Confronting the Silence and Creating a Shared Memory After a Violent Past. A Case Study of Guatemala

Introduction

“We often cannot get out of the terrible shadow of our historical journey because we have never come to terms with it, have never faced its stories...” - Harold Scheub (2005,p.1).

This paper's central argument is whether collective memory played a role in promoting social healing in Guatemala? Examining the cases of Rwanda and Guatemala demonstrate how collectively and individually "remembering and telling the truth about" unspeakable atrocities has played a central role in both official and personal efforts to reckon with the legacies of brutal dictatorships and to move forward towards democracy and healing (Hayner 2011, p. 135). Individuals and societies face the challenge of dealing with memories of human rights violations in the aftermath of conflict. However, scholars have paid relatively little attention to how individuals and societies respond to group aggression concerning social practices, rituals, signs, and recovery by micro dynamics of remembrance (Hinton and Hinton 2015, P.23).

In the aftermath of Arbenz's government's illegal overthrow in 1954, Guatemala underwent thirty-six years of sustained, violent conflict. This paper examines the role of collective memory in enabling Guatemala to transition towards a more peaceful society. Through the comparative case study of Rwanda and Guatemala, I seek to answer the following research questions: How and in what ways have affected populations utilized various narrative forms to negotiate and contest collective Memory? Secondly, Does the narrative process appear to lead to redemption or forgiveness? "Past traumas do not simply pass or disappear over time," instead, work must be done to remember and understand them in a constructive and undamaging way (Hayner, 2010, p.134).

Literature Review

The events in Guatemala between 1960 and 1996 changed the country and impacted all Guatemalans in many ways. The government destroyed communities and tore families apart as they ravaged towns and kidnapped and killed individuals. The effects that this 36-year war had on Guatemala are shaping how people live their lives and contributing to developing their country. Understanding memory and identity and how these inform this study is essential for examining memory's construction in Guatemala. Memory operates on many levels within society: individual, group, the wider community and is deeply associated with personal and social identity, nation­building, ideology, and citizenship. The research illustrates that memory plays a crucial role in post-conflict reconstruction. It aids in establishing a collective memory, which contributes to creating cultural identity and establishing a narrative of truth, both of which are necessary for the rebuilding process.

Comparative Case Study: Guatemala, Rwanda, and Argentina.

This section presents a comparative case study of two nations—Guatemala and Rwanda, where victim-survivors and human-rights groups have attempted to build shared memory of past trauma. First, I will begin with the context of the conflict in Rwanda and Guatemala.

Historical Background of the Guatemala - Civil War (1960-1996).

"The roots of the Guatemalan Civil War reach back through nearly 500 years of violence and ethnic exclusion" ("Guatemala: 'Silent Holocaust," 1999). For this section, I will begin the overview of the country's internal conflict with the coup d'état of June 1954, which overthrew the democratically elected civilian leader Jacobo Arbenz and initiated a right-wing military dictatorship ("Guatemala: 'Silent Holocaust',1999). In 1951 Arbenz was the democratically elected President of Guatemala. He was a political liberal who spearheaded plans to allow native people access to land. Guatemalan and foreign companies had set aside prime farmland for their use under previous government leadership, including the American corporation United Fruit Company, which owned nearly half of Guatemala. The Arbenz administration nationalized the United Fruit Company. For failing to support American capitalist interests in the region, his administration, and this action, in particular, were seen as a communist threat. In 1954, U.S.-backed forces led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas deposed Arbenz and installed Castillo as Guatemala's President. Castillo immediately overturned land reforms that had helped impoverished farmers, and he refused illiterate Guatemalans the ability to vote ("Guatemala: Silent Holocaust," 1999). From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala experienced a civil war centered around policy differences, discrimination, communism, and land-owning rights.

During this time, approximately "200,000 people were killed or disappeared, 1.5 million were displaced, and over 150,000 were driven to seek refuge in Mexico." ("Guatemala Silent Holocaust," 1999). Reports also showed that the state perpetrated over 90% of this violence. Over 83% of the victims were Mayan ("Guatemala: Silent Holocaust," 1999). Since 83% of the victims belonged to the ethnic Maya population, the last Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) report labeled the atrocities as genocide against the Maya (Manz 2002, p.293). According to the Genocide Convention of the United Nations (1948 Article II), the Convention defines genocide as "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. For nearly three-and-a-half decades between 1962 and 1996, Guatemala's civilian population suffered severe human rights violations at the military's hands (Commission for Historical Clarification, 1999, p.2). The Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH) was established to investigate the atrocities committed between 1962 and the Peace Agreement's final signing in 1996.

The Aftermath of the conflict in Guatemala

The impact of the violence on Guatemalan society is extensive and ongoing. It permeates all facets of society, from the judiciary's highest level to the most impoverished peasants in the country's most isolated communities (CEH,1999, p.2). In the long term, the conflict was highly detrimental to the identity of the Maya people. The survivors were condemned to silence out of fear for their lives and fled to Mexico's neighboring provinces. Those who left and those who remained felt obligated to hide their culture. They were "obliged to conceal their ethnic identity, manifested externally in their language and dress" (CEH 1999,p.88).

The Maya were disallowed from practicing Catholicism, saw the destruction of many important cultural and spiritual centers, and were viciously persecuted for demonstrating any semblance of their indigenous social structure. Although these characteristics do not fall under the umbrella of genocide found in the Genocide Convention, they meet the definition of 'cultural genocide' established by Raphael Lemkin, historian, upon whose writing the Convention itself was founded. Cultural genocide is defined as eliminating or eliminating a local language, national spirit, or "cultural activities" (Lemkin 2002,p.30). The Maya were subject to genocide at the hands of the state of Guatemala.

Case Study of Rwanda

Whereas the genocide in Guatemala occurred over thirty years, the genocide in Rwanda spanned 100 days, beginning in April of 1994. Nevertheless, in those 100 days, the name 'Rwanda' became synonymous with the modern connotation of the word "genocide." Over 800,000 individuals were slaughtered in just over three months, and another two million took refuge in neighboring countries to escape the violence that pitted Rwandan against Rwandan (Magnarella 2002, p.311). The political situation preceding the genocide in Rwanda originated in the remnants of the country's colonization. In the late nineteenth century, Germany, and later Belgium, had colonial authority over Rwanda and exploited what previously informal racial categories upon Rwandan society: the Hutu, the Tutsi, and the Twa (Straus 2007, p.124). It is important to note that these social categories are not tribes, clans, or ethnic groups. In Rwanda, Scott Straus (2007,p.124) observed that "Hutu and Tutsi intermarry; they are members of the same tribes, live in the same territories, share the same language, and follow the same religions. The colonial authority initially based group membership upon appearance, with members of the Tutsi group having features more closely resembling their European occupiers (Straus 2007,p.125). As a result, the Tutsi were deemed the "ruling elite," given authority over the nation, and supported financially by Belgium. Throughout the twentieth century, these categories imposed by the colonial powers became a significant source of tension (Lemarchand and Niwese 2007,p.166).

The Tutsi held governing power in Rwanda until April 6, 1994, when Hutu president Habyarimana was shot down. Subsequently, extremist Hutu forces overtook the government, controlling the National Guard and the army and eliminating the entire Tutsi population and moderate Hutu from Rwanda (Magnarella 2001,p.313). In July of 1994, with the arrival of the rebel army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), composed primarily of Tutsi who had escaped to Uganda, reached a peace agreement. A shaky coalition government was then formed, with the RPF sharing power over Rwanda with several other political parties (Magnarella 2001,p.314).

The aftermath of the conflict - Rwanda

Focusing on the impact of atrocity on culture, the effect of genocide upon the Rwandan society has several defining features that differentiate it from the aftermath of violence in Guatemala. The first difference is the death toll's scope and the general population's participation in the atrocities. Straus (2007,p.130) estimates that the number of individuals directly involved in killings during the genocide was between 175,000 and 210,000 individuals, constituting between seven and eight percent of the adult population. With such a clear distinction between "hunter" and "hunted," the polarization between groups was high following the atrocities. A second feature was the fact that not only did intergroup killing occur but also intragroup killing. Hutu extremists killed moderate Hutu, suspecting them of supporting the Tutsi government, making Rwanda a unique case of genocide (Lemarchand and Niwese 2007,p.176).

Furthermore, Hutu refugees and civilians in Rwanda were treated very differently during and following the genocide. The differentiation in treatment is based upon the assumption that "only Hutu have blood on their hands, and only Tutsi blood" (Lemarchand and Niwese 2007, p. 178). Not only did extremist Hutu kill other Hutu, but Tutsi rebel forces also fought back, targeting all Hutu. Moreover, post-conflict justice in Rwanda has only punished Hutu perpetrators, absolving Tutsi of crimes committed during the genocide, from petty theft to murder (Straus 2007,p.130).

The theoretical applications of Memory

In this section, I investigate the idea of collective memory or a group's memories based on shared experiences and beliefs (Halbwachs, 1951/1992) that manifest in the process and path toward reconciliation.

"Our memory is our coherence, reason, feeling, and action. Without it, we are nothing." - Luis Bunuel.

Maurice Halbwachs coined the term collective memory in 1925, defining it as shared memory, constructed by the group it belongs to (Halbwachs 1992,p.100). Similarly, collective memory can further be defined 'as an account for socially significant experiences and people from the past that is particularly relevant to how a society views itself and its problems now and in the future. These narratives are not just about the past facts; they are also about the moral, political, and social lessons they convey" (Post Conflict Truth, Memory & Reconciliation, 2021).

The focus on memory is not motivated by the presumption that material reparations are unimportant. Instead, I begin with remembering because memory is, in some sense, necessary before—any redress can be offered for injustice; the injustice must be remembered as an injustice. Memory makes the past present, making it possible for the past to be addressed in the present. The functionality and flaws of memory have been long studied and well documented. In the classic children's tale Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll wrote, "It is a poor sort of memory that only works backward" (1865, p.190). In the wake of the conflict, individuals and societies re-create narratives of their past. Memory plays a central role in the re-creation of the narrative or history. The process is complex and may involve multiple understandings of the truth that do not overlap. Individual memories make up the collective memory and are woven together to form a narrative. Memory becomes the prism through which individuals and societies experience their environment, which is vital at the center of peace-building efforts. Thus, the study of memory spans from the psychology of the individual to the field of transitional justice with the attempt to understand how healing can take place that allows for people to coexist or reconcile.

[...]