The panel examines how oral history has shaped Ukrainian society’s capacity to confront violence, maintain plurality, and resist undemocratic narratives. Anchored in the twenty-year experience of the Ukrainian Association of Oral History (UAOH), the panel explores how memory work has evolved from documenting the legacies of totalitarianism to responding to the ongoing war.
Through this long-term perspective, we trace how oral historians in Ukraine have developed specific tools and ethical frameworks for working with testimonies of repression, survival, and civic agency. These practices reveal that oral history is not only a method of studying the past but also a democratic act — one that fosters resilience through shared remembering, dialogue, and empathy.
By bringing together scholars and practitioners who engage with testimonies from both past and present wars, the panel situates Ukraine within the broader debates of the conference theme “Resilience and Resistance.” It shows how twenty years of oral history practice have created a culture of remembrance that enables Ukrainian society to withstand violence and sustain democratic values even under conditions of war.
Natalia Khanenko-Friesen, University of Alberta (Canada)
"From Reclaiming the Personal to Forging the Nation: Oral History in Independent Ukraine (1991-2026)"
Revisining a small set of key oral historical projects and initiatives in independent Ukraine, my paper traces the evolving and ever changing relationship between nation building and oral history research in Ukraine. In what ways the goals and agendas of oral historical projects in Ukraine differ from those in the broader region of Central and Eastern Europe? What unique aspects of oral historical work in Ukraine can be of interest and relevance to international memory studies and global oral history movement? How can oral history as an epistemic practice of grounded nature contribute to the ongoing efforts of so many scholars in the region to reload the field of Eastern European and Slavic studies?
Maryna Hrymych, National Center of Folk Culture “Ivan Honchar Museum”, Kyiv, Ukraine
"Transgenerational Transmission of Memory among Argentinians of Ukrainian Descent and Ukrainian Repatriates from Argentina"
The Ukrainian diaspora in Argentina represents a special case within global migration history: in addition to multiple waves of immigrants and their descendants, it includes former Ukrainian migrants from Paraguay and individuals who experienced repatriation to the USSR. Some repatriates later returned to Argentina, while others remained in their historical homeland. Consequently, the collective Ukrainian narrative surrounding Argentina is uneven: it encompasses narratives typical for immigrant communities (journeys, cultural shock, displacements, balancing between two identities, etc.), as well as specific narratives, which are the focus of the present study. The study is based on field materials collected in Argentina (2024) and Ukraine
(2025), including surveys, ethnographic observation, life story interviews, and analysis of museum and visual heritage. The research of individual, familial, and institutional mechanisms of memory was conducted in the frames of Hirsh’s concept of postmemory, and also considers the role of intentional collective memory (Assmann) in shaping diaspora identity through cultural institutions, commemorative practices, and community archives.
The findings indicate that while much of memory transmission occurs spontaneously within families, institutional frameworks reinforce, reinterpret, or sometimes deform these narratives. Unique to the Ukrainian-Argentinian collective memory are narratives such as Argentina as a “dreamland” for Ukrainian repatriates who found themselves in the USSR, and reemigration experiences from the USSR back to Argentina. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the older Ukrainian community reconfigured its historical narratives, reinterpreting past experiences through the lenses of resilience, solidarity, and retraumatization.
20260729T110020260729T1230America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires1.14. Remembering to Resist: Oral History, Memory & Democratic Resilience in UkraineSV304MSA Buenos Aires 2026buenosairesconference@memorystudiesassociation.org
Combatting Soviet Totalitarianism: Memory about the Holodomor as a Ukrainian Instrument of Resistance and Overcoming Trauma (1933 – 1980s)
Individual paperResilience and Resistance00:00 Midnight - 00:00 Midnight (America/Argentina/Buenos_Aires) 2026/07/29 03:00:00 UTC - 2026/07/29 03:00:00 UTC
Research question Genocide denial, as agreed, is the last stage of a crime. Holodomor 1932 1933 is a perfect example of such multi layered denial policy. It includes direct repressions against the survivors; disinformation and manipulation; ban to mention the famine and commemorate victims; and the destruction of archival documents. Such imposed survivors’ muteness resulted into oblivion of the genocide in public space. However, there were sporadic manifestations of memories about the famine starting from 1933 to 1987, when the Soviet party finally allowed people to talk about it. Methodology Prosopography method creates a collective portrait of Ukrainians in regard to Holodomor remembrance. Historical genetic method discovers the evolution, peculiarities and changes of the analysed object during the three different periods (1930s, 1941–1944, 1945–1987). Keywords Holodomor, Soviet Ukraine, Soviet totalitarianism, genocide denial, memory, memoirs, trauma, resistance. Key finding 1930s witnessed creation of a number of historical sources about the famine: poems, diaries, letters to the relatives, authorities and the press. In 1941 1944 Nazi occupation of Ukraine took place. Under the other totalitarian regime, people still remembered the famine: exhibitions, works of arts, monuments, sermons, publication of their memoirs in the press, talks among the soviet soldiers about the starvation. Post war Ukraine witnessed the return to harsh practices of silencing Ukrainians on the pre war crimes (deportations, repressions, Holodomor). However, memory about the famine was still manifested. It took place inside the family circles, on radio, in censored works of art, last words on the trials, in everyday life talks. Thus, continuity of memory about the genocide existed since 1933 till the end of 1987, manifesting memory about the starvation as an instrument of resistance to Soviet memory oblivion policy.
