Comments on: The Archives of a Genocide – Where do they Stay?

By: James

James — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:41:16 +0000

Here’s a photo of what survives of all the local court records for Southwestern Nigeria, 1900-1960.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jef33/research_files/image002.jpg

That the documents would be better preserved elsewhere isn’t necessarily true, but they won’t preserve themselves either.

-James

By: Marissa

Marissa — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:33:23 +0000

What say all of the countries who forgot about the Rwandans DURING the genocide and sat back and did nothing, but later came in to pay their respects after it was over, should be held responsible for funding Rwandans to house these artifacts in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide was so recent and has impacted every person’s life who lives there. How could anyone possibly want to deny them these artifacts? I just see it as a continuation of a single trend. First Rwandans are denied any assistance to stop the genocide and then their objects to help them remember/heal are also denied from them. What. The. Fuck.

By: Mnemosyne

Mnemosyne — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:18:17 +0000

As the post says, all or substantially all of it is already in electronic form.

As someone who is currently working at an archive, that made me flinch a little. Technology changes, and hopefully someone has thought about moving at least a portion of it to low-tech formats. Just ask the Library of Congress, which is stuck with optical drives full of information that they can’t access because the operating system that ran them no longer exists.

By: exholt

exholt — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:08:59 +0000

The UN should ask the Rwandans for permission to make multiple electronic copies, make them, and then make those copies available to interested parties and organizations all over the world.

To take the originals out is not too far removed from Western Colonialists of the past and present who plundered non-Western civilizations of their cultural heritage artifacts.

By: SnowdropExplodes

SnowdropExplodes — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:52:26 +0000

It seems to me that the “better preserved elsewhere”/”what if a tyrannical government took power” arguments are the same arguments that were used for the wholesale plundering of other cultures committed by Western European powers in the 18th and 19th centuries.

As has been pointed out, the evidence has been recorded in electronic form and can be copied easily: those copies could be placed with disparate organisations around the world so that the likelihood of tampering is much decreased.

I firmly believe (as others have already commented) that the history belongs to the people of Rwanda, and the physical evidence of that history needs to be theirs to deal with as they wish. The UN has played its part in dealing with the aftermath from a legal standpoint, but the only way that Rwanda can move forwards is if the Rwandans are allowed to be self-determining. This seems to start with them having the final say over what happens to the evidence of the recent past.

By: JenLovesPonies

JenLovesPonies — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:36:06 +0000

Why can’t they put all this online, so that the world can see it? If there is just too much to house online, maybe a smaller selection can be placed online?

I don’t know too much of the current political climate over there, but if there is a danger at leaving it in Africa, then take it to a country with little danger, make copies (I have no idea how long this would take) and then bring it back. Museum exhibits travel all the time- it doesn’t seem unreasonable to do that in this case, with permission.

By: lemur

lemur — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:06:31 +0000

The removal of the artifacts from Africa would just be a a case of international organization sanctioned colonialism. They have no right to take those documents. They rightly belong to Rwanda, and the rest of Africa. Now, I do think that the archives should stay in Arusha, simply because of the genocide cycle in Rwanda.
What most people don’t know is that there were several genocides in Rwanda, not just the 1994 one. There were genocides in the 1950s against the Tutsi in Rwanda and the 1970s there was a genocide against the Hutu in Burundi that triggered another genocide against the Tutsi. Placing the archives in Kigali risks all the documents.
The ICJ SHOULD have electronic copies of all pictures and, electrnic and hard copies of all paper documents just in case.

By: Shayne

Shayne — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:28:40 +0000

Gonna agree with Sailorman. The Rwandans need to decide, not the UN.

By: Katie

Katie — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:17:13 +0000

Thank you, Anne, for posting about this.

I’m an archivist who’s long been interested in issues of where community records should ‘live.’ It’s very common practice to remove records from their home community under the argument that they’d be safer/better preserved elsewhere. It’s an argument I rarely buy – I agree with the other posters here. Unfortunately, many archivists do not.

Fortunately, your post points out a potential solution – physical ownership of the record in Rwanda with virtual access to digital copies which can be maintained by The Hague. I’ve posted a response on a blog to which I contribute, Social Justice Librarian: http://sjlibrarian.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/housing-and-accessing-the-record-of-a-genocide/

By: Sailorman

Sailorman — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:08:16 +0000

There is no good argument for removing the physical archives from the country whose history it is.

The one that popped instantly to mind is that someone would come to power in the future who would destroy them. But Bitter Scribe beat me to it.

Still, the benefits of leaving them on site are probably worth the risk. And in the end, it’s not our call to make, it’s the Rwandans’ call.