Comparing Ntarama Genocide Memorial Center And The Topography Of Terror

I decided to do my brief section essay on chapter six. To summarize, chapter six focuses on the comparison between two memorial sites. The memorial sites that are mentioned are Ntarama Genocide Memorial Center and The Topography of Terror. It explains these memorials and how they show a representation of the genocides that occurred. It mentions the primary memorial artifacts, for example primary artifacts for the Natarama Genocide Center being “skeletal remains of genocide victims” (Macaluso [Ebook] 172). This type of memorial really gives the visitors an accurate representation of the tragedy. It allows you to see how big of an impact it made to society and to the community that was affected by the genocide, and see all the people whose lives

However they use a different approach, memorials that are built to work as a memory for genocides would primarily focus on the victims, but at Topography of Terror they ask the visitors to consider the experiences of Nazis and bystanders. “The imprisoned, tortured and murdered, once held in the cellars, have been relegated to minor roles.” Essentially they are trying to clean up the genocide, and not make it explicit with imagery or remains of those affected like the Ntarama uses. Which gets us into what I think the key theme of the chapter is, the statement of how clean approaches to the past can keep us dirty. A perfect example to back the statement is when Layla Dawson prompts the reader with a very impactful question about the Topography of Terror, “Should a ‘dirty’ history be cleaned up to this extent” (Macaluso [Ebook] 172). In my opinion, I think a memorial like this that represents a genocide that occurred in history shouldn’t be cleaned up to this extent. It should include everything that happened and artifacts directly from the victims. That way, it’s accurate and we can see and feel what happened. This way we learn history

Like we see at the Natarama Genocide Memorial Center. How does chapter six demonstrate the link between trauma and violence to reconciliation and reparation? Both memorials have created a positive relationship between never forgetting such crimes. The relationship between trauma and violence to reconciliation and reparation is shown perfectly by the Rwandan government, whose memorial focuses more on the victims, as they utilize the bodies of those who were killed inside their memorial piled up. They use these horrific scenes to show the visitors what happened and how many were affected. This ties to reconciliation and reparation because it shows respect to the victims that were murdered, “In these ‘cities of death’ the departed remain in all senses, for they are not segregated from the living, in the manner of cemeteries, but taken over key venues of civil society such as churches and schools. They are not gone in order not to be forgotten” (Macaluso [Ebook] 183). In regards to monument culture, this chapter shows us that no matter if we try to clean up events like these, they will always be