Open source histories
By Daniela Medina Poch
Losing a piece of History to give space to histories seems totally legitimate to me.
In the past month, the concept of preservation and transformation of colonialist public monuments has been thoroughly discussed with diverse approaches to how History, memory and culture should be archived and narrated. Under which criteria do we decide what should be preserved? What do we choose to immortalise?
It is simple to notice that owning the voice through which History is narrated has been a strategy of power positioning and of the transmission and imposition of inherited power structures. From a written document, to a public monument and then to History books, through several materializations, a chosen side of History becomes officialized, achieving the illusion of impartiality and of unquestionable truth. From Statue to Status, the materialization of historical characters and events allow the possibility of becoming hegemonic and immortal.
Always written by the victorious party, History is in constant mutation, a succession of events, all intertwined and interrelated — a complex live process which entails a succession of occurrences with a significance in constant influence and alteration by the context and community through which it is interpreted.
Perhaps it would be more assertive to talk about histories, with lower h and in plural. In this way, the materialization of histories as statues which are usually made of marble, bronze, copper or iron– hard, resistant and strong materials, negate the possibility of mutation; in fact, they are made to resist snow storms, rain falls and protests.
In a similar process to how historization is a biased synthesis, heroization often standardizes and reduces the complexities of the human character. Certainly, there have been memorable human beings whose actions serve as guiding references, but in order to be more precise, shouldn’t we take actions and not people as references? — or at least use materials which allow recontextualization? There are plenty of examples of worldly recognized characters whose actions transformed our societies and gave light through making justice in times of crisis, but the context changes and societies evaluate the principles under which these were made heroes, modifications are fundamental. On the other hand, time has repeatedly evidenced that several of these characters, on a less visible realm, practiced opposite values than portrayed in the public sphere. Time is a key friend of justice, it allows alternate stories to eventually find their way to be manifested and heard, which are different processes. Nevertheless, in between collective amnesia and the structures of visibility / Invisibility which tend to follow certain political agendas, the conservation of hegemonic History s encouraged at the same time that the emergence of non-hegemonic histories is discouraged. This is why we cannot rely completely on the magic of Time.
Heroization through metaphorical and literal vertical elevation is a dangerous practice of dehumanizing the human through idealization, an illusion which not only contributes to the mythification but also to a misinterpretation of the path towards what we consider exemplary, is achieved. Attempting to deny our complexity, or rejecting our learning processes and shadows, leads to the codification, alienation of processes which often require everyday perseverance and resilience. The lack of contextualization of why monuments stand in a place, our exclusion as active actors in the shaping of histories, and the mythification of the latter, play a crucial role in why public monuments, despite their imposing presence, are often unnoticeable or unseen. Yet, the societal values that sustain these statues are often too present.
Why have societies chosen to immortalize characters who have triggered mortality? With the appearance of impartiality, institutions of memory of the past (and present) have often praised and perpetuated discriminatory ideals. To what extent do these represent the ideals of the citizens? One example of this is The Center of Historical Memory in Colombia, which was directed by Dario Acevedo, who denied the crimes of the state through the negelection of the numerous victims of the 50 year internal armed conflict. In the exercise of decolonizing and democratizing our history, it is fundamental to address institutions of memory with a critical approach.
As we slowly begin to understand that we urgently can and need to play a more active role in the shaping of histories, a down-to-earth approach to democracy starts to emerge. From the decisions that depicts what occupies our public space and therefore receives part of our public funds, to the values we praise as a society, and how our alternate histories become perceptible, the exercise of collective examination of how we, as individuals and as a society, have also been complicit in the preservation of certain ideals and action is not only important but urgent. Top-down imposition of monuments is undeniable, however the administration of memory happens through a series of negotiations we are directly and indirectly also part of: between the private and public realm, the individual and the collective, citizenship and the State and the past and the present and here is where our participation is influential.
From statues which are torn down and sunk in the ocean, to statues covered by mirrors or plastic bags, or left only with a horse or even other cases of torn down statues taken inside museums, every case is different and should be thoroughly reviewed taking into account its own specificities. In fact, I consider the diversity of approaches necessary in the emergence of plural histories. For instance, Banksy proposed the transformation and update of the colonial statues by adding the statues of people tearing them down. In this regard, the follow up of these collective performance can get very creative. What if pedestals become platforms of speech and public expression where diverse people can stand up and express their opinion? Or, following the principle of heroizing monuments, what can they tell us about their exemplary behaviors, or their shadows? Why not? What about update-able monuments made through digital open source platforms, as Wikipedia, where through a process of consent, users can access and update the content exposed? There are certainly many interesting possibilities we should start considering as a follow up of these actions in a symbolical but also political realm.
Certainly Black Lives Matter has been triggering extremely relevant discussions, without which it would be impossible to conceive a radical decolonization of History. As we are activating our role as citizens in the administration of historical memory, maybe we can also engage ourselves as living beings in the process of administration of the planet. If statues and monuments are projects towards the preservation of History, it would be coherent that they encouraged ideals of preservation of human life.
What if the Amazon rainforest or the Kilimanjaro volcano become our monuments of the future?
