Elisa Exercise 1

Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome):

As Susan Alcock has noted, monuments dedicated to collective memory are often associated not with celebratory moments in national or cultural history, but rather often derive from traumatic experience (“Archaeologies of Memory” 20). The “war memorial” is perhaps the most famous “type” of memorialization through monuments, yet, at least for me, they seem to present quite different considerations of memory and remembering than more standard “tourist” sites than Edensor highlights in his text. However, Edensor’s argument that memory is “socially constructed, communicated and institutionalized” is instructive for the study of these more somber monuments. As I read Edensor’s text, I wondered how his argument for the establishment of ritual practice, modes of photographing and multiple narratives might be complicated by sites whose historical significance may hinder alternate “memories” or how memorial “sacred” sites erected or established from traumatic experiences renders these sites of memory in a way that Edensor does not consider fully. For this reason, I believe the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, also known at the Genbaku Dome, provides an important case study for the study of memory as its sacrality is derived from the tragic landscape and history in which it is set.

The Genbaku Dome foremost problemitizes the question of how to define “sacred space.” The site was not originally conceived as a sacred space but now possesses a substantial, almost guttural force, that if not “sacred” promotes both ritual comportment and utmost reverence in its environment. Originally conceived as an exhibition hall, the Genbaku Dome survived, at least in skeletal form, the atomic bombing of the city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It lies in ruins around the completely rebuilt downtown of Hiroshima, the final monument along the Peace Park mall. It stands as the last vestige, the single “remainder” to the traumatic history of the entire landscape of Hiroshima. It is not; therefore, “sacred” because of some divine hierophany, but rather for some, its survival could be seen as a sort of divine intervention amidst annihilation by human hands. This sort of memorialization strikes me as significant for two reasons: first, it is not a symbolic memorial, constructed by architects after the fact, but rather, it promotes reverence from its existence itself – the ruins are the site of memory. As such, the dome is literally a remnant of the past rather than other war memorials that seek to evoke memory through re-presentation or symbolic remembrance. Second, this site provokes memory in quite a different way than the troves of tourists that visit the Taj Mahal or American memorials. This memorial clearly evokes strong emotions for both local and foreign visitors; yet, as Endensor highlights in his text, many different narratives, experiences and relationships to this site are evident despite similar “rituals” of quiet reverence and internal contemplation.

As an American visiting this site in the summer of 2006, I experienced the relationship to memory and monument in a way that resonated in a distinctly different way from my other experiences with such sites, and, in my opinion, likely different from the “symbolic site” that Endensor discusses. I approached the Genbaku Dome after I had walked through the Peace Museum and the Peace Park itself, so the historical context of this monument was both recent and raw on my mind. I not only felt the collective memory of this site and the history but had happened there, but, as an American, I felt an enormous sense of collective responsibility for this ruined building. It was a monument that begged to be remembered, but it was uncomfortable to do so; it played into the memories of American history that our “national identity” does not like to accept. Perhaps this is when commemorative monuments are most effective – when they make you confront that which cannot be forgotten. I felt like a guilty tourist in Hiroshima, although I had been a tourist in Japan for nearly three weeks-- visiting Shinto and Buddhist shrines and snapping photos with glee. I did take pictures of this monument (see below) but even this process of photographing was quite different. I did not pose with it – what are you supposed to do, smile? The behavior appropriate to the tourist photo simply does not fit with this site.

The Genbaku Dome does appear to be a case in which the afterlife of forms supercedes any original memories of the place. As I began to write this reflection, I thought that this was an instance in which there were no alternate histories– the trauma of the past had made this a universal memorial to human suffering. However, I did find that this site’s nomination to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site was contested by China and the United States, both who claimed that the monument did not appropriately address the historical context of the events of World War II (I have provided the statements from both China and the United States below). Their statements personally made me uneasy but they do provide an indication of the power of monuments and collective memory and the threat to which their own identities are compromised or ignored.

My memory of the Genbaku Dome is somber rather than celebratory, but it is also one of the most powerful experiences I have ever had with a monument. Whether or not this site may be considered “sacred” is debatable – but if it is not, then what is the force that surrounds this place, that ignites our silence, that ignites our memory?

STATEMENTS BY CHINA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DURING THE INSCRIPTION OF THE HIROSHIMA PEACE MEMORIAL (GENBAKU DOME)

During the Second World War, it was the other Asian countries and peoples who suffered the greatest loss in life and property. But today there are still few people trying to deny this fact of history. As such being the case, if Hiroshima nomination is approved to be included on the World Heritage List, even though on an exceptional basis, it may be utilized for harmful purpose by these few people. This will, of course, not be conducive to the safeguarding of world peace and security. For this reason China has reservations on the approval of this nomination.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States is disassociating itself from today’s decision to inscribe the Genbaku Dome on the World Heritage List. The United States and Japan are close friends and allies. We cooperate on security, diplomatic, international and economic affairs around the world. Our two countries are tied by deep personal friendships between many Americans and Japanese. Even so, the United States cannot support its friend in this inscription.

The United States is concerned with the lack of historical perspective in the nomination of the Genbaku Dome. The events antecedent to the United States’ use of atomic weapons to end World War II are key to understanding the tragedy of Hiroshima. Any examination of the period leading up to 1945 should be placed in the appropriate historical context.

The United States believes the inscription of war sites outside the scope of the Convention. We urge the Committee to address the question of the suitability of war sites for the World Heritage List.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repco96x.htm#annex5

Note - My images aren't loading: here is a link to some web images - I will bring the ones I took to class tomorrow and/or send them via email

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/775/gallery/

and an image of the dome before the bombing: http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/image/dome10.gif

Elisa- I really like your statement that the "ruins are the site of memory." I especially am intrigued by the possible double meaning of the word ruin as related to this monument in your example: the ruins of a people and the ruins of a place? For this week, we read many articles and chapters that focused on monuments linked to memory. But connecing this week's reading to the Basso's article-- when do narrative and monumental memory meet? Just trying to figuring that out myself.... - Claudia