The United Nations has designated 20 June as World Refugee Day, and I was pleased to attend a couple of events at the University of East London’s Centre for Migration, Refugees, and Belonging recognizing the role of refugees in social and cultural transformation. Both the Q&A session with celebrated author Dina Nayeri and the panel discussion on documenting life story narratives of migration experiences raised my awareness of some common assumptions around movers.
Nayeri’s book The Ungrateful Refugee: What immigrants never tell you (Primrose Press) tells of her own experience leaving Iran with her mother under great pressure, moving through several places and lengthy periods of time before arriving in the United States. Nayeri alerts us to the crushing expectations placed on movers to “posture gratefulness” as a means of making their presence somehow acceptable to those already there. Our current system of national belonging is built upon a broad difference in rights and resources between those deemed ‘local’ and those who are seen as ‘newcomers’.
While mobility for ‘locals’ is easier than ever—tourism and business travel are both built on streamlined border crossing—moving to safety for people threatened by political upheaval has resulted in longer and longer periods of waiting at borders. Nayeri talks about how she and her family members felt “crushed by the waiting,” But it was “the look that well-meaning people gave them seeking acknowledgement” for the welcome that helped her understand the neverending expectation of gratefulness for being allowed into the national space.
Increasing interest in the stories that people from refugee backgrounds tell about their experiences of migration and settlement was very much evident at the packed re-launch of the Migration Special Interest Group of the Oral History Society (UK). The session was organized by Paul Dudman, Archivist at the Refugee Council Archive at University of East London and the community-engaged Living Refugee Archive. Panelists spoke about a range of fascinating projects to locate the participation of refugee and migrant newcomers in the social life of the places of settlement: oral histories with Chinese newcomers in Manchester, research into Gujuratis’ journey to Croyden, the role of translation in reception and settlement of various groups coming to the UK in the 1940s, among others.
In addition to broadening our historical understanding of places of migration, our archives may also help to unpack the story of “assimilation theatre” that Nayeri draws attention to in The Ungrateful Refugee. For example, Judith Garfield, of Eastside Community Heritage, described the Hidden Histories project and spoke about the difference acquiring legal status made to the types of stories newcomers told: gaining their residency in the UK transformed their “limbo”stories into “integration” narratives, demonstrating the relevance of bordered status in producing social belonging.
Drawing our attention to the relationship between national borders, legal status, and the right to place, archives can help us critique the assumption that communities are made up of sedentary locals and mobile newcomers. Panelist and oral historian Mariella Hoffman has suggested defining hosts and refugees as a single field, an alternative way to capture communities constantly in the process of becoming. Capturing forced migration as part of our shared history of place and not only a temporary status for some community members can help recenter experiences of being on the move as part of our shared humanity.
And A Poem for YOU on #WorldRefugeeDay2019
By Ayar Ata
The impetus for my research on Kurdish mass displacement and diaspora was developed gradually over the course of my own life experience as a refugee in July 1986, during the Iran-Iraq war as the region became increasingly insecure and dangerous for everyone, especially for refugees and displaced people, I with five other young men took a long walk out of the border region through an area called in Kurdish ‘dyhata sotawakan’ literary (burned villages).
Five month later a new chapter of my life began in November 1986 when Sweden kindly opened a new gate for me to an exhilarating, and yet at an alien society. A new society which was both inviting and challenging me to restart my life. I traveled to London to study with my suitcase. I arrived at Stansted airport in London on 25 June 1989. To cut a long story short, I am still here, a member of the Kurdish diaspora in London and I am a Kurdish Londoner.
Perhaps my own formal and most informative steps towards active integration or active citizenship in London began when I completed my undergraduate degree at SOAS, University of London in 1997. During the course of studying for a BA in Social Anthropology and Development Studies, I learned more about forced migration and immigration – stories as well as theories. This helped to shape my initial academic interest in migration and integration in London. I further completed my postgraduate studies in social policy at Middlesex University in 2000 and forced migration and international human rights studies at University of East London in 2009 prior to starting my PhD study at London South Bank University (LSBU) in February 2011 which I completed in April 2017.
My study on Kurdish diaspora in London at LSBU analyses the notion of history, cultural identity and the idea of home and belonging by considering how the Kurds view their own history (the past) and how they relate (at present) within their new home, that is London. In other words an analytical attempt has been made to understand a shifting position of the Kurds from victims in the region to active citizens in London. Moreover, based on personal narratives and other empirical data collected, my study clearly illustrates that the transformation of identity is occurring within the Kurdish diaspora in London. On a micro level, a new theme has emerged within these narratives, where many second generation Kurds who born in London positively identify themselves as ‘Kurdish Londoners’. The energy, dynamism, and challenges of integration should be understood better for all BAME and refugee communities in London. See a recent proposal which put forward by the British Future, an independent think tank organisation based in London, advocating for starting a Centre at the City Hall for promoting integration and citizenship in London.
 Ata, Ayar (2008). My Suitcase [a poem] In Exile Writers Magazine, issue 9.
Under my bed there it was my seemingly little suitcase.
Inside it my few precious belonging.
A present from My Grand mum, an evenly shaped
Light blue stone with white spots spread all over it.
A familiar piece of early morning sky with tiny stars twinkling in the palm of my hand.
A photo of my mother smiling at me in despair,
waving and wondering.
A broken watch with frozen hands
Ethical and Privacy Issues in Collecting Oral Histories
by Shailja Sharma, DePaul University, USA
Though oral histories and their archives are an accepted mode of historical inquiry in academic and non-academic settings, this practice raises questions around survivor’s trauma, confidentiality vs. public memory, and a researcher’s ethical imperative to “do no harm”. Unlike material archives, where artifacts and documents are historical legacies, oral histories often implicate living people. More importantly, in the context of Partition history, events and memories involve a degree of violence and uprooting. While working to collect oral histories for 1947 Archive, an organization based in Berkeley, California, the process of asking subjects to revisit old and private memories is a fraught one. They often get upset, emotional, cry or need to take a break from the recording. Sometimes, they can’t go on. In addition to traumatic memory, there is often a generation or a gender gap between the recorder and the interview subject.
Keeping in mind that the need for oral testimonies is so crucial, particularly as this generation from 1947 is dying out so rapidly, what are the best practices around collecting oral history? My paper will address the pros and cons of this exercise.
The paper is based on my work for the 1947 Partition archives, based out of Berkeley, CA, which holds 1740 stories on Partition. The idea behind the public archive is to collect the oral testimonies and document the histories of people who survived the partition of British India. The virtual archive which we have established will serve as a resource for scholars, historians and people at large.
In 1947, India became independent but was simultaneously divided into East and West Pakistan, leading to a massive population transfer across the eastern and western borders of these new countries. The numbers, approximately, were ten million displaced, over a million killed and many more unaccounted for. The population transfers were not centrally managed; they were oftentimes spontaneous. The resettlement was also chaotic, extending from 1947 to the mid 1950s. This displacement and resettlement was aided by the army and paramilitaries, along with religious NGOs and spontaneous collective groups. Once refugees ended up in camps, mostly near major and mid-size cities, resettlement began.
Housing was a major issue. In Delhi and Karachi, many refugees were “allotted” “abandoned” houses. Other times, they broke into locked homes and took them over without any paperwork. Houses that were temporarily abandoned or permanently abandoned, nobody knew if the border would be crossable, whether their departure was permanent or temporary, would they be able to return.
The demographic displacement, haphazard and disorganized as it was, was also accompanied by mob violence which had been building between June and August 1947. Semi-organized political and religiously inspired groups of males preyed upon families, especially women, justifying their physical and sexual violence as a tit for tat cycle of revenge and counter-revenge. This in turn forced families to flee established neighborhoods, homes and businesses. Displaced migrants were called “Mohajir” in Pakistan and “sharanarthi” in India. Most people were not sure whether they were leaving for good, or temporarily. There was a lack of clarity about what a “partition” meant. They were unclear of whether borders would be open or closed, whether they would have the freedom freedom to travel, to visit relatives across borders, marry or not.
The history of this resettlement and forced migration has to be preserved and documented. The Partition Archive has collected 1740 narratives of the survivors of 1947. The interviews were carried out by trained volunteers, of whom I am one. Interviews have taken place in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the United Kingdom and USA. The process is centrally administered by the archive. First, interviewees/narrators/survivors contact the archive, which then puts them in touch with interviewers in their area. The audio/video/still photographs are then uploaded to the site of the Archive, where they are technically edited and made available to the public.
I have recorded five subjects talking about their experiences of displacement and resettlement in the last two years for the 1947 archive. The last two interviews were conducted in summer 2016. My subjects were a 98-year-old government servant of Pakistan’s Commerce department and his 91-year-old wife.
In this paper, I will be using some examples from these interviews as I explore how, even after so many years, the many sensitivities and silences around the experiences of displacement color their narratives.
As an interviewer, one has to tread a fine line between asking for details of survivor experiences, finding out as much as you can so that their stories serve as rich source material, and realizing that these experiences are not in the past. For the narrators, they are part of their present and of their living family histories. Especially with experiences that were oftentimes violent, resulting in trauma and loss, or in reinvention of identities, how much honesty is required or desirable for the narrative to be authentic? Is the narrative a Barthesian style narrative, signifying an experience or is it the experience itself? Is it history or a historical story?
And in cases where the loss is accompanied by physical violence, can one really press for details?
Before you become a “Story Scholar” for the 1947 archive, you go through a two-three-hour training, which covers some technical details but also advice on what can and cannot be asked. The archive also provides you with an exhaustive list of questions which covers different types of migrants: farmers, musicians, academics, businessmen, women etc. There are twenty pages of questions in all. What I have found however, is once we start the interviews with a name, age, and general question about origins, the interviewer doesn’t need to prompt the storyteller with too many questions.
The specificities, of town and village life, the school days, mostly form and idyllic pre-lapsarian community where generations lived in recurrent cycles of rooted continuity. Partition is seen as an unexpected storm that swept away known ways of living and ended in a pale copy. Within that your-narrative, many details differ. Sometimes post-Partition is also seen as a getting rid of an imperial power, a moment of nationalist inspiration, a chance to build a new nation, a fulfillment of a political dream. It is described as a chance at a modern education, a dismantling of oppressive caste or village systems. But the overwhelming theme is one of loss.
This can appear in many ways: sometimes a subject may start crying as he or she recounts the details of their journey. As an interviewer what do you do: Do you pretend this is part of the story? Do you ask if they want to take a break, even if it interrupts the flow of the narrative? Do you let it become a chance to ask even more detailed questions? Is your responsibility to the “story” or to the person telling their story? This is especially hard as most of the narrators are well into their seventies.
At other times, their spouses who are sitting and listening to the story may get emotionally disturbed as much of the experience being described is new to them as well. What is my responsibility as a stranger, as an interviewer?
A third moment of ethical ambiguity arises when parts of the narrative touch on taboos: for example, the rape or abduction of a female family member. The interview protocol suggests that we ask for details but when the subject is clearly reluctant to either identify the relative or provide details of the incident, or if he or she says something deliberately vague like, “yes, my sister died for our family at that time”, can I press for what that means?
In one interview, the family of the subject broke into a Muslim family’s house upon arriving in independent India. I was told “Hamne tala tor ke kabza kar liya” [we broke the lock and captured it]. Later on in the story, his family claimed compensation from the state for agricultural and residential property they had left behind. Can I show any judgment about this? Can I ask a leading question like “Did you pay for it later?”
Lastly, I argue that there are many grey areas around violence: did they themselves perpetrate violent acts? Abduction? Looting? Nearly all narratives frame their stories as ones of victimhood, or courage, or some combination of the two. The perpetrators are sometimes anonymous, at other times, members of another religious group. This makes a kind of sense as most of the narrators were children or teenagers at the time of the partition. In many cases they have heard about who was responsible for looting, arson and murder. In a few cases, they have direct knowledge or eyewitness accounts of actual incidents. Can one ask for these details when the truth would implicate them or worse still, give the lie to the story that they were telling?
So to conclude, while the idea of first person narratives and autobiographical accounts of the Partition is an important and powerful one, in practice, as I do more interviews, I find the silences and grey areas in the narratives much more compelling. I also find that the format creates some ethical quandaries about where to push, and what kinds of stories are being elicited by this format.
While the idea of having a detailed list of questions is a good one from a historical perspective, perhaps having a more open ended approach would be a better one so that interviews could move away from a detailed recounting to a more reflective type of narrative. In addition, a better training for the interviewers in dealing with some of these ethical and emotional areas would help in understanding the nuances of the stories we are listening to.
Finally, while the archive has almost 1740 stories on its website, what is needed is a better analysis of the patterns in these stories and a critical questioning of some of the assumptions in them. I realize that this might go against the grain of the reason this archive was created, but not questioning or analyzing is to do the wealth of material here a real disservice.
A note about the directions that this paper can go: The politics of the archive:
In his book Archive Fever, Jacques Derrida presents the figure of the archon, guardian of the documents, the “sentry”, as one of the three pylons supporting the archive. The other two are the “place” and the “law”. The discussion of sentries enables Derrida to slightly reduce the abstractness of the archive, and to speak of figures of power that legislate, repeat their law, and enforce it. However, the way he looks at the sentries from the outside, as those who set archival borders, allows them to fool him at times: to force him to look at the threshold from their point of view, namely inward, at the way in which they uphold the law of the archive, leaving Citizen Derrida and his fellows outside, beyond the conceptualization of the archive. Yet Derrida, in his turn, fools them, writing that: “It is a question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise and of a responsibility for tomorrow.”[i]
[i] Another way to theorize the archive is through the theoretical lens of the Hegelian concept of Aughebung or“Sublation” whereby the archive both protects/freezes memory and cancels it as a political act. See Thomson, Alistair (2010), “ Memory and Remembering in Oral History” in Donald A. Ritchie (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Oral History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
IASFM Panel Submission Success: Documentation, Preservation and Researching the History of Forced Migration and Refugee History: Ethical and methodological developments
IASFM Panel Submission Success: Documentation, Preservation and Researching the History of Forced Migration and Refugee History: Ethical and methodological developments
We are very pleased to announce that our panel submission for the IASFM16 conference to be held in Poznan, Poland was accepted and full details of the panel are outlined below. We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who submitted an abstract in response to our call and I would also like to say a big thank you to my colleague, Dr. Rumana Hashem, for coordinating the submission.
An initial program for IASFM 2016 is now also available online via the IASFM conference website at: http://iasfm.org/iasfm16/program/
Many thanks and very best regards,
(Archivst, University of East London).
Title of the Panel
Documentation, Preservation and Researching the History of Forced Migration and Refugee History: Ethical and methodological developments
Panel Author: Hashem, R.
Co-authors: Dudman, P., Khan, A. W., Lauren, B., Sharma, S.
This panel seeks to examine some ethical and methodological considerations for documentation and preservation of refugee voices and history of forced migration. We recognise that there is a need to work on how knowledge in the field of forced migration is created/ produced and maintained. The panel will also address the growing critique of the divide between the knowledge of experts and migrants/ refugees. We would like to link the proposed panel into the conference theme 9, “Researching forced migration: engagements, methodologies and ethics.” This means that we are looking forward to papers which would cover ethical and methodological developments in relation to collating, researching, archiving and documenting testimonies of refugees and migrants for the purposes of constructing and documentation of social and political history of forced migration. It will conclude with a rationale for the creation of the IASFM Working Group for Archiving and Documenting the History of Refugees and Forced Migration.
The papers in this panel will cover the below and more issues as relevant to the conference theme:
- How do/can we document oral history of refugees and migrants without breaching confidentiality and sensibility of data?
- How important is engagement with local refugee and migrants communities for documentation of history of forced migration?
- Which ways could community archives, oral histories and digitalised archives of (refugee and migrants) promote the preservation of history of forced migration?
- What is the significance of diverse narrative methodology in understanding and researching history of forced migration?
- What are the best practices for collating and archiving refugee and migrants’ testimonies, and how do we deal with major challenges in doing research in the field of forced migration?
- What are the high standards of collection care and long-term preservation of `refugee archives’, and how this could be maintained?
In addition to the above, the panellists will address ethical and methodological issues, including who can/should do refugee research, who can be researched, whose voices should be heard and preserved in archives in the field of forced migration and refugee studies, how can we adequately document and preserve history of forced migration and refugees.
Structure of the Panel:
The panel is divided into three parts: a) Papers and presentations by four panellists, b) Response by panel author to the presented paper, and c) Open discussion and comments by the forum
Individual abstracts and titles of papers:
Amadu Wurie Khan, The ‘Self’, Ethics & ‘Voice’ in Migration Research: a reflective critique of ‘insider’ ethnography Social science literature has acknowledged the benefits of using researchers with ‘insider’ status to research vulnerable and ‘hidden’ groups in society such as forced migrants. Some of the benefits of ‘insider’ ethnography include building trust, bridging cultural understanding, easy access to diverse voices and its empowerment potential (Bloch 1999; Jacobsen and Landau 2003; Hynes 2003; Kosygina 2005; Dona 2007). However, as an asylum seeker academic, I encountered some unexpected limitations emanating from my ‘insider’ status that are worth sharing with the wider academic/research community. The limitations have implications for methodological considerations relating to ‘insider’ ethnography, research ethics and the ‘ethical representation’ of ‘voice’ and life stories in refugee research. These methodological concerns have been overlooked in the literature.
The paper will therefore reflect on my research experience in two capacities, as an ‘interviewee’ and a ‘researcher’ with a refugee background. It will consider the benefits and challenges derived from being an ‘insider’ in relation to access and recruitment of interviewees, data protection, consent and anonymity, knowledge production and ‘voice’, and ‘positionality’. In addition, it will consider the ways in which researchers could compound the liminal social status, marginalisation and disempowerment of asylum seekers/refugees during the research process. This reflective critique will suggest that, for many forced migrants, participating in research provide a space and mechanism for claims making, resistance and empowerment.
Amadu Wurie Khan, International Commission on Survivor Centered Disaster Recovery
Shailja Sharma, Ethical Issues in Collecting Oral Histories of the 1947 Partition
Though oral histories and their archives are an accepted mode of historical inquiry in academic and non-academic settings, this practice raises questions around survivor’s trauma, confidentiality vs. public memory, and a researcher’s ethical imperative to “do no harm”. Unlike material archives, where artifacts and documents are historical legacies, oral histories often implicate living people. More importantly, in the context of Partition history, events and memories involve a degree of violence and uprooting. While working to collect oral histories for 1947 Archive, an organization based in Berkeley, California, the process of asking subjects to revisit old and private memories is a fraught one. They often get upset, emotional, cry or need to take a break from the recording. Sometimes, they can’t go on. In addition to traumatic memory, there is often a generation or a gender gap between the recorder and the interview subject. Keeping in mind that the need for oral testimonies is so crucial, particularly as this generation from 1947 is dying out so rapidly, what are the best practices around collecting oral history? My paper will address the pros and cons of this exercise.
Shailja Sharma, DePaul University, Chicago
Paul Dudman. Refugee Voices and Living Narratives: Reflections, Challenges and Opportunities for (Re-) Constructing, Documenting, and Preserving Refugee and Migrant Testimonies within the Archive
How welcoming have traditional Archives been in documenting and preserving the living narratives of those who have needed to flee from their homeland to start a new life abroad and how has this been reflected in our national history and public opinion? Archives are the backbone of history and how has the legacy of migration been documented within these collections and how can a Working Group for the Preservation of Refugee Archives help to record and document the living narratives of those who experience the migration journey?
The aim of this paper will be to reflect on the work we undertake at the Refugee Archives at UEL to make our collections accessible, especially in light of current migration issues. It will highlight the importance of civic engagement and outreach project for forming new partnerships between academics, activists, students and community groups. It will also consider the interaction between oral histories and the more traditional materials located with our Refugee Archive collections, focusing especially on how oral histories can contribute to documenting, preserving and making accessible the genuine voices and testimonies of refugees.
Paul V. Dudman, Archivist for the Refugee Archives at the University of East London.
Brittany Lauren Wheeler . Historical Components of Archival Ethics and Methodologies
This year’s IASFM conference takes place at an institute of ethnography and cultural anthropology. As such, this paper considers the extant archive as a frequent institutional asset with anthropological or other disciplinary legacies. It is the extant archive to which much future archival material will be added; its historical content used both as an argument for new focus, and as the basis for certain material being highlighted for further public or professional access (including digitally). Before we can address questions such as whether a divide between ‘expert’ and ‘migrant’ knowledge persists in the documentation, preservation and research connected to the archive, for instance, we must come to terms with the vestiges of similar and dissimilar historic inequities that informed the creation of archives in their first instance. Such an investigation may provide some assistance in framing the ethical and methodological questions we can ask to help us build better archives concerning forced migration events, refugees, and also post-refugee lives. Ultimately this paper hopes to comment upon the temporality of archives as we consider the representation of lives impacted by forced migration: During what time frame is material “pertinent” to forced migration events and refugee lives, and when might this pertinence end? When is it appropriate for those directly involved as opposed to those not directly involved in migration events to collect, organize, and comment upon archival material? What temporally-informed methodologies might we consider as we continue to build or re-fashion archives?
As an additional note to what has been stated above, the impetus for the abstract is the anthropological museum archive concerning indigenous people. For instance, material on their restricted movements and livelihoods on reservations, often tied to the dispersal of their material culture. While the ultimate focus of this paper is not just museum, this would come into play to some degree in the discussion.
Brittany Lauren Wheeler, Emerging Scholars and Practitioners on Migration Issues (ESPMI).
We are very pleased to welcome the following new members to our IASFM-ADHFMR Working Group, namely: Amadu Wurie Khan (PhD); Anne Irfan; Brittany Lauren-Wheeler; and Shailja Sharma.
Our Working Group is always looking for new archivists, activists and researchers to get involved in our work and if you are interested, please do email us for further details. You are welcome to contact the Convenors, Paul Dudman and Rumana Hashem, via email at: email@example.com, and firstname.lastname@example.org
New Member Details
Amadu Wurie Khan (PhD):
Amadu Khan is a career human rights activist, journalist and refugee academic living in the UK. His research portfolios, which include a PhD study, are in forced migration, citizenship and the news media. He is interested in forced migrants’ personal ‘lived’ experiences and stories of belonging, identity and integration, and how these are shaped by government policies and news media coverage. His human rights journalism include serving as the first ever editor of the Exiled Journalists’ News – UK and have contributed expert opinion on asylum-seeking migration, human rights and cultural diversity to various media outlets including BBC Newsnight, Cork FM96, the African Courier, the Scotsman and the Sunday Herald. He has also held research, editorial and capacity-building/training consultancies with international NGO’s including Amnesty International, Article 19, the then World Development Movement, and with the UK Department for International Development (DFID). He is a founding member of the International Commission on Survivor Centered Disaster Recovery (ICSCDR), where his special focus is on ‘survivor’ ethnography in forced migration.
Anne Irfan is a PhD candidate at the London School of Economics, where she is researching the historical development of the Palestinian refugee camps in the Middle East. As a historian by training she is particularly interested in questions around archiving and documenting refugees’ experiences. Anne has a Dual MA/MSc from Columbia University and the LSE, as well as a BA(Hons) from Oxford University. Outside of academia, she has worked in the NGO sector, including on projects in the Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank and Lebanon.
Brittany Wheeler is a student of museology and migration, most recently working within The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, where she served as the Repatriation Specialist (2011-2016). In work concerning the repatriation of human remains and objects, the documentation of the history of forced migration and its long-terms material results is of great importance to the determination of appropriate contemporary action. Brittany has also co-coordinated the Emerging Scholars and Practitioners on Migration Issues Network (ESPMI), where the key objective has been to bring scholars and practitioners into meaningful dialogue, most notably by leading the production of a new multi-disciplinary, open-access, peer-reviewed e-journal, Refugee Review. Brittany holds an M.A. in Forced Migration Studies from the University of the Witwatersrand (within the African Centre for Migration & Society), where she brought the threads of migration and museology together by asking how the processes involved in the repatriation of human remains over borders impact the lives of the living (those culturally affiliated with the deceased through ancestry and/or geography in South Africa and the United States). She will begin a PhD study in autumn 2016.
Shailja Sharma is an Associate Dean in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at DePaul University, Chicago. She directs the M.S. in Refugee and Forced Migration Studies and is an Associate Professor of International Studies. Her books include New Cosmpolitanisms: South Asians in the United States (Stanford, 2006) and Postcolonial Minorities in Britain and France (forthcoming, Manchester University Press). Her areas of research include migration, integration, and citizenship, as well as South Asian history.