|
Understanding historical memory
By Yeh Hung-ling 葉虹靈
According to recent overseas news reports, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has
declared himself intent on continuing the process of de-Stalinization. He has
said on several occasions that although Josef Stalin made contributions, the
crimes he committed against his own people should not be forgiven. Medvedev’s
opinion is clearly at variance with that of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin, who served 17 years in the KGB. Russian society’s divided historical
memories of the former Soviet ruler can seem rather familiar to us in Taiwan.
Stalin’s Great Purge, which claimed several million victims, is regarded by
historians as one of history’s darkest periods. Nevertheless, in many people’s
minds Stalin was a national hero who defended the Soviet Union against invasion
by Nazi Germany and who governed the country in a very effective way. This year,
as Russia solemnly celebrates the 65th anniversary of victory in World War II,
the question of Stalin’s contributions and failings has once again become a
focus of discussion.
The Moscow city government reportedly planned to include Stalin’s name and
photographs in exhibitions and street decorations connected with the
anniversary. The Russian Communist Party and other left-wing groups warmly
welcomed this idea, encouraging people to think of Stalin as a founding father,
thinker and patriot.
Human rights groups, on the other hand, strongly opposed the idea, saying that
displaying posters that included Stalin’s portrait would be disrespectful to the
victims of his despotic regime. The organizers responded that their intention
was not to make propaganda on Stalin’s behalf, but simply to display historical
photographs. They said that the international community recognized the Soviet
people as the victors, while Stalin was the nation’s leader at the time. They
pointed out that some of the photos were of Stalin meeting with then US
president Franklin Roosevelt and then British prime minister Winston Churchill
at the Tehran and Yalta conferences, and that surely Stalin could not be deleted
from such pictures.
The question of how to evaluate Stalin has long been a thorny issue in Russia.
In a television poll conducted this year to choose historical heroes, Stalin got
the third highest number of votes, and history books that seek to rationalize
his oppression continue to be published.
Last year Medvedev warned the public not to exaggerate Stalin’s achievements. He
urged people to always remember the millions of Soviet people who suffered and
died under Stalin’s rule, and criticized efforts to absolve the despotic regime
of its responsibility.
As Medvedev put it, “Even now we can hear voices saying that those numerous
deaths were justified by some supreme goals of the state. I am convinced that no
development of a country, no success or ambitions can be achieved through human
grief and losses.”
Medvedev also expressed -concern that as many as 90 percent of young people
could not name one famous people who suffered or died as a result of political
repression.
Further steps planned by Medvedev may include fully declassifying the regime’s
archives, increasing the compensation paid to victims, tracking down victim’s
burial sites, building more museums and memorials, and possibly even enacting
laws forbidding the whitewashing of dictators.
Taiwan, too, was subject to authoritarian rule during the Martial Law Era.
Compared to Russia, Taiwan has done better in terms of declassifying documents
and compensating victims, but when it comes to divided historical memories about
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), the situation in
Taiwan is strangely similar to that in Russia.
We in Taiwan are justifiably proud of our democratic achievements, but
regrettably the governments of both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) have displayed a reluctance to dispel
antagonism between their supporters and made little effort to heal the wounds of
the past.
On the one hand, the former DPP government was accused of clumsiness in its
efforts at “de-Chiangization.” On the other, after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九)
led the KMT back to power, his government lost no time in putting back plaques
and signs bearing the words “Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall,” which the DPP
administration had for a while replaced with -“Democracy -Memorial Hall.” It has
also continued to use state resources to commemorate the former authoritarian
leaders.
Recently a dispute erupted over ownership of the diaries of the two Chiangs.
Surprisingly, Commonwealth Publishing Co, which enjoys a good reputation, plans
to publish the diaries of the elder Chiang under the title The Diaries of the
Honorable Chiang (蔣公日記), choosing a feudal honorific, rather than The Diaries of
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石日記), using his name in a neutral fashion, which is what
Academia Sinica calls the diaries.
In addition, a descendant of the Chiangs has designed a range of memorabilia
related to the two former dictators that includes pendants in the form of silver
and gold-colored bullets. The idea behind this “creative” design may have
something to do with the fact that much of Chiang Kai-shek’s life was devoted to
military affairs, but for family members of people executed during the White
Terror Era it is likely to have an altogether different meaning. Such an
insensitive decision could easily reopen old wounds, but so far we have seen no
public discussion of this matter, much less criticism.
In theory, Taiwan has traveled a lot further down the road of democratization
than Russia, but when we compare the way the two societies have gone about
handling the remnants of authoritarian rule, there is much less difference than
one might imagine.
Yeh Hung-ling is executive secretary of the Taiwan Association
for Truth and Reconciliation.
|
