5.21. Comparative Perspectives on Memory, Colonialism, and Democracy [ES/EN]

2025 marked the 51st anniversary of the Carnation Revolution and the 49th anniversary of the 1976 coup in Argentina. Nowadays, both the April 25 and the March 24 represent complex and contested memory spaces, appropriated by various social movements, redefining public spaces as places of memory, but also as places of future. The paper examines how collective memory is mobilized by contemporary activism through a comparative framework, aiming at answering the question: How do different groups appropriate, update and perform commemorative practices to construct distinct visions of past and future? Through a multi sited ethnography that combines participant observation, interviews and archival research (fieldwork in Lisbon and Buenos Aires, 2025), the paper compares two public commemoratives rituals, which have a similar structure, varying in historical and geographical context, to understand how the memory of historical events activates contemporary activism and is activated by it. By linking localized ethnographic detail to transnational memory processes in Portugal’s April 25 (Freedom Day) and Argentina’s March 24 (Day of Remembrance for Truth and Justice), the study contributes to debates on the nexus memory activism and proposes a comparative framework for understanding the public uses of the past. The main hypotheses and findings converge on the idea that these moments of memorial activation are temporal spaces where the past connects with contemporary political struggles. The public space is instrumentalized by distinct social groups and diverse forms of activism that reappropriate the symbols representing an immaterial form of teleportation across generations, values, and agendas that shape the construction of tomorrow. The paper intends to reflect on how these memory disputes constitute active practices of temporal construction, as well as to understand how memory becomes both an instrument of social transformation and a vector for reactionary processes, mirroring the current political context in Portugal and Argentina.

This paper forms part of a PhD project investigating how postcolonial memory shapes cultural heritage projects within the Arctic Council (AC) and its implications for Arctic geopolitics. Focusing on the AC’s Gender Equality in the Arctic projects (2013-2025), the paper explores how postcolonial memory is reflected in gender equality projects of the Arctic Council. These initiatives present themselves as universal projects of empowerment and equality, yet they may also operate as sites where Western liberal norms on gender intersect with Indigenous experiences and histories of colonialism. Drawing on postcolonial feminist theory, including the work of Chandra Talpade Mohanty, María Lugones, and Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí, the paper undertakes a discourse analysis of selected project reports of the AC. This approach analyses how the reports define and frame gender equality, paying attention to whether Indigenous perspectives are incorporated or sidelined. It examines the use of diplomatic and policy terms such as “cooperation” and “co-developing,” and considers how these language choices shape power dynamics. The analysis also investigates whether colonial memories and experiences of gendered oppression are acknowledged, and how Indigenous women are positioned, either as passive recipients of equality initiatives or as active agents shaping the projects’ agendas. By situating the AC’s gender equality projects within postcolonial memory studies, the paper hypothesizes that these initiatives function as a form of soft power: by framing gender equality through Western concepts such as “empowerment” and “co-development,” and selectively acknowledging, or silencing, memories of colonial histories and Indigenous experiences, they inscribe postcolonial memory into Arctic governance. This case study thus illuminates how cultural heritage projects, framed in the language of empowerment and equality, can operate simultaneously as instruments of Western norms and sites for Indigenous negotiation.

This manuscript presents a comparative analysis of ways descendant and origin communities engage with government- and institution-sponsored reparative initiatives in the Netherlands (NL), Belgium (BE), and the United States (US). It examines how communities perceive the reparative potential of initiatives to redress histories of enslavement and colonialism. In 2019, the United Nations Special Rapporteur’s Report A/74/321 on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance framed reparations for slavery and colonialism as a human rights obligation. Equally important, postcolonial and decolonial praxis has broadened the scope of transitional justice to include the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism. Despite these developments, research is limited into how reparations initiatives led by historically colonized institutions might be designed to assure that descendant and origin communities shape the direction and outcomes of initiatives thereby maximizing justice potentials. Ethnographic research in all three countries involved critical analysis of policies and archival records from community, governmental, and university sources; in-depth interviews with public servants, grassroots leaders, and origin community members; and field notes from community, government and research events, as well as museums exhibits focused on truth-telling, repatriation, and testimony. The findings demonstrated that “memory wars” persist in the public sphere, as grassroots groups continue to advocate for context-specific racial redress. At institutional and governmental levels, there is no consensus on methodologies that assure ethical responsibility to the community’s vision of repair or as knowledge producers. In NL and BE, while research institutions sometimes receive government support that strive for descendant representation through a participatory approach, hierarchical structures undermine community-driven engagement. Even if democratizing knowledge is a stated goal, economic inequities and political gatekeeping frequently perpetuate colonial systems. Still, hopeful examples exist where deep engagement and accountability mechanisms occurred across sectors resulting in community-based concepts of repair.

This paper investigates trends of colonial genocide memory over the 20th and 21st centuries to answer the question: how do post colonial memory practices shape the memorialization of the Herero-Nama Genocide, and what role did Germany’s perpetration of the Holocaust have in their recognition and memory of the Herero Nama Genocide? Utilizing primary and secondary sources including news articles, speeches, journal articles and books, this paper tracks trends in German state memory practices toward the Herero-Nama Genocide (1904-1908). Institutional memory practices in Belgium, the United States, France and the United Kingdom are investigated to establish broader trends of colonial memory or lack thereof, including long periods of intentional amnesia by ex colonial powers that only shifted toward the recognition of past atrocities in the 21st century. Germany’s recent recognition of the Herero-Nama genocide is indicative of this larger shift in memory. By situating the Herero-Nama Genocide within a broader context of colonial exploitation and genocide—whether legally recognized or not—it is possible to track patterns of state sponsored memory across ex colonial powers. This paper focuses on formal recognition, apology, reparations, reframing state narratives, and repatriation of artifacts and human remains as memory practices. It is often argued that Germany’s perpetration of the Holocaust is the catalyst for the Herero-Nama Genocide’s recognition both as a genocide and within public memory. Yet this oversimplifies the narrative and ignores the centrality of colonialism to the Herero-Nama Genocide. This paper outlines the ways that Holocaust memory influences the recognition of the Herero-Nama Genocide but does distinguish that it was not a primary factor in the fight for reparations or the memory surrounding the events. The analysis delves into ways that colonial memory has improved but also provides suggestions for where it still falls

This paper asks how competing collective memories among Ethiopia’s nations and nationalities shaped the decision to adopt a multinational federal system in 1995 rather than a unitary or confederal model. It explores how historical memories of exclusion, conquest, and resistance became organizing frameworks in the debates that produced the 1995 Constitution. The central argument is that federalism in Ethiopia was not a purely administrative or ideological innovation but a constitutional translation of memory—a negotiated response to long-standing disputes over belonging and historical justice. The research question guiding this study is: how did the politics of memory, rather than the mechanics of governance, drive the constitutional preference for a federal arrangement? Methodologically, the study employs qualitative and interpretive tools, combining archival research with twenty-one semi-structured interviews conducted with constitutional drafters, political leaders, and legal scholars. It relies heavily on the minutes of the Constitution Drafting Commission and the Constituent Assembly, using thematic and critical discourse analysis to trace how historical narratives were reframed into constitutional arguments. The study finds that Ethiopia’s federal design emerged as an institutional response to irreconcilable collective memories of statehood. By converting remembrance into law, the framers sought to stabilize pluralism and prevent recurrence of domination by any single group. Yet this very act of constitutionalizing memory embedded unresolved historical narratives within the federal system itself. Federalism became both a peace mechanism and a memory container—balancing acknowledgment of difference with a fragile sense of unity. The paper thus contributes to broader debates on how memory politics influence constitutional choices in post-conflict and deeply divided societies.