Memory after violent conflict is a contentious issue. The way in which the past has been remembered has often been the impetus for renewed violence rather than healing and reconciliation. Exploring individual and collective memory in the Rwandan and South African contexts, this article argues that how we remember is more important than what we remember, if the process of remembering is to contribute positively to the post-conflict recovery process. This article considers some preliminary thoughts related to memory after violent conflict by comparing how South Africa and Rwanda have remembered their violent pasts. A significant difference between these two countries is that South Africa has allowed for contending narratives about the past to be in dialogue with one another, whereas Rwanda has chosen the route of preferring one narrative over others. Some possible implications of this will be explored in this article.
Die aard van herinnering na afloop van gewelddadige konflik is 'n omstrede onderwerp. Die wyse waarop die verlede onthou word, is meermale die oorsaak van hernude geweld eerder as herstel en versoening. Hierdie artikel ondersoek individuele en kollektiewe herinnering in die konteks van Rwanda en Suid-Afrika en daar word geargumenteer dat die wyse waarop onthou word belangriker is as dit wat onthou word. Dit is veral van belang indien die proses van onthou 'n positiewe bydrae moet maak tot die herstelproses na afloop van die konflik. Enkele voorlopige idees met betrekking tot herinnering na 'n gewelddadige konflik sal oorweeg word deur 'n vergelyking te tref tussen die wyse waarop Suid-Afrika en Rwanda onderskeidelik hul gewelddadige verledes onthou. 'n Veelseggende verskil tussen die twee lande is die feit dat Suid-Afrika kontrasterende narratiewe oor die verlede toelaat om in gesprek te tree met mekaar, terwyl Rwanda een narratief verkies bo andere. Enkele implikasies hiervan sal in die artikel verken word.
