives and the institution of slavery). Naturally, that will not happen.
Until the US decides to revamp its curriculum and tell the entire story of Hiroshima, it has no place to express criticism to a country’s coping mechanism.
How can we prevent the institutionalization of a narrative or exclusion of peoples? We can’t. We can’t tell people how to cope with situations. We can, however, open the floor to freedom of expression. The case of Hiroshima is a beautiful example of the way in which a nation’s views began to shift, allowing for freedom of expression of a larger demographic. We, as human beings, can not expect these shifts to happen overnight. We can be open to them occurring.
– jshaff (Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:14:54 -0600)
Page 1 of 1 pages of comments
via RSS feed