Andersen, Tea Sindbæk and Barbara Törnquist-Plewa: Disputed Memory: Emotions and Memory Politics in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe

This collection of essays deals with various contested and conflicting issues related to the recent past of Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe. In the introduction the editors present a multi-layered perspective on the book and argue that it is not limited to bringing the content of the debates from this part of theworld to a broader international audience which too often ignores them. As research on the history education clearly shows, the past of this region lies on themargin of school history education;Western European textbooks hardlymention it and thus it remains largely unknown. As a result, contemporary political debates in those countries also remain incomprehensible and may seem irrational. Readers of the book are given a chance to become acquainted with the details of the Winter War of 1940 between Finland and the USSR and its commemoration; the UkrainianPolish conflict during the Second World War; the dilemmas and choices of Estonians and Lithuanians facing Nazi and Soviet policies; internal conflicts in Yugoslavia; the Armenian genocide; the fate of the Hungarian Roma; and the history of Wrocław during WWII. This multitude of topics is accompanied by a multitude of research methodologies, which constitute the second layer of the book. We can observe how different research methods may be applied to the analysis and presentation of historicalmemory: from traditional content analysis of political press or biographical interviews – the canon of oral history – through the anthropological approach to memory studies and the analysis of the places of memory and, perhaps more importantly, of their reception by various audiences, to making use of the ever more abundant internet resources. For example, Martins Kaprans analyzes Wikipedia as a tool of transnational historiography going beyond and behind the content analysis of its various national versions and looking at the community of editors and their practices. VolodymyrKulyk presents the discussions on Facebook and its Russian counterpart, VKontakte, and reflects on their role in shaping (or dividing) Ukrainian society. Tea Sindbaek Andersen looks at the fan pages created by supporters and opponents of the Croatian football player Josip Simunić. I found the approaches to Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube, and the on-line comments to e-journals most inspiring and applicable to the variety of topics, also beyond the disputed memories. In today’s online world these are the places where collectivememory is expressed: both as a reaction to the politics of history organized by the state and to the activities of various public history institutions, and as a means and reflection of grassroots, bottom-up public history, where these memories (also disputed) are expressed without the mediation of historians. Social media give access to the free flow of opinions not intended for research nor addressed to historians. At times, they are far from being politically correct and can be xenophobic, full of hatred and prejudice, but it does not disqualify them as sources for research, and perhaps even makes them more authentic. For, as Sophie Oliver comments on the responses she received from the visitors to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin: “were these visitors simply feeling what they thought they should [emphasis hers] feel? Was their account of experience influenced by what they thought I, as a researcher, wanted to hear?” (112) On the other hand, Kulyk notices in relation to social media he analyzed, that “many people participate in various inconspicuous practices of the reproduction of a certain version of memory and identity, often without being aware of the process to which they contribute.” (294)