Comments on “Archives for Change: Activist Archives, Archival Activism”

Only yesterday did I notice the WITNESS Blog post, Archives for Change.  Archivists Watch (AW) was conceived just before this particular WITNESS post was placed online at the end of September.  And like the post, AW is partly dedicated to defining the work of a breed of archivists Grace Lile terms the “activist archivist” in her article.

I was glad to see an authority like Lile dare to use the term even if only half in jest.  I certainly am in no position to chance such liberties, although the thought did cross my mind two months ago at AW’s inception.  I should also credit the main proponent of this idea, renowned archivist Verne Harris, who I had the pleasure of seeing once at an informal talk given at the Faculty of Information at the University of Toronto.  That being said, I regret not having cross-posted on October’s WITNESS dialogue as Ms. Lile was kind enough to extend an invitation for me to guest blog on the site.  I’d like to draw attention to Archives for Change, here and now.

To begin with, in the Iraq WikiLeaks article I posted from The New Yorker earlier in the week, I painted what is probably the popular view of the traditional archivist – a caricature of passivity and at the same time guardedness.  A picture of just another civil servant following established protocol without question, an archivist whose loyalty lays first to the state or institution for which s/he works, and second to the citizens.  There was a time when that fundamental archival principle of neutrality was supplanted and subsumed by this notion of the passive archivist.  Now, many archivists looking to enact change by providing a means of redress by which to confront injustices have taken issue with previous notions of neutrality.  This is not a new debate.  And any archivist and records manager (professionals of the same pedigree, albeit working from opposite ends of the records continuum/life cycle spectrum) is no stranger to the debate of the evolving role of the archivist.  In general terms, this debate lies between the passive or “neutral” Jenkinsonian archivist, and the emerging breed of active, or as Lile puts it, activist archivist.

The concept of the activist archivist thrives in the age of born digital documents where the gap between the creation of a record, its use, its final disposition begin to close, overlap, and blur.  The prevalence of information production and use have forced those in the profession to reevaluate standards and practices and this has its obvious implications on social justice and public interest.  Lile references Howard Zinn’s 1970 address to the Society of American Archivists in her remarks.  I’m glad she does so, because his thoughts on modern archives and the duty of archivists parallel the principles and ideals behind AW.

Read article

WikiLeaks’ Proposed Radical Transparency

Generally, under the absence of sinister forces, the secrecy of a state is grounded in a concern for the security of its citizens.  Information professionals like traditional government archivists, romanticize themselves as gatekeepers to stores of information, and by nature they feel possessive of the records in their custody.  So what are traditional, and modern archivists, for that matter, to make of the radical transparency behind the actions of WikiLeaks?  The framework in which this organization operates poses serious ethical questions to the profession and its role in the processes of transitional justice, reconstruction, and stabilization that occur well after the fact.

The profession of journalism similarly comes under assault by WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.  The New Yorker provides insight in a critical portrait of the WikiLeaks founder vis-a-vis the journalistic integrity of the most recent leak.

Read article

Provenance & the Question of Custody versus Ownership: Iraqi Jewish Books & Documents

The LA Times posted a brief article today regarding a custody battle ensuing between Iraqis, Israelis, and Americans.  I suppose this story is slightly topical given last week’s WikiLeaks news and consequently has put pressure on involved parties to find a resolution.  The conflict involves rabbinical texts in Iraq seized in 2003 by U.S. forces which have been housed by the U.S. in Washington under the custody of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  The question of the rightful owners of the books and documents have arose and with it, calls for replevin.  Arguments of cultural heritage have been used by Iraqis claiming Judaism as part of Iraq’s history against those members of the Iraqi Diaspora who refuse to allow a piece of their heritage to be held in the archives of a war-torn country.

Despite the fact that the cultural and historical value of the unique material to the Iraqis and diasporic community are not an issue, these are valid points with precedents .  There are countless examples in the museum world where the politics behind situations involving the spoils of war can ultimately factor into the decisions made.

From a archival perspective, the fact remains that these materials were found wet in a basement and rescued from this less-than-ideal state by using common conservation techniques.  The reality has been that Iraq does not yet have the stable infrastructure or capacity to properly house the material, never mind executing conservation techniques when necessary.  NARA is suited to co-operate with and assist the other parties in forming a reasonable solution (NARA has been developing a digital preservation strategy for their archives and records for sometime).  Ideally the long-term preservation and conservation of these materials should not be left to the wayside but should play a pivotal part in the ongoing negotiations.  Nevertheless, the heated political nature of this debate is surely driving the negotiations.  I’ll continue to follow this story as it happens.

Read article

The Iraq Secret Archive & WikiLeaks

The New York Times released an article yesterday on a recent WikiLeaks acquisition.  The cache of some 300,000 documents regarding secret field reports on the war in Iraq does not shed any new light, the Times says, but “they offer insight, texture and context from the people actually fighting the war”.

The release by the independent organization, WikiLeaks, faces serious opposition.  WikiLeaks has failed more than once to redact sensitive information from the records it makes available.  The Times discusses the serious repercussions such leaks of information have on the security and success of military operations overseas.  The Pentagon has swiftly released a formal response deploring the disclosure.

This action of WikiLeaks flies in the face of international transitional justice practice and principles to take into account the rights and interests of individuals concerned-individuals such as victims, witnesses and informants.  There are other legal requirements (governed by national laws) in place to protect individuals appearing in records.  Closure periods, for example.  Redaction of names and closure periods are just some of the usual practices.  They are not employed by WikiLeaks but, as any organization that discloses information, it seems that it would help their case to do so.

The New York Times has released some of the secret dispatches with redaction in their War Logs section.

Read article

Read related articles on the archive’s portrayal of civilian death in Iraq and the secret dispatches from the war

Follow-up article on Iraqi Secret Police Files & the Anfal Genocide

Two years ago as I was writing a research paper, I happened upon an article (see below for citation) by Bruce P. Montgomery.  Montgomery has written widely on the topic of archival sources and human rights.  In his 2001 article, he traced the provenance, legal use, and politics in general surrounding the Iraqi Secret Police Files, especially with respect to the custody, control and ownership of the records according to the interests of the various parties involved.  These files were captured by Kurdish rebel forces during the chaos which ensued in 1991 throughout Iraq and neighbouring Kurdistan.  The files were a coup for the Kurds who discovered evidence of the Anfal genocide of the 1980s within the records and documents.

In the current issue of Archivaria, Montgomery  revisits the subject in “Returning Evidence to the Scene of the Crime: Why the Anfal Files Should be Repatriated to Iraqi Kurdistan” (see below for citation).  Archivaria has not yet made this article available to the public for free, but as the editors tell readers, Montgomery recalls the custodial history of the records through their seizure, relocation and repatriation.  In his first article, Montgomery discusses the possibility of establishing an international war crimes tribunal to prosecute Iraqi leaders, not unlike those for Rwanda (ICTR) and Yugoslavia (ICTY).  In this current article he continues to outline the role of international law, specifically those relevant treatises that address the capture of cultural heritage in times of war, and the role of the international archival community (as represented by the International Council of Archives, and other professional associations).  Most importantly, Montgomery uses the Iraqi/Anfal case to outline the conflicts in appropriately documenting human rights.

References

Montgomery, B. (2001).  The Iraqi Secret Police Files:  A Documentary Record of the Anfal Genocide. Archivaria , 1 (52). Retrieved Oct. 13, 2010, from http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/view/12815/14023

Montgomery, B. (2010).  Returning Evidence to the Scene of the Crime: Why the Anfal Files Should be Repatriated to Iraqi Kurdistan. Archivaria, 69 (69). Retrieved October 13, 2010, from http://journals.sfu.ca/archivar/index.php/archivaria/article/view/13264