INTRODUCTION
The paper titled “Post-Communist Heritage Tourism, Issues of Cultural and National Identity, and the Need for Prominent Promotion of Universal Concepts of Commemoration on August 23 as ‘European Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Totalitarianism’ – the Case of the Tepelena Camp” is part of an ongoing research project. This study addresses Albania’s case, focusing on the Tepelena camp as an example that illustrates several scientific theses from Western research literature that emerged in the 1990s, inspired by conceptual scientific inquiry. In addition to an exhaustive theoretical bibliography, the forthcoming study is expected to examine comprehensive empirical data collected in museums or museum sites of communist heritage in Albania.
The first objective of the paper is to integrate Albania’s case into contemporary research literature. The second and main objective is to open a discussion on whether cultural-touristic sites of former communist and fascist heritage should be constructed in a way that prominently features universal messages from the 2008 Prague Declaration, European Parliament Resolutions (2009), and the Vilnius Declaration (OSCE), such as “crimes against humanity,” “war crimes,” “genocide,” “violation of human rights and freedoms,” and “condemnation of the glorification of totalitarian regimes.” This contrasts with the current situation, where these sites are presented in a “frozen” state to satisfy the curiosity of a certain category of tourists interested in Eastern Bloc countries or “Nazi-fascist and communist archaeology.”
In the context of “tourism in Nazi-fascist and former communist heritage sites,” and particularly in the context of the identity debate prompted by the promotion of these heritage sites, it is both feasible and necessary that by emphasizing the universal messages of August 23 at these sites directly and openly, we not only shape an ideological and identity debate that transcends partisan views but also convey a universal message of preparedness to prevent such phenomena. After all, this is the essence of the “European conscience” and should be the goal of countries like Albania when promoting this heritage condemned by history.
THE TOURIST ATTRACTION OF COMMUNISM
While decades ago, Westerners traveled to communist states to witness the creation of a promising new regime, there is now a growing tourism market of Westerners who wish to view the ruins and artifacts of this once-promising but now failed world.
Until the mid-20th century, a third of the planet adhered to the rules of the hammer and sickle, symbols of the alliance between peasants and the so-called working class. In the Albanian context, this alliance was symbolized by the pickaxe and rifle, creating confusion even today over what they represented. Albania has officially abandoned the leadership of this failed and criminally consequential ideology, moving instead toward European humanist values, with a political class legitimized by the goal of returning Albania to a Western orientation supported by the majority of Albanians. Its national flag, free from the symbols of the former East, reflects a positive nationalist ideology. In heraldry and vexillology—the study of history, symbolism, and flag usage—Albania aligns itself with symbols that reflect European values.
The end of the communist and Stalinist era unexpectedly made previously unknown tourism opportunities attractive: from tourists interested in the transformation of places like Cuba into resort destinations to Western tourists curious about another, now-vanished civilization. The degradation of Albanian communism and Stalinism as ideological forces has shifted them from the political sphere to the tourism sphere. As Albanian Stalinism no longer presents a challenge or terror, it may now become a key component of the tourism market, where ruins and relics can be observed by people free from political influence, much like the fascination with other destroyed civilizations.
In conclusion, although each type of tourism in former communist sites has a unique dynamic, the common effort is to allow each visitor to experience the ruins of this failed civilization in their own way. This society of former communist states, which rapidly conquered a third of the world, ceased functioning almost immediately and disintegrated within decades. Communism was unique in the 20th century as it represented a conscious, all-encompassing attempt to overthrow the past and replace everything with a new civilization.
Within a single generation, this entire endeavor was discredited, and even its leaders abandoned it. This ideological and political enterprise can thus be classified archaeologically as a civilization, even though it did not last more than a human lifespan. The communist attempts to completely erase the centuries-old past, to cement over it, and to build a new society on that foundation explain why this once-aggressive policy not only failed but withered away, becoming merely a chapter in world history, like the Inquisition or the burning of Rome. It has now been replaced by genuine curiosity. Even if that curiosity is about the imposing concrete structures of the former communist bloc or the time-frozen sensations in Havana, Cuba, this exploratory curiosity in witnessing the last breaths of a system that lasted longer than human reason is an interest that has existed throughout history. Just as 19th-century travelers were fascinated by statues raised by the Romans, today’s tourists take pleasure in wondering, with astonishment but without reverence, at the ruins left by communism’s attempt to create a new world.
MUSEOLOGY AND ARCHIVING
A substantial body of scholarly literature shows that, from the inception of these projects—first in Germany with respect to Nazism, and later in communist heritage sites—a public debate has developed, primarily in the media, focusing on two key aspects: one debate centers on the imagined fear that making these sites tourist destinations in the tourism market could create a false impression that these crimes are somehow characteristic of an entire nation, often framed as the debate of “tourism and national identity.” The second debate focuses on the media-driven fear that tourists might perceive artifacts from former communist and Nazi sites as truth in the historical sense, or remove them from their historical context to make them more marketable, thus distorting the perception of truth. These topics seem to have been controversial, and similar heated debates have taken place in all countries with such projects.
In both cases, the debates follow narratives that can be summarized as follows. However, scholars have concluded that these debates have not hindered the development of projects but have instead clarified essential concepts for the broader public, such as the difference between museology and archiving, and the concept that tourism, as one of the platforms for cultural content, should not be feared as an influence on the perception of a nation’s identity. In the tourism market, by definition, cultural products are multi-faceted and inclusive.
MUSEOLOGY AND ARCHIVING
A substantial body of scholarly literature shows that, from the inception of these projects—first in Germany with respect to Nazism, and later in communist heritage sites—a public debate has developed, primarily in the media, focusing on two key aspects: one debate centers on the imagined fear that making these sites tourist destinations in the tourism market could create a false impression that these crimes are somehow characteristic of an entire nation, often framed as the debate of “tourism and national identity.” The second debate focuses on the media-driven fear that tourists might perceive artifacts from former communist and Nazi sites as truth in the historical sense, or remove them from their historical context to make them more marketable, thus distorting the perception of truth. These topics seem to have been controversial, and similar heated debates have taken place in all countries with such projects.
In both cases, the debates follow narratives that can be summarized as follows. However, scholars have concluded that these debates have not hindered the development of projects but have instead clarified essential concepts for the broader public, such as the difference between museology and archiving, and the concept that tourism, as one of the platforms for cultural content, should not be feared as an influence on the perception of a nation’s identity. In the tourism market, by definition, cultural products are multi-faceted and inclusive.
CASE STUDY: THE TEPELENA CAMP MUSEUM
As previously mentioned, news of the Tepelena camp’s museum project did not pass without media debates, which, coincidentally, aligned broadly with debates held in other countries with similar histories.
First Paradigm and First Narrative
Museology should adhere to a specific historical narrative, believed by one side of the discussion: The Narrative: This was a camp that should be understood in the context of the time; it operated for those who had fled to former Yugoslavia, and families needed to be kept as far away as possible from the defectors because they were preparing to intervene militarily; the defectors were pro-Yugoslav, and the nationalism of the dictatorship aimed to protect the nation as a territory. The CIA report was drawn up based on Yugoslav sources, and oral testimonies from survivors do not constitute documents. Above all, the state’s high hierarchy was unaware of what was happening; indeed, when the leader found out, a document was issued ordering an additional daily portion of soup (how benevolent the leader was!) (my note).
This narrative presents certain observations for an analytical and critical mind: even if it were the case, and even though the argument is based on the premise of political beliefs (“the dictatorship was good, but we do not understand it”) and not on historical or humanitarian premises, such a phenomenon must bear the names it has, namely “genocide” and “crime against humanity.”
Second Paradigm and Second Narrative
The internees were nationalists who were punished as such, reaching extremes of murder or inhuman mistreatment of many innocent women and children. They were punished without trial, and against them, the institutions of torture, indiscriminate violence, and mass rape were applied without legal basis but with documented orders. Even though this narrative, however accurate, is unacceptable to the other side because it places the dictatorial system at the center of its harms and crimes—something some indoctrinated individuals and nostalgists do not agree with—it represents the positioning of beliefs above historical facts and evidence. Whatever the case, this phenomenon still bears only one name: crimes against humanity and genocide. From every angle or viewpoint—whether it be national defense, class struggle, or war against nationalists—these are pure crimes against civilians, which are condemned even in any real wartime situation, as are trials without due process, formal trials, and even death sentences based on beliefs or free thought.
Both paradigms, due to their discussion in mainstream media platforms, lead us to pose a research question on the concept of identity. Put differently, when such a phenomenon is presented in a museum or an open archive, might the presentation of these artifacts create a perception for tourists that identifies the nation or population as fratricidal? (Another narrative includes: “Let’s not open these issues as we don’t know what might emerge,” or “We all suffered and we are all guilty,” or “It was just how the system worked.”) By including such museum presentations in tourism projects and viewing museums as platforms for cultural products, there exists a risk of association or identification by tourist clients of Nazi-fascist and former communist crimes and barbarism with the Albanian population or nation—a nation that has an honorable and deserved reputation in many historical periods worldwide.
Unlike other communist (or former communist) countries, in which “Red Tourism” often represents the lifestyle in Eastern Bloc countries, the term “civilization” makes it attractive for tourists. Albanians have resolved this dilemma by creating a temporal distance. In the tradition of contemporary Western historians, Albanian studies do not use “we” but “they”—the people of that time (similarly reflected in museum displays in Albania). Humanity, “humanitas,” cannot be identified with specific manifestations. This temporal distancing is scientifically correct and, although it emerges naturally, is an important concept in writing history and publicly displaying its truths.
When considering only internal tourism, which I am sure is quite substantial in the case of Albania, these sites of memory are proven not to inspire revenge or social discord but rather serve as places that, like Aristotle’s view of the tragedy genre, offer spectators a catharsis through re-imagining pain. Our hypothesis is that these memory sites serve a similar function.
TOURISM AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL
While various researchers hold different, and sometimes opposing, views on tourism’s educational function, in the case of the Tepelena camp project, theorists might relativize the educational aspect of tourism, but the educational aspect of museum displays cannot be relativized—even if such a concept is not part of the conservative formalized concept of education. Museums do not educate in a goal-oriented way; rather, they provoke thought and, at best, encourage study and understanding. Another thesis I am working on concerns the fact that museums of “places of memory” should not only lead us to the past but, being linked to tourism, should prominently convey universal messages on phenomena humanity rejects repeating.
Thus, in this extraordinary work, such as the Tepelena Camp Museum, I would like to see clearer, more explicit words like genocide, crimes against humanity, torture as a tool of violence, and homophobia as a tool of oppression—concepts that are explicit in the European Parliament’s April 2009 resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism. The author of this paper, with respect and admiration for the museum’s architects and creators, suggests that alongside as many museum objects as possible, historical data should not only be marked but also explicitly include terms like “crimes against humanity” and “mass violation of human rights.” Concepts like “the past for the future” could serve as a leitmotif for exhibits and objects. Another leitmotif could be expressed as follows: “Mass deportations, killings, and enslavements carried out in the context of aggression by Stalinist and Nazi-fascist regimes are categorized as war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Furthermore, it is suggested to include phrases from the European Parliament’s statement on this resolution, issued on August 20, 2021, which, in a free translation, states:
“Let us work together so that our shared past makes us stronger for a shared future—and does not drive us apart. Freedom from totalitarianism and authoritarianism is not guaranteed. It is something we must defend daily, as it lies at the heart of the European ideal. Together with the rule of law and democracy, this freedom forms the foundation of all European treaties we have signed. We must continue to stand united in the fight for these fundamental European values.”
Through emphasizing these ideas, both local and foreign tourism markets would not only expand their experience but also depart with messages that, even though they are an inseparable part of Western education, increase awareness and help further prevent harm.
CONCLUSION
Writing these lines, the author of this paper encountered the usual dilemma of writers: what does this work add to the understanding of the Tepelena Camp Museum? The author has worked hard on this material, and this is only a preliminary draft since it will be part of a larger work in progress. However, the author deeply feels that this material does not add much beyond what a survivor once said:
“The food was cooked in pots that had previously been fuel containers for the Italian army… even though they were used for cooking for a long time, they constantly released a black sludge, a dark liquid… only hunger would make you eat that food.”
Viewed as a metaphor, this food of two dark eras that only hunger would drive you to consume has become the repulsion against every crime against humanity. This repulsion should pass from one generation to the next through the processes of recognition, disgust, awareness, and transmission to future generations and uninformed tourists. Regimes based on the ideology of violence and oppression as a mode of operation, whether formalized by legislation or not, feed people from the same pot that constantly exudes black sludge.
Thank you.
References:
- Project developed by the Authority for Information on Former State Security Documents includes terms like “human dignity is inviolable” and “the camp has a representative character.” The 2017-2021 government program references “memory paths” intended to highlight the historical and educational aspects of dictatorship sites.
- “Communist Sites in Albania” Wobbly Ride, accessed August 21, 2023. Link: https://wobblyride.com/2022/11/16/communist-sites-in-albania/
- “The mass deportations, murders, and enslavements committed in the context of Stalinist and Nazi aggression fall into the category of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” [3]
- Statement by Vice-President Jourová and Commissioner Reynders on Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Brussels, August 20, 2021.
By Hektor Çiftja, University “A. Xhuvani” in Elbasan. Presented at the symposium “Tepelena in Two Eras,” August 23, 2023.
