So, I was reading the latest “History Today” and there’s the first in a series of articles about how interpretations of history have changed since the end of the Cold War in Europe. This month is Russia, East Germany next month, finishing with Finland.
There’s a bit of a primer before they get into the juicy historical meat which covers Riga’s Museum of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-91 which sounds like a brilliant thing. Covering both the Nazi & Soviet invasions and (guess what) occupations it apparently tries to bring out the similarities in the two systems and is on the list of places visiting foreign dignitaries are dragged round.
All good so far. But where I find this really heartwarming and really not creeped out like Ben Goldacre might say, is that amongst the exhibits are photos of Latvian crowds welcoming the German troops and stuff detailing how the Latvian police helped round up Jewish people to expedite the Holocaust because the director, a Gundega Michel, wants the museum to present history as research says it is, not as ideology wants it to be. And part of this is the effect history has on ordinary people.
What’s more he deflects criticism of the museum being “too wordy” by saying (and I’d love to quote direct, but I’m going on memory) that complex issues aren’t just black and white and so shouldn’t be presented as such.
I’m really impressed that despite it obviously being a tool of nation-building, this museum isn’t scared to say that this, if you like, oppressed people, has blood on its hands too. I don’t half find that inspiring.
What’s much less inspiring is that I was in Riga about four years ago for a stag do and didn’t go. I didn’t know it was there to be fair, but I didn’t do my usual museum-scouting and I’m now very ticked off about it.
There’s a bit of a primer before they get into the juicy historical meat which covers Riga’s Museum of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-91 which sounds like a brilliant thing. Covering both the Nazi & Soviet invasions and (guess what) occupations it apparently tries to bring out the similarities in the two systems and is on the list of places visiting foreign dignitaries are dragged round.
All good so far. But where I find this really heartwarming and really not creeped out like Ben Goldacre might say, is that amongst the exhibits are photos of Latvian crowds welcoming the German troops and stuff detailing how the Latvian police helped round up Jewish people to expedite the Holocaust because the director, a Gundega Michel, wants the museum to present history as research says it is, not as ideology wants it to be. And part of this is the effect history has on ordinary people.
What’s more he deflects criticism of the museum being “too wordy” by saying (and I’d love to quote direct, but I’m going on memory) that complex issues aren’t just black and white and so shouldn’t be presented as such.
I’m really impressed that despite it obviously being a tool of nation-building, this museum isn’t scared to say that this, if you like, oppressed people, has blood on its hands too. I don’t half find that inspiring.
What’s much less inspiring is that I was in Riga about four years ago for a stag do and didn’t go. I didn’t know it was there to be fair, but I didn’t do my usual museum-scouting and I’m now very ticked off about it.
Comment