Conference Agenda

The apparent proliferation of different terminology, perspectives and approaches (decoloniality, decentring theory, the decolonial agenda, postcolonial theory, the decolonial option, the anticolonial movement, or the decolonial turn to name a few), has over the years resulted in the reduction of decolonial thinking, originally shaped as a contextually specific discourse (Tlostanova 2023), to mainstream critical theory. Unfortunately, this bias has contributed to the dismissal of decoloniality as an anything-goes discourse with the term ‘decolonial’ even being discarded as a buzzword, a mere academic whim that occupies a pool of social science researchers just until the next trend emerges.

There has indeed been an intensification of decolonizing efforts in the past decade, ranging from universities, curricula, the canon, and museums (de Sousa Santos 2018b). Nevertheless, it is important to stress that this is not a new phenomenon, but an acceleration of a long-standing debate that has recently been conducted more widely and with increasing social pressure. Whether the use of decoloniality is justified in every one of those efforts remains the subject of debate (Tlostanova 2023). However, the increased interest in decoloniality does not detract from the legitimacy of these decolonizing initiatives. On the contrary, they are crucial building blocks for a more pluralistic context and museums that break with the tenacious remnants of coloniality that influence memory and perception to this day, which is the central theme of this chapter.

A decade after the publication of Eurafrica (Hansen & Jonsson 2014), in which the ‘Myth of Immaculate Conception’ is used to refer to the mainstream perception of the European Economic Community (EEC) as a non-colonial construct, valuable academic contributions are being made regarding perception building, the way collective memories are established and remain viable over the years. Inevitably, the practice of silencing Europe’s colonial entanglements as a result of ongoing coloniality and selective historical amnesia (Sierp 2020), plays a big part in this dynamic. This silencing and non-recognition is not some nebulous concept that is the mere subject of political-historical academic research. It is a conscious, coordinated, and strategic choice with tangible consequences that perpetuate inequality, including in the EU’s overseas territories and countries (OCTs), sometimes referred to as ‘Forgotten Europe’ (Boatca 2020). Inspired by the aforementioned scholarly work, this chapter aims to analyse the tenacity of the coloniality of memory and perception within projects funded by European institutions, more specifically the House of European History (HEH).

In international conversations on minority rights, “crises” can discuss everything from the personal and group experiences of discrimination, displacement, and belonging in society, to large-lens topics of immigration, policy, and the threats against access to these rights. Drawing on recent existing work detailing citizenship discourse, exampled in the addition of “migrant citizen” as an upgrade to “migrant” and in the changes to previously unilateral access to travel for certain passport holders, this discussion focuses on the space where belonging, deservedness, and rights intersect in the development of human and minority rights protections. A common thread amongst minority rights protections and the potential for crises involving them is the concept of autochthonous identity, or the equivalency as an ethnic or national minority. Autochthony discourse is therefore the conversations surrounding the deservedness of identities for this status, often wrapped up in larger discussions of colonialism, territorial disputes, power structures, and governance. Based on these understandings in the EUropean context, this paper will address two key areas of intersection between contemporary autochthony and human rights crises: 1) enshrining autochthony in contemporary human rights policies, and 2) the possibility of violence against minorities as a response to autochthony discourse, especially in instances where supranational bodies begin to incorporate areas with active or frozen conflicts. In doing so, this paper continues the shift towards a more expansive discussion of key themes like citizenship by contextualizing rights access within the larger settings of deservedness, ownership, and power. Given the possibility of future identity fragmentation and/or incorporation of European states either in the midst of conflicts (frozen or otherwise) or in the process of post-conflict development, this work will address the potential for future European, and beyond, human rights crises based on evolving meanings of identity and the role of “autochthony” in policy infrastructure.

Discussions on the decolonization of institutions began in the second half of the 20th century and understandably focused on the former colonial powers. Decolonisation discussions in countries without a colonial past have started with significant delay and hesitation. Eastern European countries, such as Poland, which themselves fell victim to the imperial ambitions of their neighbours, have been particularly reluctant to engage with the difficult heritage of the colonial past which they have never shared, but simply inherited in the process of the post-war border shifts. When the German city of Breslau became the Polish city of Wrocław in 1945, German property, immovables and movables, was transferred to the Polish state. This included ethnographic and archaeological artefacts gathered by German scholars during their colonial expeditions to distant parts of the world, as well as human remains of Indigenous Australians collected at the beginning of the twentieth century by Hermann Klaatsch (1863 –1916), a German professor from the University of Heidelberg and, later, the University of Breslau.

The discussion on the return of this particular collection started in 2018, yet the issue remains unresolved. And while there is a nearly unanimous agreement between governments, institutions and scholars on the need to address colonial violence and decolonize collections, a lot of issues – legal, political, cultural or even linguistic – remain contentious or at least problematic. This paper reflects on the challenges of decolonising institutions in countries without a colonial past. In particularly, it focuses on the complexities, sensitivities and questions that emerged during the first academic discussion between Australia, Germany and Poland initiated at the conference “Sensitive Legacy in University Collections” (co-organized by the CEntre for European Studies at the Australian National University, the University of Wroclaw and the Urban Memory Foundation) in November 2024.