Suchergebnisse

Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung ist keine Erfolgsgeschichte, sondern ein Lernprozess. Wahrheitskommissionen veranschaulichen dies besonders gut. Wie Jacqueline Nießer in ihrer kulturwissenschaftlichen Pionierstudie zur REKOM Initiative für eine regionale Wahrheitskommission auf dem Gebiet des ehemaligen Jugoslawien aufzeigt, stehen dabei nicht die vom Internationalen Strafgerichtshof verurteilten Täter im Mittelpunkt des Aufarbeitungsprozesses, sondern all jene, die sich als Leidtragende der jugoslawischen Zerfallskriege begreifen. Nießer rekonstruiert das REKOM-Projekt als transnationalen Zusammenschluss von Marginalisierten, die mittels der international geförderten Transitional Justice für ihre Anerkennung als Opfer im postjugoslawischen Raum kämpfen. Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung wird hier als Prozess untersucht, bei dem die Beteiligten lernen, mit Widerständen und Rückschlägen produktiv umzugehen. Verständigung ist dabei wichtiger als Versöhnung.

The historian Branka Prpa was the director of the Historical Archives of Belgrade after Slobodan Milošević's regime ended in 2000. Jacqueline Nießer spoke to Prpa about how she set about reforming Belgrade's Historical Archives during Serbia's democratic opening-up under Zoran Djindjić. Prpa has fostered preservation of the cultural history of socialist Yugoslavia, so the focus of the interview was cultural freedom in and after Yugoslavia. The historian elaborates on how culture both then and now has been in conflict with politics, her remarks leading on to a discussion about how a future may be imagined in the 21st century. The interview was conducted during the COURAGE project, which between 2016 and 2019 has researched the cultural heritage of dissent in the former state socialist countries of Eastern Europe.

German university history departments typically hire two types of historians.
Under the roof of history departments, historians research the past and produce
historical narratives (Geschichtswissenschaft), whereas professorships with an
appointment in history teaching (Geschichtsdidaktik) deal with the practice and the
theory of history. Both professors of history and professors of history education
teach and research in their related realms. However, with this division of labor
between historical research on the one hand, and the practice and theory of history
on the other hand, these two stakeholders of the discipline of history in Germany
are in friction. Public and applied history have emerged somewhere in between the
frontlines.
In this article, we argue that public and applied histories are indicators of change
in German historical sciences. We will describe the phenomenon, explain why
there are two terms for publicly engaged history in Germany, and describe the
change that is underway. This article is written in the spirit of a field report by two
participant observers. It describes coming to terms with a phenomenon for which
various actors in the field offer different paths. All people writing about public and
applied history are part of the phenomenon that they describe, including the two
authors of this text. Therefore, our observations are neither exhaustive nor fully
objective but rather, they are self-critical.

Comment on the paper "Public and Applied History in Germany: Just another Brick in the Wall of the Academic Ivory Tower?" (see https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-81360-3).

The COURAGE country reports provide nation-specific data in a European frame of reference to categorize and compare the various collections on cultural opposition in the former socialist countries. In principle, each former socialist country in Europe is treated in one report. To produce comparable data and categories for further analytical work, the country reports provide answers to a standardised set of questions. These questions are designed to produce comprehensive information on the collections. Questions address how the institutions which collected the records and products of cultural opposition in the former socialist countries were established, the concepts on which they were based, and the ways in which they have evolved from the late socialist period to the present day. Major actors, goals, and strategies are mapped, and major changes are put in the context of the political, legal, financial, and cultural conditions of the collections.

Policy brief prepared by the COURAGE H2020 project. The heritage and memory of opposition has gained particular urgency in view of neo-authoritarian tendencies in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. The values of pluralism, democracy, and open societies are not unquestioned anymore. During the period of state socialism, individuals and groups challenged one-party communist dictatorships. Many committed themselves to democratic and liberal values and insisted on human rights, civic freedom, and the autonomy of the individual. Opposition to oppression was often articulated through culture and the arts; cultural opposition challenged the communists' claim to a monopoly on knowledge, values, and norms. The heritage of cultural opposition against state socialism is today an important resource for social reflection and innovation in Europe. However, as COURAGE has shown, this resource needs to be better acknowledged, and its significant symbolic power should be better exploited. Study and ongoing discussion and debate of the heritage of cultural opposition will counter one-sided interpretations of state socialism and the exclusion of important groups and individuals from history. It offers valuable knowledge about the practices of freedom and strategies against authoritarian governments. Cultural opposition under state socialism was incredibly creative. A nuanced grasp of these examples of cultural creativity under adverse conditions can help stimulate innovative acts and initiatives today.

Policy brief prepared by the COURAGE H2020 project. The heritage and memory of opposition has gained particular urgency in view of neo-authoritarian tendencies in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. The values of pluralism, democracy, and open societies are not unquestioned anymore. During the period of state socialism, individuals and groups challenged one-party communist dictatorships. Many committed themselves to democratic and liberal values and insisted on human rights, civic freedom, and the autonomy of the individual. Opposition to oppression was often articulated through culture and the arts; cultural opposition challenged the communists' claim to a monopoly on knowledge, values, and norms. The heritage of cultural opposition against state socialism is today an important resource for social reflection and innovation in Europe. However, as COURAGE has shown, this resource needs to be better acknowledged, and its significant symbolic power should be better exploited. Study and ongoing discussion and debate of the heritage of cultural opposition will counter one-sided interpretations of state socialism and the exclusion of important groups and individuals from history. It offers valuable knowledge about the practices of freedom and strategies against authoritarian governments. Cultural opposition under state socialism was incredibly creative. A nuanced grasp of these examples of cultural creativity under adverse conditions can help stimulate innovative acts and initiatives today.

Policy brief prepared by the COURAGE H2020 project. The heritage and memory of opposition has gained particular urgency in view of neo-authoritarian tendencies in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. The values of pluralism, democracy, and open societies are not unquestioned anymore. During the period of state socialism, individuals and groups challenged one-party communist dictatorships. Many committed themselves to democratic and liberal values and insisted on human rights, civic freedom, and the autonomy of the individual. Opposition to oppression was often articulated through culture and the arts; cultural opposition challenged the communists' claim to a monopoly on knowledge, values, and norms. The heritage of cultural opposition against state socialism is today an important resource for social reflection and innovation in Europe. However, as COURAGE has shown, this resource needs to be better acknowledged, and its significant symbolic power should be better exploited. Study and ongoing discussion and debate of the heritage of cultural opposition will counter one-sided interpretations of state socialism and the exclusion of important groups and individuals from history. It offers valuable knowledge about the practices of freedom and strategies against authoritarian governments. Cultural opposition under state socialism was incredibly creative. A nuanced grasp of these examples of cultural creativity under adverse conditions can help stimulate innovative acts and initiatives today.

The COURAGE Short Version of Country Reports consists of summaries of the COURAGE Country Reports available at 10.5281/zenodo.2546692. The COURAGE Country Reports provide nation-specific data in a European frame of reference to categorize and compare the various collections on cultural opposition in the former socialist countries. In principle, each former socialist country in Europe is treated in one report. To produce comparable data and categories for further analytical work, the country reports provide answers to a standardised set of questions. These questions are designed to produce comprehensive information on the collections. Questions address how the institutions which collected the records and products of cultural opposition in the former socialist countries were established, the concepts on which they were based, and the ways in which they have evolved from the late socialist period to the present day. Major actors, goals, and strategies are mapped, and major changes are put in the context of the political, legal, financial, and cultural conditions of the collections.