For her master's thesis, Bareez Majid spent four months doing research in Amna Suraka in Iraq. This former prison is now a museum and memorial site for the genocide against the Kurds during Saddam Hussein's regime. The museum offers little space for the trauma of the tortured prisoners, Majid discovered.
With her thesis In Order Not to forget. A Critical Study of the Iraqi-Kurdish Museum of Amna Suraka, Bareez Majid (Middle Eastern Studies, Leiden University) won this year's Volkskrant-IISH Thesis Prize for History. In her study on war traumas and commemoration, she looks at the Amna Suraka Museum, a former prison in Kurdish Iraq during the regime of dictator Saddam Hussein. During her on-site investigation, Majid interviewed employees, visitors and tortured ex-prisoners.
What is your thesis about? “About the way in which collective memories of traumatic events are embedded in ideas about 'the' Kurdish identity. I looked at the way the museum tells this story. This shows that foreigners are mainly told a story of genocide and death, which is implicitly linked to the idea that Kurdistan should become autonomous. To the local population, the story is mainly focused on survival. On the idea that they should move on and not look back.”
Can you tell us more about Amna Suraka? “The Amna Suraka Museum represents the genocide against the Kurds that took place there. The building, a former prison where mainly political prisoners were held and tortured, consists of several complexes:next to the prison part there is a building where Kurdish costumes and artefacts are displayed. In yet another part you can see a photo exhibition about Kurds who fled in 1991.”
“There is also a room with, for example, the names of the victims who died in Anfal (Saddam Hussein's anti-Kurdish campaign). Behind glass walls are the items found from the victims who were buried alive. During the regime, Kurds were not allowed to mourn. This space feels like a belated funeral service for the people who died during Anfal, whose names and pictures are on the walls. In the room, the visitor also hears sound recordings of crying women. In a separate, small room are sculptures in torture positions that depict the suffering of the prisoners.”
Why did you choose this topic? “I wanted to know whether the victims recognize themselves in the trauma site, whether it helps them to do something with their trauma and whether the museum is a place where they feel heard. This turns out not to be the case. The story of the genocide is used for the bigger picture, the heroic story of the Kurds who cannot be eradicated. Only in the room with sculptures in torture positions do the victims find recognition. It seemed a bit too direct to me, but for the tortured victims themselves it turned out to be helpful to be able to talk about their trauma.”
Majid, an ex-refugee from the area, emphasizes that her background was certainly not the main reason for doing this research, but it played a role. “I have been working on the subject of commemoration for some time and I have specialized in the Shoah. I have done research in this environment because I personally know how many unprocessed traumas there are and how little is done with them. It cannot be compared to Holocaust memorials. A nuanced picture is given there, without embedding the location in Nazi politics. This museum is a lot less nuanced and too political.”
Did you run into anything during your research? “My research proposal was approved and then suddenly there were problems with IS in the area. That was scary, because history seemed to be repeating itself. During the investigation, it was especially difficult to contact people who had been in prison. I had to be introduced by a family member, who has also been in this prison, to tortured inmates who wanted to tell their story.”
You criticize the museum, including about external parties who use their money to undermine the museum's neutrality. Can you explain this? “In my opinion, the foreign parties present mainly use the story of the Kurdish genocide and the museum to profile themselves. There is no transparency about what they do in the museum and why. Europeans know the importance of honoring a memorial site, based on their own experiences with the Holocaust. They also know the value of this traumatic place, but still use the buildings and that makes me angry. Such a thing would never be possible in Auschwitz, for example. It harms the victims of the genocide. I see this as a form of cultural colonization.”
Other points of criticism concern the prioritization of the ideals of the political initiators of the museum and also the makers of the exhibitions. This is at the expense of the victims. The museum offers no room at all for female prisoners, often victims of rape, to commemorate and process their traumas.
What is your main conclusion? “A memorial site like the Amna Suraka Museum, although it is politically charged, can do something in processing trauma. It is necessary for the museum to identify the perpetrator of the genocide, but that does not help anyone. Victims are now unable to tell their story to their children or their loved ones. It is important that this topic is discussed. The museum does that a bit, but it can do a lot better.”
The Volkskrant-IISH Thesis Prize for History has been awarded annually since 2010. When assessing, the jury pays attention to master's theses that have a clearly innovative approach. This may include a new subject or an innovative approach to an existing subject. The prize is accompanied by a monetary amount of 1500 euros.
According to the jury report, Bareez Majid, this year's winner, will leave few readers unmoved with her impressive thesis.
Previous winners of the Volkskrant-IISH thesis prize include Stefan Penders (2013), Floris Keehnen (2012) and Joppe van Driel (2011).