National Memory is a broad term that has previously been discussed by multiple scholars (Andrews, Park, Sturken). There has not yet been a consensus on the definition of national memory by scholars, however I define national memory as a dynamic form of collective remembering defined by shared historical experiences and cultural artefacts. National memory, to me, contributes to national identity and helps establish the legitimacy of the dominant narrative. It is a form of memory that is mutual to members of a nation, but fails to voice the experience of the individual. National memory has been extensively researched by many scholars.
There have been multiple relevant studies done on how national memory can be skewed over time through the works of Sociologist Lorraine Ryan, and other scholars like Andrews herself. There has also been sufficient studies conducted that compare and contrast how National Memory differs amongst its nationals (Park). However, unlike these other studies, my work is primarily based on the presence and influence of National Memory through Joe Sacco’s Safe Area Gorazde. Safe Area Gorazde, by Joe Sacco is a graphic narrative written about the Bosnian War.
Told from his perspective, Joe discusses his experience and his life in Gorazde, a U. N. designated Safe Area in Bosnia. This graphic narrative also features personal anecdotes of many Bosnians themselves as they talk about their role in the war or how the war affected them. I will use this book to argue that National Memory can be used to compare how the memory of a nation differs from individual memories of survivors. Safe Area Gorazde demonstrates how the Bosnian War differs from others recollection of it.
First, I will begin by discussing the importance of landscape in Safe Area Gorazde and how it can be used by some locals as a replacement to cultural artefacts of national emory. Second I will discuss the overlap between individual’s remembering of the Bosnian War with a focus on the distinctiveness between their stories. How Landscape Can Be Used As A Cultural Artefact Andrews and Park both argue about the use of cultural artefacts in the preservation of national memory, however they define cultural artefacts as a physical reminder of past conflicts, for example War Memorials. Often, cultural artefacts are humanmade, created to show commemoration.
However, Andrews and Park both fail to mention that anything that serves as a reminder for past conflict for a select individual, can be a cultural artefact for said individual. In Safe Area Gorazde, Sacco demonstrates how landscape be used to serve the same purpose as cultural artefacts for some members of a nation. Joe Sacco, the author and narrator of this graphic narrative, spends a large portion of his novel interviewing the Bosnian locals. The Bosnian locals in turn tell him their personal struggles suffered through the course of the war, and some of these locals have specific locations in mind that they explain in detail.
In particular, Rasim on page 109, talks about how “the Serbs brought Muslims to the bridge on the Drina and pushed them into the river and shot them”. The Drina is the name of the famous river that runs that flows along the border of Serbia, through the Bosnian towns of Visegrad, Gorazde and Foca (105). The Drina in this graphic narrative serves a similar purpose to War Memorials for Rasim in that they are a physical reminder of his past conflicts, however the Drina is not human-made, nor created for the sole purpose of remembering.
Rasim’s memory of the Drina River is only one memory, and it is highly unlikely that the rest of the Bosnian locals will hold the same memory. On a national level, The Drina River may serve different purposes for the rest of the individuals in Gorazde and ther of Bosnia, however for some individuals like Rasim, the river symbolizes death and war. Whilst war memorials and dedicated monuments may serve as reminders of fallen soldiers to people of other countries, the Drina River had the same impact on Rasim and his struggles during the Bosnian war.
Another example of a location that can be interchangeable with “cultural artefact” is the Blue Road. The Blue Road in the story is representative of freedom, as it was the road used by Americans to get from Gorazde to Sarajevo. This, like the Drina River is full of symbolism for the Bosnian locals. While the Drina represented war, death and bodies, the Blue Road symbolized freedom. At the end of the novels, when the locals from Gorazde were able to use the Blue Road safely, it dignified a positive change for the citizens of Bosnia.
The Blue Road can be seen as a cultural artefact because it too serves as a physical reminder of past conflict, however instead of instilling fear like the Drina River, it embodies a positive resolution. While some countries may dedicate monuments to fallen soldiers celebrating their war victories, the Bosnian locals can utilize the Blue Road to showcase their war victories. *note to add* Edin’s family home Overlap Between Memories Safe Area Gorazde features many stories from the Bosnian Muslims themselves as they talk about the hardships they personally endured during the Bosnian War.
Many of them talk about their life before the war, and a surprising amount of them mention how close they were to the Serbs before. Near the end of the book, Sacco asks a multitude of Muslims if they could ever live with the Serbs in peace again (Sacco 160). Many of the Muslims featured in this section mention how they see a difference between the good Serbs and the “bad Serbs” or “Chetniks”, however, there was no clear consensus in this section. While some agreed that they could live in a Multiethnic Bosnia like before, just as many of the Muslims never wanted to see another Serb again. (Insert quotes as examples).
This shows us that the opinions in Gorazde were heavily divided. Because there wasn’t a clear consensus from the people of Gorazde, it makes it increasingly difficult for Gorazde to unanimous decision. This is an example of how national memory is not always a depiction of the entire nation’s feelings, but rather the feeling of a select few. Throughout Safe Area there are also other times when there were discrepancies amongst the stories told by the Bosnian locals. Mentioned before, the Blue Road was a significant cultural artefact, however not of equal importance to all the citizens of Gorazde.
The Blue Road worked to connect Gorazde to Sarajevo, and was seen as a sign of success and freedom if one was able to cross it safely. While many of the Muslims living in Gorazde wanted to live in Sarajevo for its resources and prosperity, there were a few number of them who couldn’t. When there was news that there was a corridor that would link Gorazde to Sarajevo, many of the citizens in Gorazde were optimistic and rejoicing. Joe mentioned how “even war-weary and shabby Sarajevo seemed like a place full of life and possibility” (Sacco 225). However that was not true for them all.
For instance, when Amra, one of the Muslims from Gorazde, arrived in Sarajevo from Gorazde, she felt miserable. She mentioned how she missed Gorazde and her friends back home (Sacco 226). However, when Sacco interviews Edin, he mentioned that he “didn’t miss much about Gorazde. Just my family and my dog Bill”. This shows us one of the discrepancies amongst the nation. Another example of differences in overlapping stories happened earlier in the story when Peace was announced and the War in Bosnia was over. While this might seem like a momentous occasion for the Bosnian locals, there were still a fair number of different opinions.
Edin, on one hand, mentioned to Joe “I am so happy because of the peace treaty in Dayton” (Sacco 213). He was one of the citizens that were celebrating the end of the war. On the other hand, you had people completely opposed to the treaty in Dayton. Joe mentioned that “Except for Riki and a few others, the mood of most people I knew suddenly darkened after Dayton” (Sacco 214). Many of the citizens were saying that they “can’t be happy about it” and some thought “this is just a pause in the war” and “events might repeat themselves” (Sacco 214). End concluding sentence.