Vukovar – memory conflicts as an obstacle to Serbo-Croatian reconciliation

30 years after the tragic events in Vukovar, the Serb and Croatian communities live side by side, each cultivating their memory of their own tragedy and their own victims. The peaceful reintegration, that Croats are proud of, did not go hand in hand with building an atmosphere of reconciliation. No wonder then, that Vukovar is a model example of a divided city, where the mental divisions and psychological barriers affect its politics and everyday life. It seems that such a situation is favourable to politicians in Belgrade and Zagreb. One gets the impression that, as in 1991, Vukovar is becoming a victim of great politics and the clash of Serbian and Croatian nationalism.

Locality Sensitive Hardware Signature Variants for Hardware Transactional Memory

Lock based techniques have its own limitations like priority inversion, convoying, and deadlock. Lock free techniques overcome those mentioned limitations. Transactional memory (TM) is one leading lock free technique used in recent multi core processors like Intel Haswell and IBM BlueGene/Q. TM has to do data versioning and conflict detection. For conflict detection probabilistic data structure called Bloom Filters are used. Bloom filter based hardware signatures are used in TM. In TM shared memory conflicts like RAW, WAR, and WAW hazards are handled by Bloom Filter (BF). Hardware signatures store memory addresses in hashed form on Bloom filters. Bloom filters are easy to use, performance efficient data structures lead to false positive but never support false negative. Locality sensitive hardware signatures reduce filter occupancy by sharing bits for the contiguous memory addresses, in turn reduces the false positive rate. This paper implements existing H3 – HS and LS – HS proposed by Ricardo Quislant et al. [13]. Also this paper proposes RS – HS, CS – HS, and RO – HS. RO – HS equally spreads addresses among bloom filters thereby reduces filter occupancy. In turn reduced filter occupancy leads to better False Positive Rate.

¿Quién tiene derecho a recordar? Las disputas por la memoria durante los gobiernos kirchneristas (Argentina, 2003-2015)

El artículo se propone abordar las principales disputas que tuvieron lugar en Argentina frente al involucramiento del Estado en la formulación de “políticas de memoria” durante los gobiernos de Néstor Kirchner y Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2003-2015). Para ello, nos detendremos en las discusiones que tuvieron lugar en el Congreso Nacional en ocasión de la construcción de un Museo en el ex Centro Clandestino de Detención ESMA. Analizaremos las principales críticas formuladas por la oposición partidaria en clave de “ilegitimidad”, “apropiación” y “banalización” de la memoria. La reconstrucción de estos argumentos y las respuestas esgrimidas por el oficialismo nos permitirán dar cuenta de los términos en que se desarrolló la disputa política por el pasado e introducir algunas consideraciones en torno del papel otorgado al “consenso” como modo de legitimación de la acción estatal en la materia.¿Who is entitled to remember? Memory conflicts during Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner’s administrations in Argentina (2003-2015).The articleanalyses the main memory conflicts that took place in Argentina vis- à-vis the State involvement in memory politics during Néstor Kirchner and Fernández de Kirchner’s administrations (2003-2015). To this effect, it examines some of the debates held in the national parliament concerning the construction of a museum at the ex- clandestine detention center ESMA. It goes over the main critiques made by the political opposition (expressed in terms of “illegitimacy”, “appropriation” and “trivialization of memories”) and the responses held by the government. Altogether, this analysis will show the way in which the political arena dealt with the past in contemporary Argentina and will allow us to introduce some consideration Key words: Memory politics, Kirchnerism, State, ESMA

Europe’s Melancholias: Diasporas in Contention and the Unravelings of the Postwar Settlement

Rosenhaft explores some ways in which discourses of human rights, racism and antisemitism that emerged in the global North after 1945 have been appropriated, complicated and disrupted in this century’s memory conflicts. She examines Black Holocaust fictions in the light of changes in the global Black diaspora, and reflects on the recent debates on antisemitism and Holocaust memory that place diasporic actors in contention as well as on the populist trope of a “white, Christian Europe”. Following Paul Gilroy’s use of the term “postcolonial melancholia” to characterize British nostalgia for empire, she identifies analogous forms of nostalgia driving the current memory wars, and deploys the notions of “post-Holocaust” and “post-imperial” melancholias as complementary responses to the challenges posed by the (re-)emergence of a multicultural Europe.

Collective and Family Memory in the Context of “I and Others” Interaction

The article presents the results of theoretical analysis of the “collective memory” constructs as a repository of collective experience of a large group, represented in the meanings, symbols, images, cultural patterns, means, mechanisms of reproduction and translation of the past, and the “family memory” constructs as its kind in the context of a small group. We believe, that collective and family memory act as specific ontological support that allows actors to establish order and harmony in the society, understand the principles of its life organization, construct social and cultural identity, determine the existential meaning, trajectory and strategy of a person’s life, preserve the configuration of key values and transmit them to the next generations. The purpose of the study is to determine the specific features of collective and family memory as phenomena arising from the interaction of I and the Other/Others. The main research method is the theoretical self-reflection of collective and family memory in the context of the interaction of I and the Other. We assert that collective memory is a generalized and controlled memory of Others, whose dominant function is the preservation of the integrity and security of a large group, while family memory is a communicative memory based on the effect of sympathy and participation of the lived, experienced and spoken experience of a Significant Other – a small group representative. The applied aspect of the problem under study is to use the results of the theoretical self-reflection in developing the basics of the memory policy and commemorative practices, managing the past and resolving memory conflicts within the framework of the Great History discourse, and also forming meta-settings of family system members in relation to their own real and effective family history.

Cultural memory of the migrants and accepting society in Russian and abroad: conflict dimension

The goal of this article is the socio-philosophical conceptualization of memory conflicts in the migration society, as well as comparative analysis of the Russian and foreign contexts. Foreign experience was examined within the framework of the policy of assimilation and multiculturalism, as well as politics aimed at formation of transnational identities. The analysis of Russian context was conducted on the basis of determination and classification of conflictogenic factors, main parties of the conflicts, settlement strategies, and types of conflicts in the condition of internal and external migration challenges. The author leans on the constructivist approach, which suggests that perception of the past is predetermined and formed by sociocultural contexts and practices of memory and obscurity. In comparison with the foreign, Russian context demonstrates the prevalence of latent forms of conflict. Russia marks the formation of “parallel” memory communities, when the migrants and accepting society maintain a forced neutrality. If the foreign research indicate mostly status conflicts, in the Russian conditions, the migrants are oriented towards defensive type of memory conflicts. The oversea conflicts of memory mark the clash of modernism and traditionalism, while Russia demonstrated the clash of different versions of traditionalism.

MEMORY CONFLICTS IN CONTEMPORARY UKRAINIAN HEROIC DISCOURSE (SOCIO-PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECT)

The article presents the results of research of the formation of historical memory, conflicts of memories, the correlation of individual and collective memory in human consciousness, which today is one of the most relevant in the Ukrainian humanities, given the annexation of Crimea, Russian aggression against Ukraine and ongoing conditions the struggle for the establishment and assertion of the independence of our state. The phenomenon of historical memory is one of those that a wide range of humanities are trying to study: philosophy, history, sociology, culturology, psychology, etc. The semantic content of the concepts "conflict (or war) of memories", "individual historical memory", "collective historical memory", the relationship between the concepts of "memory" and "history" is considered. It is emphasized that memory is an important condition that determines the activity of a person and a certain social group. The reasons for the development of memory conflicts may be in the intensification of ambiguous interpretations of the past, opposing interpretations of the past, official policy in the cultural sphere, regional features of the interpretation of past events, which leads to changes in toponymy, symbolism, etc. In addition, today in Ukrainian society there are several vectors of conflicts of memory: from the memory of the USSR ("beautiful Soviet country" or "terrible totalitarian state") to one of the sharpest conflicts of memory, concerning the actual heroic discourse that unfolded with the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war, raising a painful question: who to consider a hero? It is emphasized that today memories of the past, of collective historical traumas, and their processing are sometimes used to confront peoples and cause conflicts of memories. The past orients society to the system coordinates of "friend and foe", forms views on national interests and determines preferences. The task of the individual in these conditions - to maintain critical thinking and try to learn as deeply as possible the actual, archival material. It is argued that memory conflicts are a reflection of both individual and collective consciousness and need to be further understood in multidisciplinary scientific discourse.