Whose History Are We Remembering?

The installers of Berlin-Mitte's Peace Statue clearly had a transnational purpose and the statue is essentially set against a larger feminist discursive environment. Looking at the Japanese government's response to the statue and Berlin-Mitte's efforts to retain it, it raises important question of why is there a "comfort women" statue in Germany and whose history does Germany seek to tell?

Scholars had always highlighted Germany's approach towards World War Two (WWII) memorialization. While Germany is regarded as a role model for reconstructing the past, Japan's approach towards its WWII conduct has been more controversial.

Anyone who closes his eyes to the past is blind to the present. Whoever refuses to remember the inhumanity is prone to new risks of infection.

German president Richard von Weizsäcker, in his speech on 8 May 1985 at the 40th anniversary of the end of the war.

The "comfort women" issue had exemplified the problem with Japan's memory culture - while the Japanese government had tried to find a solution and economic restitution, it was seen to still neglect the trauma experienced by over 200,000 victims.

More importantly, the Peace Statue controversy in Berlin-Mitte served as a wake up call for Germany's memory culture - it's been quite obvious that Germany’s memory landscape does not tell the history of a socio-culturally diverse republic.

On the one hand, “comfort women” activism in Germany is linked to the struggle against history revisionism and distorted historical consciousness. On the other hand, it is connected with the fight against sexual violence against women.

Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how the local authorities in Berlin-Mitte balances the interests of the Korea Association and the Japanese side.

Additional Reading:

Check out this online article for a comparison between how the two countries approach WWII crimes and memory since the 1980s.

Leave a comment below.