 Helo, oh my goodness. I'll try to speak quietly. Still a few people coming in. We're going to begin. Okay, so welcome everybody to our first panel this morning, which is on Nomenic Solidarity. Can memory be a form of solidarity and resistance? My name's Keith Lowe. I am the author of Savage Continent. And most recently a book about monuments to the Second World War called Prisoners of History. My own research focuses mainly on World War II and the memory of World War II and its aftermath. But our panel this morning has much broader interests which encompass the whole of the 20th century. At the very end, we have Jesus Alonso Calvalles, Jesus has a PhD in Contemporary History from the University of Salamanca. He is currently Professor of Civilisation and the History of Contemporary Spain at Bordeaux Montaigne University in France. His latest research has focused on the representation of the memory of victims of war and violence in urban space. So he approaches this subject through the study of monuments, through places of memory, through museums and commemorations and so on. So absolutely perfect for this panel this morning. Then just on my left here, we have Jejeune Bourguet, who is a sociologist and associate professor at Pazmani Péter Catholic University in Budapest. Her main teaching areas are post-1945 Hungarian social history, identity theories in the modern and post-modern eras, the sociology of religion and religious communities in a secular world. Her current interest is the survival strategy of the monastic orders that were dissolved by the Hungarian state in 1950. These monastic orders, she believes, can teach us a better, healthier way of remembering the traumas of the past. Then next to her we have Elzbieta Cieszewska Martinska, I hope I pronounced that right, ish, who is a historian of ideas and a sociologist. She's assistant professor at the University of Warsaw's Institute of Applied Social Sciences. Her research areas include all kinds of things from European and American intellectual history to the ideas and the legacy of East Central European dissident movements, especially in the 1970s and 80s. Her best-known publication is a book called The Public Philosophy of Solidarity. That's Solidarity with a capital S, Solidarnost, so she will be bringing us solidarity with both a large S and a small S. Finally, we have Claudia Florentina Dobre, who is a senior researcher at the Nicolai Jorgar Institute of History at Book Arrest. Her focus is on the memory of communism, museums, memorials and monuments, deportations and academic cultures in the whole of the Black Sea region in the 20th century. She's published various things, including this lovely book she's just given me, which is The Quest for a Suitable Past, available in English. In fact, she's literally just published a book two weeks ago called Former Political Detainees and the Securitate. If you are a Romanian speaker, rush out and go and buy that now. That's our panel. Each of them is going to give us a brief presentation of five to seven or eight minutes maximum, and I'll be policing that. Then we're going to debate a little bit amongst ourselves, and then finally we will open up the floor to you for questions. We should probably begin. Let's start with Jesus Alonso Carvelles, who will be speaking to us in Spanish. Hello. Is it working now? Oh, my apologies. Now it is. So, I was telling you before that when I was invited to the conference I thought about discussing about the memory of the Franco dictatorship, because for many decades, as we all know, the only public memory here in Spain was on the winner's side. Luis de Castro speaks about aniplegic memory here in Spain. In the last few years, the Republican memory had been silenced, that had been postponed and annihilated, has reappeared into the public space. But we often times forget that during the Franco dictatorship some groups, especially women's groups, preserved the memory as a form of resistance against the Franco dictatorship. These pictures were extracted from Daniel Palacio's PhD project. Here we can see images about, well, taken by relatives of the Franco dictatorship victims. I would like to focus on this case, in the case of La Barranca, which is a mass grave near La Grogno in the area of La Rioja, where around 400 people were murdered and buried. So for decades, the relatives of all these murdered people, the widows and the daughters, mainly celebrated different forms of commemoration in a very difficult environment, difficult social context, because the police would ban such celebrations, and we are speaking about a very macho and patriarchal society. So the struggle of women is even more important in such environments. So for many decades, as I said before, they would bring flowers to the mass grave. They would mark also the limits of the mass grave. And again, this is one of the most iconic examples of what I'm referring to. Yeah, one of the most iconic examples of representations of this banned memory, of this forbidden memory, which was saved thanks to the perseverance of this group of women back in the 70s. This area became a memorial space thanks to the previous task before these lands were given away by the owner. And well, there were many efforts to turn this into a civil cemetery. In the 70s, a monument was built at the entry of this mass grave. As you can see, this is a history column. It's quite an interesting example with a representation of bodies, like if the bodies or corpse had been extracted from the mass grave. And regarding the topic we raised yesterday, the slogan at the centre of the column is quite interesting. This error is from the past. We don't want revenge, we want a testimony so that this craziness does not happen again. So there is a forward-looking approach here, not a revenge willingness, but rather an articulation of a memory space projected towards the future. This is my interpretation at least. Here we have a few more images from the column with a representation of women, which is quite surprising and rare back then. So in the last few years, in order to pay tribute to the struggle of these women, of these widows, who contributed thanks to their solidarity and their forms of resistance, they contributed to preserving this mass grave. So back in 2011, a monument by Osh Carthensano was built where these widows were presented in a very sober manner, in a very humble manner, one would say. And what I believe is remarkable is the dignity and the serenity with which they operated at all times. This monument was built or inaugurated on November 1, 2011, as we know, the day of the theft. A few years after, in 2018, the monument was banned with fascist inscriptions on April 14, 2016, and 2018. In both cases, well, many of these widows passed away already, but the monument has become a form of resistance as Pascallori says. The only way to prove a monument works is when monuments are banned and attacked. Back at the end of 2021, this side was declared a side of cultural interest by the government of La Rioja. So this is a way to ensure the preservation of the monument. And again, this is a way to ensure the preservation of memory in the space. Thank you. Thank you to be here. It is my pleasure to share with you one of my ideas about religious persecution. In the short brief notes, I would focus only three points. First of all, I highlight what is the meaning of the cultural memory according to Asma. Second one, how can we listen to each other if the modern society, late modernity, postmodern society, we can more and more remembrance communities. It is quite difficult for us as I realize. And the third one, what is the duty and responsibility as memory researchers in this new situation? I take this question focusing on the religious persecution which means cultural resistance and I would introduce a new term religious resilience which means for me flexible resistance. So let's begin. Memory as we know well creates a community of memories provides, secures home in the world ensures the continuity and coherence of the community. The desire to belong. So altogether memory does becomes a place of solidarity. Continue this argumentation. According to Asma, communicative memory is not enough for the society, for human beings. We need cultural memory but there is an ideal type of cultural memory and I would add cultural memory in the post-modern era is a quite interesting phenomena because it doesn't necessarily have to be authentic because it's a kind of myth, legend, I would say, half truth full of emotional emotions. So memory likes one perspective and it doesn't tolerate ambiguity. Obviously and we can feel always we only want to identify with exemplary patriotic good ancestors we don't like controversial historical heroes. Let me give you an example that I had to understand for this via researching women history in 1956. I met a lady who was a freedom fighter. She had served 13 years in prison. She said she was a nurse. She fought next to his soldier husband. Her child died during the revolution and her husband was executed and after that she was sentenced to 13 years. Everything what she was talking about was the trauma of course. But after the interviews I just felt some unsettling feeling confusing because it was as if the interviewers had spoken about a kind of myth. She spoke from too much of one perspective where she was a hero and became victim. No contradiction, no confusing you know when we are talking about our life history we always quite fragmented, quite confusing, full of complexity and no here, no. I have to go archival research and that revealed none of what he said to me she said to me was true. Actually she was a prostitute. She had no husband, no child. She grew up in a state car. Why did she lie? In the end I finally understood to be honoured as a hero because she was a hero against the Soviet army for Hungarian citizens. She was really a hero. She had to get rid of her real past because she would not have to fit the myth of 56. This lady knew very, very much what I'm talking about here. The national past as a common heritage serves a present oriented purpose. It preserves empowers and mobilises but there is a problem today with a common past contemporary society, the post-modern society. Today many different communities of remembrance are emerging and growing. This is also breaking down the canon of unified national past. A nation can break into different communities of remembrance. There is an official version of the past but there are also many, many other versions. The last point for me let me give you another example of focusing religious persecution. It happened in Hungary 1950. The religious orders were divided in Hungary. Formerly highly respected religious women and religious men became panellists and destitute. But my question and their question is how can they remember if there are many, many communities of memory, remembrance who will listen to them? Why is this question for me? Because I would stress again each community remembers according to its own values, own identity. Who will listen to the past of a monastic community today outside its own community remembrance? Who cares today about the humiliated situation of monks in a secularized world? The more important question for me as memory researchers how to tell their story? Why important for us, not for me, for us? This is because under dictatorship and authoritarian regimes monks developed different strategies of survival and maintained their identity. I really think we could learn a lot from that if we would be able to listen to them. I call their strategies religious resilience. I wouldn't say they were hero. I wouldn't say they were resilience. Resilience, memory using many, many different perspectives. Their stories are not modernity. Therefore, there is a chance that they will be noticed by different memory communities, hopefully. They are listened to. To do so, they need to break out of their own narrow communities in some way. Last sentence, religious resilience. This is a concept that has a place in a collective memory that builds collective identity that we should hope hears wounded identity. That's all. OK, thank you. Our next speaker is Elzbieta Cieszewska-Martinska. Thank you. It is my pleasure to be here. Thank you for having me. I'm a historian of ideas and sociologies and I'm going to speak about the Solidarity movement from the perspective of these two disciplines to fields of study. Unlike my predecessors, I'm going to focus on macro-history or meta-history. There are beautiful, very interesting, personal stories connected with the Polish Solidarity movement. But as a historian of ideas, I am more interested in the intellectual happenings that translate into social and political happenings. I'm also interested as a sociologist in some patterns of behaviour, especially those who are repeated unconsciously, sometimes without thinking. People tend to behave in certain ways without thinking why and why they are doing what they were doing. So I would like to focus on the idea of solidarity and how it was explained by Father Yw Zephtyshner, the unofficial chaplain of the movement. It is the collection of his sermons essays on the ethics of solidarity, on the spirit of solidarity. In the second part, I would like to focus on different understandings of the movement and different interpretation of the movement with the special focus of, I would say, the Republican interpretation of the Polish Solidarity movement. So let's start with Yw Zephtyshner. Yesterday we already heard some things about what solidarity meant for Eastern European dissidents, but let me quote a short passage from his sermon delivered at Wabel Hill. It is the castle in Krakow where Polish kings, romantic poets are buried. So it is a very important place for the Polish culture and he said there that, let me quote, today we are living through unusual times. People are discarding their masks. They are emerging from their hiding places and showing their true faces. From under the dust and out of oblivion their consciences are emerging. Today we are, as we truly are, believers are believers, doubters are doubters and non-believers non-believers. There is no point in assuming someone else's role. Everyone wants to be called by his or her name. What we are living through is not only a social or economic event, but one that above all touches us personally. The problem impinges upon human dignity, human dignity that is based on the conscience of human beings. The deepest solidarity is the solidarity of consciences. It shows this deep ethical dimension of poly solidarity movement and also, in general, Eastern European dissidents movement. Solidarity understood in such a way did not need an enemy or opponent to strengthen itself and grow. It turned towards all and not against anyone. I think it is really important that they gather at Babel Hill. Because to understand who they were, they needed history, they needed memory. The history was teaching them who were teaching them about their true identity, I would say. As you could hear, it was quite an inclusive notion. The second thing I would like to say is how solidarity has been described in statunascent and postfactum. It was described as a true work, a revolution, another Polish national uprising, a carnival with sentence because the solidarity was stopped in December 1981 by introducing martial law. It was described as a revival of a civil society or a civil society of a new type and even as a community of first Christians. And all of those interpretations, I would say, are quite legitimate. There is something to them, I would say. Why? Because solidarity people said that they were inspired by some workers, there is democratic tradition, Catholic social science, national traditions. But I think there is one interpretation that I find particularly interesting because already in the fall of 1981 a British historian Timothy Garton Ash compared solidarity's first national convention in Gdańsk to a parliamentary assembly from the Nobles' democracy era. Actually he said that the Poles were continuing the traditions that were initiated and started in the 16th century. And he added that in his opinion the Commonwealth of Poland left a rich legacy of ideas and memories. At the Congress he witnessed how aristocratic political culture of two centuries before reemerges like some underground river in the workers' school of political culture. The analogy between solidarity and the first Commonwealth of Poland was premised above all else on the practices of the movement and its unspoken public philosophy. And let me tell you something more about the similarities between polysteroidarity movement and the republicanism of the Polish nobility which dates from 1500 to 1800 more or less. The Polish republicanism was not anti-monarchism. It was an idea to limit King's power and not to get rid of the monarchy but rather to establish constitutional monarchy. And nobility was gaining more and more power and expense of royal prerogatives. And what was very characteristic of the Polish republicanism it was the style of debating. The Polish nobility would gather to debate to discuss the most important public issues. And for example to elect the king. Okay, I should come to the end. So I find this interpretation, republican interpretation very interesting because it tells something about people repeating certain patterns. Yes, thank you. People needing solidarity to act together. And this interpretation had some scholars that were really interested in them like Margaret Canovan, John Draisek, Leslie Holmes, Paul Blocker, who works in Prague. And maybe I will just tell you more about it in the further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Right, our final speaker. Claudia Florentino Dobre. Hello everyone. Thank you kids for introducing me. It's a pleasure to be part of this debate. And I have to say that I agree with my colleagues and as they pointed out there are different perspectives on the past. And I want to stress that we should be very careful, especially in our region, in Central and Eastern Europe, when we use and misuse memory. Because I can see that as a historian I've noticed that recently memory became the favorite way to represent the past. And in a way it took the role of which history used to play, the writing of history used to play in the 19th century in building national identity mythologies and so on. And we all know which were the consequences towards the Holocaust, some other genocides. So I think we should be very carefully in promoting in what type of memory we are promoting in the public space that we should be aware of hegemonic memories and which are some group memories, collective memory which is promoted in the public space. Because actually I think societies have this tendency to promote a certain version in the public space, a certain version of the past. And I think in democratic society we should open the space for discussion. And we should debate about the past. Various groups should be brought together and discuss about some traumatic events. And I'm saying this because I want to give you an example from Romania. And as you may know during the Second World War Romania has the fastest government which of course took part in the Holocaust. There were around half a million of Jews and Roma people who were killed. And of course all the others were persecuted on the Romanian territory. And so by the fascists, of course when the communists came to power in March 1945 in Romania they started to persecute the fascists not only because they were the fascists but because the fascists, especially those from the Iron Guard were involved in the anti-communist resistance. So the communists arrested all these people, put them in prison, tortured, killed, etc. After the fall of communism in Romania in December 1989 of course we started to celebrate the anti-communist resistance. Yes, and at the very beginning we also celebrated all these fascists who were involved in the anti-communist resistance. But of course eventually we have to recognise our role, I mean the Romanian role in the Holocaust. And started with 2003 we acknowledged the involvement of Romania and the Holocaust and we banned from the public space any reference to the fascists, to the symbols, characters, etc. But of course this created frustration among these people who claim recognition, who claim compensation from the state because they considered themselves like victims of the communist repression. So now we have these two types of memories which are confidential and even conflictual in the public space who is the real victim. And this is a discussion we didn't have actually in society and that's why I think we should create like a conciliation commission and to discuss about this notion about this past in a debate to encourage groups to, I mean memorial groups to discuss this issue and I think a democratic society should value human rights and also debates about the past and not to impose a narrative, a meta-narrative about the past which is the right past and who is the group of people that should be celebrated. So my idea of solidarity is based on discussion, debates about the past and not about one imposed meta-narrative as it happened during communist for instance because we have only the official version of the past and we have only the version forbidden. I will elaborate more during the discussion and if you are interested but for now I'm going to stop here. Thank you. Thank you very much Claudia. All of your presentations are extremely interesting and it gives me a problem now of where to start. Let me think. Why don't we start with this idea that you brought up of victimhood and these conflicting ideas of victimhood. It seems to me that a lot of our memory, our cultural memory, the things that we have sort of promote is the idea of victimhood whether it's Second World War victimhood, Holocaust, Fascist Spain and so on, victims of communism. Is victimhood do you think a can it ever be a sound basis for any kind of solidarity? Let me put that to you first Claudia and we can move on to the others. Well yes if we think about people who suffered yes of course this is to acknowledge the suffering yes it's a form of solidarity but on the other hand I do not think that nation should build their presentation of the past on victimhood. Unfortunately Romania this is the case and it's not only with communists it's also before we have this mythology of victimhood much as Poland I think but and also if we think about more yes recognising victimhood it's a form of solidarity but as I have already stressed out I don't think that we should build our society and especially our contemporary societies on this victimhood paradigm. Would you like to respond as better? Yes I was thinking about solidarity and I was thinking about the structure of political and social demands the solidarity movement was proposing and it is really interesting because we had some other protests after the war in 1956 68, 70, 76 and when you look at the structure of these demands and the content of these demands they would say that they demanded something from the government, from the party they wanted other people to do something for them to react to their suffering and when it came to the solidarity demands these demands were written in such a way that actually the people themselves were asking or demanding the government and the party to let them do something not to create obstacles for them and it is a completely different perspective so actually the solidarity movement probably in the I don't know in our recent history trespassed this the victimhood people were not understanding themselves as victims anymore and it is very important to notice that that they were speaking about human suffering not victimhood they acknowledge that people were suffering but but they would not consider themselves as victims because they, solidarity was a way of regaining agency I think so it is really important I think Yes, can I add something it's just now I'm talking in general in the society but as you see I wrote a book here about formal political detainees and they never claimed at least people are interviewed they were victims they do not take this but I'm saying and I'm talking about this public image which is built in the society of victimhood it's not and I think it's not a good paradigm because there are a lot of other people who are not suffering at all and they should be included in our representation of the past which explains also why we have nostalgia in Romania or Eastern Germany and this is in part it's a critique of the present but also it's a fact that included in this public paradigm of victimhood because I'm talking only about when you talk with people who are depressed they will not describe themselves as victims mainly I mean women never as the heroes also men a little bit yes I have to say that when you talk with formal political detainees who are men they will present themselves okay I was a little bit like a hero but women never they present it as a duty Taos family the nation etc etc but I'm critical about the public version the public representation of this past which is really constructed around this victimhood suffering and so on which excluded all the other type of version of the past and that's why I encourage the debate in the society yes I agree with you both of you but I would add something as as I think always as a sociologist I think social researchers have huge responsibilities responsibilities to deal with different kind of group of victims who are marginalized in the public sphere so in a Hungarian case social scientists were the first who began to deal with the Holocaust topics so I collected many many life histories using qualitative methods and after that social researcher who dealt with the real points of Hungarian revolution and also sociologist and historians began to deal with religious persecution so I think we have great responsibilities to give them voice from different part of the society who their stories is just like under I'll pass it to you in a second but first I want to ask you if you have these different different groups of victims who all require some attention do you not have the problem then of competitive victimhood? Yes of course we have some kind of different kind of competition between remembrance group but that is the post modern society situation I think we have to it is a fact we have to deal with this we have to use and what I think we have to use communication we have to use communicative memory not always cultural memory because this is another type another thing so if we want to listen to each other we have to the first thing we have to tell our stories our narratives and describe what we are think about ourselves and others this is the first step and I think this is led to the some kind of solution In the Spanish case I think it was said by many people today since we still have a multiple vision about the common base of what the war represented I think that nowadays in Spain in many cases there is a denial of victimhood from many victims from the republican side on the Francoist side these victims occupy a central space during 40 years these victims have gone into a second place or have even disappeared from public space in a way there is an emergence from the 80s 90s there is an emergence of the memory of the republican victims but nowadays these republican victims in this political and social context are denied or even eliminated even from public space and we have seen the attack suffered by the monument and this is just an example there are many others and in this case there is a clear absence of this necessary solidarity in the whole of society in order for these victims to be considered as such and in many cases this denial is visible and we can see it in the suppression of number of spaces remains and footprints of the Franco repression for example I'm going to say something that might be controversial here especially in the company that we're in but what's so bad about forgetting I mean it seems to me that the first instinct of most people who've been through traumatic events is to forget you don't know this but my mother-in-law is Hungarian and escaped from Hungary after the 1956 revolution when she came to England she made a new life, had children she didn't even teach them Hungarian my wife doesn't speak a word of Hungarian because she wanted to forget in the early 1990s 1992 I went to Romania and to my surprise everybody in Romania seemed to have already forgotten the events of 1989 they wanted to move on completely I went to a cafe to buy a coffee I couldn't buy Romanian coffee I had to get Nescafe I wanted to buy a Romanian beer I couldn't they wanted to give me Heineken everybody wanted to move on and forget so my question is really why why remember why mnemonic solidarity I'll go back to you Jesus I mean the people from 1938 they're not even alive anymore well in the case of Spain there is a very clear moment of forgetting which are the years of Franco and the Spanish society is looking towards the future you can see it in the brief text which appear in the monument nevermore this is way gone nevermore and this is a face which lasts in the 80s and 90s more or less but it is also true and there is a given need and this is what's been called the grandson gays to learn what their grandparents went through something that was hidden by the parents of silence by the parents of forgotten about their parents I agree with you that at a given moment it will be convenient to go beyond that omnipresent face of history and memory and maybe a lead way to history as Claudia was mentioning before but the problem we are facing now is that there is a political important use of that memory and while there is this political use present it will be very difficult to go into oblivion whether it's possible to do it on our days maybe it's necessary to implement memorial dynamics considering all the victims so we can look forward first what you mentioned before about forgetting this is a very common behaviour we can make this kind of behaviour everywhere I met I conducted other research in United States and the situation was the same this kind of people who went after the 1956 to United States and they first of all first period of that life and later they tried to forget everything and not to teach Hungarian language and culture at all but the good news the third generation a little bit tried to turn back but it's another story but I want to say memory contains all every time some kind of trauma and trauma we don't in personal way in the society as well we don't want to deal with because it's a very frustration, it's very shame it happened something trauma with us with me it's a very difficult to analyse personally we need community that's why we want to remember everything together we want to share our story so it's we need others but first of all we have to find others who able to listen to us to our story so I think trauma another important term if we want to solve why we have to forget what happened with us I just wanted to add and Jesus pointed out that the problem is that this past can be instrumentalised, political instrumentalised and that's why we have to discuss and debate and not forget about for instance in Romania there is now a new party which is called Alliance for the Unity of Romania which is the acronym which is called Association and they do promote this the memory of this former fascist group and that's why we don't I mean this is part of their political agenda and that's why we have to discuss about this past in order not to let these people to tell all kind of things and also to promote who knows what because well they are represented in the parliament but they are not in power but we don't know what might happen if they promote this type of discourse that's why we cannot leave this past behind because we have to be very careful about it and let me tell you that we are very proud we were very proud at that time at the beginning of the 90s to get rid of communism so we didn't want to remember anything and anyhow unfortunately a young generation do promote so this is so this is also another discussion I think I agree with all of you to be honest but I wanted to ask you Elzbietta it seems to me that in Poland there hasn't been the opportunity to forget one memory is piled on another so during the second world war they were remembering escaping from the Russian imperialists and then during the Solidarity movement they were remembering the army of Cryova and today there is still this evil empire to your east has there been any possibility to forget and well how would you respond to what the others have said as well I think that by forgetting I understand that you are moving forward right? yeah, forgetting but also moving forward creating a future creating a future it is a very good question and a very difficult one I would say that I am still thinking about this victimhood and I would say that forgetting is I am not going to reply to your question directly but a little bit indirectly I would say because forgetting is also about forgiving and there are some very I would say from my perspective very serious social and political division in Poland so actually we need to talk about historical issues what happened to us as a society as different groups within our society to understand each other to reconcile and to move forward actually I think it is a necessary step to move forward and I think I would not say that our society it is just my opinion maybe it's not I haven't done research on it but I wouldn't say that that our society lives lives in the past I wouldn't say so I would say that historic memory is really important to us but I would say that you are just concerned with everyday issues it is not like they wake up in the morning and they think what happened in the 1980s we are taking care of our daily duties I have a note from the translator when we turn away from the microphones they can't hear so keep pointing your mouth at the microphone right okay I want to turn now to some the political uses of memory it seems to me that quite often when we talk about memory, when we are remembering the past actually what we are doing is thinking about the present so for example in my own country you know we in 2016 we were talking all about World War II and how Britain stood alone and it was of course actually all about Brexit it was nothing to do with World War II at all I'm assuming that this is the same in every country and the instrumentation of the past in order to create political solidarity for your narrow political aims is a problem that we are seeing all over the world I think perhaps you'd like to elaborate on some of this but I'll begin with you Claudia yes but this is the definition of the memory it's a reconstruction of the past from the perspective of the present therefore it's always about the present and well what we can do but if that is the case should we be promoting memory or should we be trying to keep it in check well I pledge for keeping it in check you know this was all about I was saying and that's why I emphasise that we have to really debate about the past not to give room to this hegemonic memory I mean to some group which would promote its own collective memory and to promote one paradigm about interpreting the past now so yes for me this is the main perspective we should adopt Jesus you could say the same thing like I said about Brexit you could apply that to Catalonia the memory of Franco Spain is perhaps a political way of encouraging the idea of independence I'm aware this is a sensitive subject it is indeed a sensitive topic nonetheless it is absolutely right that what you mentioned is I mean of course nationalists instrumentalise history as well as Spanish nationalism the Catalan and the Vazc nationalist movements somehow appropriate this anti-franco past which in some cases is absolutely true but in others not so much the same happens on the other side from the Spanish nationalism movements the problem is that often times the axis is perhaps broad to broad and today we live in the here and now dictatorship so the past becomes present and the future becomes present we are somehow trapped by present in our times the text as Carmen mentioned yesterday there are strange phenomena some eccentric memory recoveries let me give you an example about Spain in Madrid the city council recently inaugurated a monument in Madrid in the city of Madrid to remember the legion who played an important role during the war and before the war nonetheless in the Almodena cemetery a monument a tiny monument paying tribute to more than 3,000 victims victims of the civil war was dismantled, was destroyed removed by the city council one of the life motive of the extreme right wing movement in Spain is precisely the withdrawal of any tribute to republicans there is a direct attack against memory laws by extreme right wing movements so indeed there is a clear instrumentation because we are thinking about a civil war in the case of Spain and let me put it in a bold manner certain identifications with the war with the civil war still ok in that case I will move on to the next idea which is about monuments now a couple of years ago monuments were in the headlines everywhere because people were tearing them down particularly the Black Lives Matter movement people tearing down monuments to do with slavery and colonialism and so on and you just mentioned about the removal of monuments this is not a new thing it happens everywhere do you think that it is inevitable that as our memory changes we have to remove these monuments and replace them or are there good ways of incorporating difficult memories into our present more comfortable memory structure who shall I pick on I'll ask you actually because I know that there are some interesting monuments in Budapest which I'm thinking of the monuments of the victims of the German occupation where they try and incorporate there's a monument and an anti monument which try to incorporate different levels of memory so it's a I think we have a big debate always around monuments because I think the the debates because of the different remembrance communities in Hungary we have many many remembrance community and they want to keep their own values and own identity and it's quite frustrating always however I think we need to discuss and we to express our frustration not just be silent we have to say we have to listen so I I don't know what is the solution I think we and I say again we are social research and we have to say what we think what we realise what we listen to other people in the ordinary people and just share their stories share their feelings and not to be silent so it's I don't know really the answer but I have I support every kind of debates about monuments I think because we were talking about Hungary I think the Memento Park it's a good solution for these monuments especially for the actually I'm anti-communist I have to say even if it doesn't look like maybe but I'm anti-communist but as a scholar of course I have to think about all the other perspective but I think the Memento Park in Budapest it's a good solution especially for the communist monuments because you have there you can have explanation and also you will remove them from the public space and you know in order not to how to say actually you have to in a way it's good to remove them from the public space because you can see them every day when you go to work or whatever but on the other hand I don't think we have to hide on these monuments because you cannot really hide what happened and it's better to have it there to discuss about this there is something similar in Sofia about the communist monuments and I think it's a good approach for this type of monuments to have museum to explain so young generation could see all these and also sometimes there are like you know cultural works of arts and it's good to not to destroy them actually I mean this is one point of view about I'm aware that lots of communist monuments and monuments to brotherhood in arms and so on in Poland have been removed in the last 10 years yes yes yes they were some of them were moved to memory parks like that some of some of them were just you know hidden but I think it's creating these memory parks it's a good idea because it creates it creates room for discussion debate understanding because if we do not work through these difficult experiences they may be repeated just and for some people these are probably not many people in Poland but for some these monuments are meaningful in a way so I think I would side with with what my colleague just said is there not the problem though that if you put them in a museum or a monument park the only people who see them are the people who already understand they're going there they're self-selecting they're the ones who you don't need to reach with the memory and you also have a danger don't you of making a kind of communism theme park you know Disneyland for communist monuments what do you think well the other option is is to keep the monument and present a kind of trigger warning like in front of it a board explaining what is the monument when was it established what is it representing the history of the monument it could also be an idea to keep them in a public space and explain the history of this monument maybe it would not be maybe in this way we could avoid this process of selection of the viewers yes but I think there is a difference of with communist monuments there is a problem of an imposition because it is I think it is a difference when we want to commemorate something by ourselves and when these monuments are somehow imposed on us and it is also and also a problem and I think it is also a way of dealing with a trauma when you create a kind of Disneyland of monuments because these monuments become less dangerous traumatic when you try to a little bit distance yourself from them just a short note when this is our case when we first of all visited communist monument park in Budapest my husband and me we were very disappointed oh why why should have to stay there but we invited our children to visit them and we could explain many many stories and many many feelings and about communism so they could learn a lot when they not touch what they realized so the monuments were very strong, very huge and untouchable and everything I mean next generation it's many times I think it's good to realize what had happened in the past so that's why it's not the shame to keep them it's good for us at least because of the other generation because of the future probably not to do the same thing again I have to agree with Professor Bogre I think it's an opportunity especially for the young generation and in the case of Romania I'm thinking especially about John Antonescu who was the leader of the country during the Second World War it's important for the young generation to go to museum and to learn about John Antonescu that he was a war criminal he was involved in the Holocaust otherwise if you look on the internet you'll find only good things about him and mostly that he was a victim of communism and you will see being celebrated and I think it would be an opportunity to go to a museum and to learn some other aspects about his political activity and also I think the communist monuments it's an opportunity to discuss for the young generation about all these people what they have done of course in Romania we don't have these monuments anymore I mean they are hidden away destroyed and so on and also because in the last years of communism we mostly built monuments dedicated to national heroes not to communist figures this is that's why we don't have a communist park Do you want to add anything Jesus and then we'll go to questions In the Spanish case the destruction of monuments is nothing new as you already mentioned by the way the monument removal and privatisation process started back during the Franco dictatorship in 1979 when the first municipal elections were celebrated some city councils like San Sebastian city council decided to remove all Franco monuments from public spaces but 40 years after many cities preserved them and keep them in the public space even if according to the historic memory bill they shall be removed because monuments these monuments are not attached to democratic values they do not represent democratic values so there are resistances here in Catalonia they are quite remarkable examples like in the case of Durtosa in the south of Catalonia perhaps in Spain we've fallen into a trap we haven't been able to put forward interesting memorial practices like anti monuments that have been extremely fruitful in other parts of the world like in Germany we've had German proposals but we have not implemented them so there is this whole idea of physical imposition into the public space when it comes to monuments monuments are understood as physical impositions instead of opportunities it is a pity I believe that in the case of Spain this has not been properly observed now when it comes to the disappearance of monuments or the removal of monuments well the dynamics has been rather complicated in Spain in the case of the Franco-Equestrian monuments well many of them have been preserved in military war-tails at the beginning at least so monuments have been somehow transferred the memory has been transferred into a quite dangerous environment military headquarters other monuments have been preserved like a monument to Enesimo Redondo giant sculptors that have been preserved but then I asked the director of the Salamanca Museum where the monument was and he said that it was in a deposit in Madrid so monuments are removed from the public space but then there is no like a pedagogic dimension they are not used for pedagogic purposes as far as I know we have got sort of let me see 10 or 15 minutes we will be pushing it but yeah all right Piotr Naimski from Poland I would like to ask you at the panel do you see any space for proud as the background for remembrance of course the major part of our discussion and this major part of memory but is it the only part? Just a short answer as I realized at the beginning after 1989 we began to remember in the past what had happened after Second World War and during communism and Qadar era that was the first step to to research and to talk about victims we were very proud what they what they did what if we try to try to understand and we talk about a lot but I think it's necessary to move to move to the future and we just see more details of our victims this is for sure but I think that we could be proud of our victories as well I would like to respond a little bit to that my understanding of the way the Second World War for example has worked is that in the immediate aftermath of the war everybody wanted to be a hero heroes were the thing the Jewish monuments that would produce them were not about victimhood, they were the heroes of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw that kind of thing over time heroes become problematic because heroes are not we like to think of them as perfect they are angels they can do no wrong but as soon as you look at them in any detail you see that they're not perfect but with victims it's much more difficult to challenge their imperfections with heroes you can challenge them so as a consequence over time our idea of heroism has mutated into one much more of victimhood so that now even the allies the British and the Americans sorry heroism is I don't follow you anyhow it's time to move to the next question here at the back to the question I would like to come back to the question of memory I think memory is a question of identity of human being every society and everyone is remembering but the question is what is the basis and what is the value based for the memory is it the nation is it the glory of my own nation and the victims of my own nation are important and the victims of the other not or what is for us is it just to be against communism I know a lot of enemies of communism which are not the basis of democracy if you see for instance in Germany there were after 45 a lot of old Nazis belonging in the west administration because there were in the cold war anti-communists because there was a continuity from to be lazy and to be the west against Moscow if you see for instance some fighter in Lithuania in the so-called wood brothers a lot of them cooperated with Germans in murdering youths after 45 against Moscow we should know it there were against communism are they the heroes we have to honour I think the question is the basis for our memory I think the question of rule of law is such a value the dignity of the single human being is that kind of basis and that means even for migrants today is it just the Ukrainians because they are in the war by Russia or do we accept that the Syrians the Russian bombs in Syria in Aleppo murdered a lot of people there too do we accept the Syrians in the same way as the Ukrainians I think these are questions we have to deal with ok so we have the individual memory national memory transnational memory what's the basis for our solidarity what are we talking about here I'll go to Claudia I just said that I think human rights should be the main discourse to build I don't know especially in the Romanian case because we don't have a past to be proud of I mean we don't have so much in the past we don't have so many heroes and I think but anyhow as a scholar I do think that human rights should be the right approach to build identities national identities today and not necessarily some past now going back to the Spanish context I believe in the Spanish context in today's I mean in today's society it's very difficult to identify heroes from the past on the grounds of today's values of course there are some but analyzed from the prisma of the present it's very difficult to keep considering them as heroes or at least it's very difficult for heroes from the past to represent everybody today because of course the struggles from the past were very different from the present again as it has been said before there has been an important change heroes have become victims in many occasions that only when it comes to memory socially speaking today we are immersed in a let's say the victim is at the centre not so much heroes probably I don't know if I'm answering to the question hello my name is Solha I'm from Ukraine and I'm director of Morale Museum Totalitarian regime and we have collection of Soviet monuments and in practice when you moved monument from public space to museum you must remember that this is a big public discussion and fighting and scandal and so on and in view we have this process and when you want to save some monument and move to museum it's a big scandal but it's very important because from my museum case this monument very important to explain what the communist regime was and when monument come to museum this monument has new life and this monument can explain all story monument move from monument to grow and can talk and it's very important because for young generation like me I was born in 1993 it's a history for my grandmother and father it's sometimes personal trauma but if we want to have this dialogue with the generation I think we need this monument also in museum and now when visitors come he start to re-think in this monument and this monument looks like maybe marvel heroes for young generation and also it's very interesting to talk with this monument and people but it's you said that monument Disneyland Disneyland I think it's very important to have this balance not fun and use this monument for history and talking yes but I think in Ukraine we have this case only in Lviv because in general monument disappearance and nobody know where monument now and in Lviv we have this process with the municipality museum workers, soil society activists, historical and also it's why we save this monument please save monument in your city and start to talk so we're going to be we have to stop now just one more question okay it's not more a question a remark make it quick though we speak about monuments I think we forget one monument that was the names of the streets it's very interesting issue Amsterdam from Holland Johan Grunbauer after the world war we had three streets was a street of Roosevelt Avenue the church avenue and the Stalin Avenue and in 1956 they were so upset of this Russian invasion so the Stalin Avenue was renamed to the Freedom Avenue and we all met at the Victorian Square it's very interesting the second aspect is the name of the street to the victims they became heroes like Nelson Mandela a lot of them in the whole Europe but the hero with the white skin was like also a prisoner became like Mandela president no streets are renamed and the most absurd thing I met in Haarlem the capital of North Holland there's a street it's by the name of Jan Pallach and comes over to the Rudolf Slanski street two victims of communism can you understand this Rudolf Slanski he was he exposed this communism in Czechoslovakia that later on became a victim and he met compared as the same as Rudolf Slanski so beware renaming streets to heroes or victims Rapha last question last question and comment is because I wanted to go back to this in my opinion not contradictory notions like proudness and victimhood and exactly your example of proud of victories so the monument for fighters ghetto fighters in Warsaw has two parts the wall and from the one side you have the fighters and from the other side we have a procession of women and children who were victims of that in this particular case of the ghetto uprising so there is a place for both and our life our history and our memory is complex enough to have a place for both I think it is crucial for this kind of discussion and you all show that our societies are deeply divided between different kinds of narratives but there are not only two narratives this is much more complex thank you thank you very much we will wrap it up now thank you very much to my panel you have done a great job and thank you all for your questions that's it we are done