Making material memories: Kinmen’s bridging objects and fractured places between China and Taiwan

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

New geographies of commemoration

“…Since then, a vibrant body of work in geography and beyond focused on the experience of commemoration has emerged, with a growing strand addressing the affective and sensory aspects of official commemorative sites and events. This takes in studies of visits to museums or memorials (Waterton and Dittmer, 2014; Turner and Peters, 2015; Sumartojo and Graves, 2018; Drozdzewski, 2018a; Seal, 2011; McCreanor et al, 2018; Wetherell et al, 2019), the specific affective affordances of digital sensory technologies (Witcomb, 2013; Sumartojo and Graves, 2019; Sear, 2016), and the role of touch and materiality in communicating knowledge of the past (Zhang and Crang, 2016; Freeman et al, 2016). In their book on affective heritage practices, for example, Wetherell, Smith and Campbell (2018: 2) argue that ‘attention to emotion and affect allows us to deepen our understanding of how people develop attachments and commitments to the past, things, beliefs, places, traditions and institutions’.…”

A genealogy of military geographies: Complicities, entanglements, and legacies

“…As Hyndman and Amarasingam () explain, in their work on landscapes of memory in post‐war Sir Lanka: “the construction, selection, placement and prominence of these landmark have the potential to reveal much about the victor's nationalist project” (p. 562). Further, the sites, monuments, and material remnants of war and conflicts as spaces of “dark tourism” (Muzaini, Teo, & Yeoh, ) and consumption (Zhang & Crang, ) have also been examined to reveal what work military histories are put to in the present. Historical geographers, therefore, render visible the ways through which memorials and acts of remembrance are utilised to press history into active service by situating the military as a key aspect of a nation's history, identity, and imaginary.…”

Rethinking ‘heritage’ in post-conflict tourism

“…'Heritage' in existing studies on post-conflict tourism is assumed to be already in existence prior to the involvement by stakeholders, rather than actively produced by them. It is something that needs to be worked on, rather than something that 'does work' (although see Hofmann, 2016;Zhang & Crang, 2016). Moreover, existing analyses have largely adopted a binary thinking of dominance-versus-resistance by looking at how metanarratives of sensitive histories may be contested by locals and tourists, thus leading to heritage dissonance (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996).…”