Memory and the Second World War

Although attending the last day of this conference only, I was in the position to listen to a number of lectures and comments and reflect inwardly what the conference meant for me.
The programme on April 28 consisted of a morning and an afternoon session, at both of which I was present.

By Dick van der Meij

The most impressive contribution of the day was presented right at the start with frail Haruko Taya Cook reading the story of a Japanese father who lost two of his sons in the Second World War. With an enunciation coming right from her heart she was the only speaker who in fact evoked the tragedy of the war, seen, experienced and reflected upon by a person closely involved in the upheaval.

Theodore Cook pointed out the intriguing observation that in Japan the War does not have one single name, which puts memories of such a war in a completely different light. It does not start, nor end, on a distinct date for all Japanese, thus rendering collective, state-inspired memorial ceremonies virtually irrelevant to the great majority. The only conclusion to be drawn was that in Japan the War is a private affair.
Arthur Waldron gave a paper showing that in China the War was not an issue at all in the years after its end and that signs of commemorating the War only started in 1985. He demonstrated in a fascinating way that the memory of the state is not involved with the memory as such, but with present day political usage of that memory!
Hui-Yu Caroline Ts'ai discussed the problem of the post-war traumas of the people of Taiwan and the gruesome fact that Taiwanese, who were Japanese subjects, after fighting for the Japanese found themselves regarded as traitors upon their return to a liberated Taiwan. Raising the issue of the retribution from the Japanese Government and the fact that this had still not been properly dealt with she showed that for many people the war does indeed not end at the official date designated for this event!

Commenting on these papers were Willem Remmelink, Matt Matsuda and Carol Gluck. Gluck began her comment by pointing out the problem of chronopolitics, meaning the chronology and politics of memory, always intertwined. She added a new term to my linguistics vocabulary by introducing the term Past Exhonorative: things were done to you, not by you! Willem Remmelink underlined the fact of the various glosses for the War and the consequences of this, for instance by naming the war in Asia: the Pacific War, the whole of Asia seems to have dropped out of the picture, while Matsuda raised the question of whether the concept of Asia is valid in this matter at all.

The War in Indonesia
The afternoon began with Anthony Reid, discussing the memory of the War in Indonesia. In his presentation, like Waldron, he showed that Memory is a state affair and is used by the state for its own ends. He mentioned the fact that Indonesia does not have a Memory Show in stock for 1995. It occurred to me that in the case of Indonesia, it is impossible to have a ceremony for the happy fact that your country has existed for fifty years and a ceremony for the - equally blessed - end of a horrendous war in the same year. Indonesia has - quite understandably - opted for the first!

Elsbeth Locher-Scholten expounded upon three Monuments displaying memory of the Pacific War. Discussing the National Monument in Amsterdam, the Women's Monument in Arnhem and the East Indies Monument in The Hague, she showed that the fact people have memories is not in question. The reaction to those memories and how to deal with them in a proper way is a problem which the Dutch Government has found hard to come to terms with. Michael Adas and Taufik Abdullah reflected on these sessions, raising questions of a general nature.

Thinking of this part of the conference which raised interesting questions and gave food for much reflection, it struck me that the speakers and commentators were in fact not dealing with the memory of the War, but with reactions to those memories. At a certain moment I found myself thinking that most of the people present at the conference do in fact not have any memory of the War at all. What most participants have are notions of the War put into their heads via stories, books, films, stamps and what have you, by others, thereby absorbing a memory which has already been altered, and not reflecting any real experiences.