Arbeitsbereich Geschichtsdidaktik / History Education, Universität Hamburg

custom header picture

Monuments and Memorials — A tabular instrument for analysing (still incomplete)

27. August 2020 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare


A table for analyzing narrative modes within monuments

Table for ana­ly­zing nar­ra­ti­ve func­tions in monuments.

Kör­ber, Andre­as (2014): De-Con­s­truc­ting Memo­ry Cul­tu­re. In: Hel­le Bjerg, Andre­as Kör­ber, Clau­dia Lenz und Oli­ver von Wro­chem (Hg.): Tea­ching his­to­ri­cal memo­ries in an inter­cul­tu­ral per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and methods : expe­ri­en­ces and results from the Teac­Mem pro­ject. 1. Aufl. Ber­lin: Metro­pol-Ver­lag (Rei­he Neu­en­gam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en, Bd. 4), 145 – 151 + CD-File.

Analyzing Monuments using crosstabulations of Historical Thinking Competencies and Types of Narrating

16. Oktober 2018 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

This artic­le is a fol­low-up to the dis­cus­sion on Sté­pha­ne Léves­ques model of his­to­ri­cal com­pe­ten­ci­es as pre­sen­ted in Public Histo­ry Weekly, a few days ago, titled “Remo­ving the ‘Past’: Deba­tes Over Offi­ci­al Sites of Memo­ry“1 and my first exten­ded com­ment on this published here on this blog.

A cros­s­ta­bu­la­ti­on of com­pe­ten­ci­es and patterns/​logic of sen­se­ma­king as sug­gested by Sté­pha­ne Léves­que2 is inde­ed useful for “rea­ding” indi­vi­du­al monu­ments and making sen­se of their “mes­sa­ge”, also. Lévesque’s fil­ling of the table is a bit abs­tract, gene­ral for this, so the fol­lo­wing would in part be my own understanding.

It also is based on Rüsen’s noti­on that while the dif­fe­rent pat­terns were deve­lo­ped sequen­ti­al­ly over time, to “older” ones are not lost, but still available and inde­ed visi­ble in modern day thin­king, in fact most of the time in com­bi­na­ti­ons. What cha­rac­te­ri­zes modern-time his­to­ri­cal thin­king, then, is the pre­sence and domi­nan­ce of “gene­tic” thin­king, while pre-modern thought would not have this type at its dis­po­sal at all. But then, our examp­les here are all “modern”, so that it may be a ques­ti­on of domi­nan­ce and rela­ti­ve weight.

Take a monu­ment for a civil war general:

  • A spec­ta­tor today may read it as a remin­der to the ori­gin of the cur­rent sta­te of affairs, pos­si­bly the “losing of the cau­se” (e.g. both the hono­u­red gene­ral and the spec­ta­tor being sou­the­ners) or to the libe­ra­ti­on of the slaves (both nor­the­ners). In both cases, the monu­ment would be seen as poin­ting to an ori­gin of what is seen as valid today (the very defi­ni­ti­on of Rüsen’s “tra­di­tio­nal” type). This might explain why peo­p­le adhe­ring to the nor­t­hern nar­ra­ti­ve would oppo­se to sou­thern monu­ments, and vice ver­sa, not believ­e­ing their sto­ry in the first place — and may­be fea­ring that kee­ping the monu­ments would signi­fy that their ver­si­on was to be seen as valid.
  • In an exem­pla­ric mode, howe­ver, both may accept the “other side’s” monu­ments, becau­se what they point at would not be seen as the ori­gin of affairs, but rather a gene­ral rule, e.g. hono­u­ring peo­p­le “bra­ve­ly fight­ing for their respec­ti­ve (!) cau­se”. The logic would be that each socie­ty would honor “their heroes”, who do not so much stand for the spe­ci­fic cau­se but for a gene­ral rule. What hap­pens on the ground in Get­tysburg, e.g., is some­thing along this line: “Tra­di­tio­nal” com­me­mo­ra­ting attracts most peo­p­le going the­re, but an exem­pla­ry “cover-nar­ra­ti­ve” allows for com­mon remembrance.

Con­sider an exam­p­le from Ham­burg, whe­re I work3: On our “Rat­haus­markt”, the­re is a monu­ment, hono­u­ring Hamburg’s dead from WW1. When it was erec­ted in 1932, it loo­ked as it does today. The inscrip­ti­on on one side reads “FOURTY THOUSAND SONS OF TOWN LEFT/​LOST THEIR LIVES FOR YOU” (in Ger­man: “Vier­zig Tau­send Söh­ne der Stadt lie­ßen ihr Leben für Euch”) while the other side shows reli­ef by Ernst Bar­lach depic­ting a woman (mother) and child (daugh­ter) appar­ent­ly com­fort­ing each other in mour­ning (and the­r­e­fo­re some­what remi­nis­cent of a pie­tà).

Ernst Barlach: Relief (1931; Re-construction) auf dem Mahnmal auf dem Hamburger Rathausmarkt. Foto von Wikimedia Commons (gemeinfrei):

Ernst Bar­lach: Reli­ef (1931; Re-Con­s­truc­tion of 1948) on Ham­burg Town Hall Squa­re Monu­ment . Pho­to from Wiki­me­dia Com­mons (public domain): https://​upload​.wiki​me​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​p​e​d​i​a​/​c​o​m​m​o​n​s​/​2​/​2​c​/​H​a​m​b​u​r​g​_​M​a​h​n​m​a​l​_​0​1​_​K​M​J​-​a​d​j​.​jpg

In 1938, the reli­ef was exch­an­ged for a “phoe­nix” fly­ing up.4 

Hans-Mar­tin Ruwoldt (1938): Phoe­nix on Ham­burg Town Hall Squa­re Monu­ment. Pho­to by https://​www​.denk​-mal​-gegen​-krieg​.de/​k​r​i​e​g​e​r​d​e​n​k​m​a​e​l​e​r​/​h​a​m​b​u​r​g​-​l​o​-​os/

In 1938, under Nazi rule, the reli­ef was exch­an­ged for a „phoe­nix“. Did it chan­ge the nar­ra­ti­ve and com­me­mo­ra­ti­ve eva­lua­ti­on of the loss of the 40000 Ham­bur­gi­ans? To my view, it most cer­tain­ly did.

The addi­ti­on of the last part “FOR YOU” to the inscrip­ti­on alre­a­dy befo­re the initi­al instal­la­ti­on of the monu­ment was a con­ces­si­on to the right par­ties, chan­ging (in Rüsen‘s terms) a more tra­di­tio­nal mes­sa­ge into a more exem­pla­ry one:

While the com­bi­na­ti­on of the initi­al wor­ding wit­hout the addi­ti­on „FOR YOU“ and the mother-child-reli­ef fit into a deve­lo­p­ment of monu­ment cul­tu­re deve­lo­ped in WW1 which has been iden­ti­fied in retro­s­pect, name­ly monu­ments which which do no lon­ger pro­vi­de an aut­ho­ri­ta­ti­ve sug­ges­ti­on of the mea­ning of the protagonist‘s death, but rather ques­ti­on this mea­ning.5 It did so becau­se it expres­sed the con­ti­nuous loss, refer­ring to the dead sol­diers rather as vic­tims of a grea­ter con­text of war, to be mour­ned, by poin­ting to their their death and loss as the rather tra­gic ori­g­ins of the com­mon grief.

Adding „FOR YOU“ to the inscrip­ti­on did not ful­ly era­di­ca­te this nega­ti­ve-tra­di­tio­nal nar­ra­ti­ve pat­tern, but added an addi­tio­nal lay­er of dif­fe­rent nar­ra­ti­ve and eva­lua­ti­ve cha­rac­ter both to the deaths, which are ascri­bed a pur­po­se, and to the con­cep­tu­al framing of the dead, which are no lon­ger only vic­tims but also (self-)sacrifices for a com­mon good. Inte­res­t­ingly, both con­cepts, that of vic­tim and that of sacri­fice, are pre­sent in the Ger­man term „Opfer“ expli­cit­ly used, but allu­ded to, here.

The exch­an­ge of the mour­ning mother/child-reli­ef by a „phoe­nix“ in 1938, then, era­di­ca­ted the thin lay­er of ques­tio­ning the pur­po­se and mea­ning of the loss, the noti­on of „vic­tims“ and ren­de­red the 40,000 Fathers, Brot­hers and „Sons of Town“ heroes – not only self-sacri­fices for the well­be­ing of their respec­ti­ve fami­lies, but role-models to be cele­bra­ted and emu­la­ted.6 In 1948, then, the lost Bar­lach-reli­ef, was res­to­red, alas not by Bar­lach hims­elf, who had mean­while died.

I do have a hard time con­s­truc­ting a gene­tic under­stan­ding of such a monu­ment, may­be becau­se a modern, gene­tic way of thin­king needs to have been infor­med by the “cri­ti­cal” mode of at least part­ly de-legi­ti­mi­zing the ori­en­ta­ting power of tra­di­tio­nal and exem­pla­ric thinking.

May­be this is the back­ground for modern monu­ments being quite dif­fe­rent, eit­her often non-figu­ra­ti­ve — as Peter Eisenman’s Memo­ri­al to the Mur­de­red Jews in Ber­lin, or many works by Jochen Gerz7 — or taking on forms of coun­ter-memo­ri­a­liza­ti­on8, thus set­ting in moti­on a kind of chan­ge, not just re-pre­sent-ing a past, but encou­ra­ging or even enfor­cing cri­ti­cal reflec­tion on it.

It is easier for the Ham­burg monu­ment: Gene­tic thin­king would ques­ti­on whe­ther not only this heroi­fy­ing way of com­me­mo­ra­ting heroes (even if not indi­vi­du­al), but also the con­cre­te form of public ack­now­led­ging of tra­gic loss can be time­ly, after we expe­ri­en­ced ano­ther war and an inhu­man dic­ta­tor­ship and geno­ci­de which was not least based on fee­lings ins­ti­ga­ted by such com­me­mo­ra­ting.9

But the­re is some­thing more to reflec­ting about nar­ra­ti­ves — and espe­ci­al­ly on how to rela­te to them. As I wro­te abo­ve, Memo­ri­als are nar­ra­ti­ves. Rüsen calls them “nar­ra­ti­ve abbre­via­ti­ons”, poin­ting to them stan­ding for a spe­ci­fic nar­ra­ti­ve, i.e. a spe­ci­fic rela­ti­on bet­ween a past (under memo­ry), the pre­sent (of the aut­hors and erec­tors of the monu­ment as well as the inten­ded public), and with regard to a spe­ci­fic future, con­s­truc­ted only part­ly in ver­bal nar­ra­ti­ve form, but also with non-ver­bal and sequen­ti­al­ly nar­ra­ti­ve ele­ments (even though in some cases it is only the ver­bal inscrip­ti­ons which real­ly hint to any his­to­ri­cal meaning).

Memo­ri­als are more than only pro­to-nar­ra­ti­ves. Their (often) pro­mi­nent (albeit also often over­loo­ked) posi­tio­ning, their (proto-)narrative struc­tu­re and their own qua­li­ty for las­ting a long time (cf. “monu­men­tum exegi aere per­en­ni­us), they do not only con­sti­tu­te a nar­ra­ti­ve rela­ti­on from one tem­po­ral and social posi­ti­on towrds the past and the future, but also are meant to pro­long the sen­se they make and to impo­se it on later gene­ra­ti­ons. Monu­ments are about obli­ga­ting their audi­ence, the spec­ta­tors with a cer­tain nar­ra­ti­ve and inter­pre­ta­ti­on. That qua­li­fies them as parts of what we call “poli­tics of histo­ry”, not only of com­me­mo­ra­ti­on, and what makes them political.

It the­r­e­fo­re is para­mount to read monu­ments as nar­ra­ti­ves, and not only in the de-con­s­truc­ti­ve sen­se of “what did tho­se erec­tors make of that past back then”, but also in the re-con­c­truc­ti­ve sen­se of “in how far or how does this nar­ra­ti­ve fit into my/​our rela­ti­on to that past). In other words: Stan­ding befo­re a monu­ment and thin­king about monu­ments, we all need to (and in fact do) think in a com­bi­na­ti­on of under­stan­ding the others’ and deli­be­ra­ting our own nar­ra­ti­ve mea­ning-making.
The­r­e­fo­re we need to read them as nar­ra­ti­ves first, and beco­me com­pe­tent for it.

Monu­ments often take on the form of addres­sing peo­p­le. Some­ti­mes — as in the Ham­burg case abo­ve — they address the spec­ta­tor, remin­ding them of some kind of obli­ga­ti­on to com­me­mo­ra­te.10 But who is tal­king to whom? If the sena­te of Ham­burg tal­kes to that to the Ham­burg citi­zens of 1930 – 1932, can/​will we accept that (a) the Ham­burg Sena­te of today still admo­nis­hes us like that, and b) that we Ham­burg citi­zens of today are still addres­sed in the same way?

In other cases, (inscrip­ti­ons in) memo­ri­als might expli­cit­ly address the com­me­mo­ra­ted them­sel­ves, as e.g. in the con­fe­de­ra­te monu­ment in Yan­cey­ville, N.C., who­se plaque reads “To the Sons of Cas­well Coun­ty who ser­ved in the War of 1861 – 1865 in ans­wer to the Call of their Coun­ty”, and con­ti­nues in a “We-Voice”, signed by the Cas­well Chap­ter of the United Daugh­ters of the Con­fe­dera­cy”. So far so con­ven­tio­nal. This might be rather unpro­ble­ma­tic, sin­ce spea­k­er-posi­ti­on and addres­sees are cle­ar­ly mark­ed. One might lea­ve the monu­ment even if one dis­agreed, not having to ali­gn with its nar­ra­ti­ve. Only if the pre­sence of such com­me­mo­ra­ting in its­elf is inac­cep­ta­ble, action is imme­dia­te­ly cal­led for.

But the­re are other monu­ments which seem to talk from a neu­tral posi­ti­on, which in fact is that of the erec­tors, but by not being qua­li­fied, includes the spec­ta­tor into the spea­k­er posi­ti­on. The exam­p­le I have rea­dy at hand, is not from the US and not about war heroes, but again from Ham­burg, this time from Neu­en­gam­me con­cen­tra­ti­on camp memo­ri­al. In 1965, an “inter­na­tio­nal monu­ment” ste­le11 was erec­ted the­re, tog­e­ther with a who­le series of coun­try-spe­ci­fic memo­ri­al pla­tes. The inscrip­ti­on on the monu­ment reads “Your suf­fe­ring, your fight­ing and your death shall not be in vain” (my trans­la­ti­on).
This now cle­ar­ly is inte­res­t­ing in at least two respects: (1) it ascri­bes not only suf­fe­ring and death, but also fight­ing to tho­se com­me­mo­ra­ted and ther­eby pos­si­bly does not refer to tho­se inma­tes who never had a chan­ce or did not “fight”, who were pure vic­tims, and (2) it speaks from a neu­tral voice which is not mark­ed in time and social, poli­ti­cal or event-rela­ted posi­ti­on. Whoe­ver mourns at that place pos­si­bly sil­ent­ly co-signs the statement.

International Monument (1965) at Neuengamme Concentration Camp Memorial (partial photo; (c) 2006 Andreas Körber)

Inter­na­tio­nal Monu­ment (1965) at Neu­en­gam­me Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp Memo­ri­al (par­ti­al pho­to; © 2006 Andre­as Körber)

Con­sider an equal hono­u­ring of con­fe­de­ra­te gene­rals in, say NC: “Your fight­ing shall not have been in vain.” I would spark much more con­tro­ver­sy and con­cers — and right­ly so.

Still ano­ther exam­p­le, the first Ham­burg monu­ment for the vic­tims of Natio­nal Socia­lism (from late 1945) on the Cen­tral Ceme­try in Ham­burg-Ohls­dorf, has an inscrip­ti­on “Inju­s­ti­ce brought Us Death — Living: Reco­gni­ze your Obligation”.

Erstes Hamburger Mahnmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus von 11/1945 in Hamburg Ohlsdorf. Foto von NordNordWest/Wikipedia. Lizenz: CC-BY-SA 3.0; (; Original:

Ers­tes Ham­bur­ger Mahn­mal für die Opfer des Natio­nal­so­zia­lis­mus von 11/​1945 in Ham­burg Ohls­dorf. Foto von NordNordWest/​Wikipedia. Lizenz: CC-BY-SA 3.0; (https://​crea​tive​com​mons​.org/​l​i​c​e​n​s​e​s​/​b​y​-​s​a​/​3​.​0​/​d​e​/​l​e​g​a​l​c​ode); Ori­gi­nal: http://​com​mons​.wiki​me​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​F​i​l​e​:​M​a​h​n​m​a​l​_​O​p​f​e​r​_​d​e​r​_​N​S​-​V​e​r​f​o​l​g​u​n​g​_​O​h​l​s​d​o​r​f​.​jpg


Erstes Hamburger Mahnmal für die Opfer des Nationalsozialismus von 11/1945 in Hamburg Ohlsdorf; Detail. Zustand 25.3.2010; Foto (c) Andreas Körber

Ers­tes Ham­bur­ger Mahn­mal für die Opfer des Natio­nal­so­zia­lis­mus von 11/​1945 in Ham­burg Ohls­dorf; Detail. Zustand 25.3.2010; Foto © Andre­as Körber


Again, for ana­ly­zing and under­stan­ding, we need to reco­gni­ze. The spea­k­er posi­ti­on here, is cle­ar­ly (meta­pho­ri­call) held by the vic­tims to be com­me­mo­ra­ted. But whom do they speak to? Lite­ral­ly, it is the “living”. In a very broad under­stan­ding, the monument/​memorial the­r­e­fo­re addres­ses all humans, quite in a way what Rüsen has addres­sed as the hig­hest level of nor­ma­ti­ve plau­si­bi­li­ty: broa­de­ning the per­spec­ti­ve to the level of huma­ni­ty.
This is not very pro­ble­ma­tic, sin­ce the inscrip­ti­on does talk of “duty”, not of “guilt”, it does not con­f­la­te the addres­sees with tho­se who inflic­ted the inju­s­ti­ce upon the vic­tims. But it could have done. In 1945, the mes­sa­ge would be cle­ar­ly not mere­ly uni­ver­sal­ly huma­ni­stic, but at least also addres­sing the Ger­mans as the socie­ty of the per­pe­tra­tors. It does not con­demn, but calls for reco­gni­zing the “duty” and respon­si­bi­li­ty for com­me­mo­ra­ting and non-repea­ting as well as over­co­ming the struc­tures of NS inju­s­ti­ce, hin­ting at respon­si­bi­li­ty for not pre­ven­ting them or even par­ti­ci­pa­ting in them in the first place.

And today? In how far is the mes­sa­ge the same for today’s socie­ty in Ger­ma­ny? The peo­p­le living in Ger­ma­ny today do — apart from very few excep­ti­ons — not share any per­so­nal guilt or respon­si­bi­li­ty for what hap­pen­ed. In how far can or should they see them­sel­ves addressed?

Again, the­re is no ques­ti­on as to the very gene­ral, huma­ni­ty-rela­ted address. This is direc­ted at any audi­ence. But would that mean that the­re is no dif­fe­rence bet­ween any other visi­tor to the memo­ri­al and Ger­mans? Has the Nazi inju­s­ti­ce (and simi­lar­ly the Holo­caust) beco­me a mat­ter of gene­ral, uni­ver­sal histo­ry only? Is the­re no spe­cial belon­ging to and mes­sa­ge for Ger­man histo­ry? All the­se ques­ti­ons can and need to be addres­sed — and espe­ci­al­ly so, sin­ce a con­sidera­ble part of Ger­man socie­ty con­sists not only of peo­p­le born and rai­sed (long) after the “Third Reich”, but also of many who immi­gra­ted from other count­ries, socie­ties and cul­tures mean­while. Are they sim­ply coun­ted into the per­pe­tra­tors’ socie­ty? — no, I think; but as peo­p­le living in Ger­ma­ny, they also are adres­sed in a more spe­ci­fic way than any other visi­tor — and they are expec­ted to feel addres­sed, also. While the­re may be (and often inde­ed is) not spe­ci­fic respon­si­bi­li­ty for what the­se memo­ri­als and monu­ments refer to, the­re sure­ly is a spe­ci­fic respon­si­bi­li­ty from or out of this histo­ry — and the­se monu­ments the­r­e­fo­re ser­ve not only as gene­ral mar­kers to a set past, but also as marks which have spe­ci­fic mes­sa­ges and dif­fe­rent (but com­pa­ti­ble) ones for dif­fe­rent reci­pi­ents. This is what also is a part of what is nee­ded to be reflec­ted and dis­cus­sed with regard to monu­ments in public histo­ry cul­tu­re and what histo­ry edu­ca­ti­on needs to enable lear­ners to par­ta­ke in.

In order to make up our minds on monu­ments we have “inhe­ri­ted” not only in poli­ti­cal terms, we need to reflect their spe­ci­fic nar­ra­ti­ve mes­sa­ge in a spec­trum of time-rela­ti­ons. And we need to dif­fe­ren­tia­te our ter­mi­no­lo­gy and enable our stu­dents to mas­ter a set of con­cepts rela­ted. We need, e.g., to distin­gu­ish hono­ring forms of com­me­mo­ra­ti­on from remin­ding and admo­nis­hing ones.

In Ger­ma­ny we have (not eas­liy) deve­lo­ped the noti­on of “Mahn­mal”, admo­nis­hing, to be distin­gu­is­hed from a mere “Denk­mal” (lite­ral­ly a “thin­king mark”). But even this distinc­tion is insuf­fi­ci­ent. A Mahn­mal (in fact the lite­ral trans­la­ti­on to “monu­ment”, from Latin “admon­e­re”) may admo­nish to remem­ber our own suf­fe­ring inflic­ted on us by our­sel­ves, some tra­gic or by others, but also may admo­nish to not for­get what we inflic­ted on others. This is the spe­ci­fic form “nega­ti­ve memo­ry” of Ger­man memo­ri­al culture.


The­r­e­fo­re, there’s a lot more to be reflec­ted in commemorating:

  • Who “talks”? who aut­hors the nar­ra­ti­ve — and is what capa­ci­ty (e.g. in lieuf of “the peo­p­le”, of a cer­tain group, …)?
  • whom does the monu­ment expli­ci­ty address?
  • what is the rela­ti­on of expli­cit addres­sees and fac­tu­al spectators?
  • in how far is the mes­sa­ge the same for us today as it was envi­sio­ned back then — and pos­si­bly rea­li­zed? is it the same for all of us?
  • what kind of mes­sa­ge is perceived?

(cf. Kör­ber 2014)



  • Has­berg, Wolf­gang (2012): Ana­ly­ti­sche Wege zu bes­se­rem Geschichts­un­ter­richt. His­to­ri­sches Den­ken im Hand­lungs­zu­sam­men­hang Geschichts­un­ter­richt. In: Mey­er-Ham­me, Johan­nes /​ Thü­ne­mann, Hol­ger /​ Züls­dorf-Kers­t­ing, Meik (Hrsg.): Was heißt guter Geschichts­un­ter­richt? Per­spek­ti­ven im Ver­gleich. Schwalbach/​Ts. /​ Wochen­schau, S. 137 – 160, p. 140.
  • Klin­gel, Kers­tin (2006): Eichen­kranz und Dor­nen­kro­ne. Krie­ger­denk­mä­ler in Ham­burg. Ham­burg: Lan­des­zen­tra­le für Poli­ti­sche Bildung.
  • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2014): De-Con­s­truc­ting Memo­ry Cul­tu­re. In: Tea­ching his­to­ri­cal memo­ries in an inter­cul­tu­ral per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and methods : expe­ri­en­ces and results from the Teac­Mem pro­ject. Hrsg. von Hel­le Bjerg, Andre­as Kör­ber, Clau­dia Lenz u. Oli­ver von Wro­chem. Ber­lin 2014, 145 – 151.
  • Kör­ber, Andre­as (2016): Sinn­bil­dungs­ty­pen als Gra­du­ie­run­gen? Ver­such einer Klä­rung am Bei­spiel der His­to­ri­schen Fra­ge­kom­pe­tenz. In: Kat­ja Leh­mann, Micha­el Wer­ner und Ste­fa­nie Zabold (Hg.): His­to­ri­sches Den­ken jetzt und in Zukunft. Wege zu einem theo­re­tisch fun­dier­ten und evi­denz­ba­sier­ten Umgang mit Geschich­te. Fest­schrift für Wal­traud Schrei­ber zum 60. Geburts­tag. Ber­lin, Müns­ter: Lit Ver­lag (Geschichts­di­dak­tik in Ver­gan­gen­heit und Gegen­wart, 10), S. 27 – 41.
  • Rüsen, Jörn (2017): Evi­dence and Mea­ning. A Theo­ry of His­to­ri­cal Stu­dies. Unter Mit­ar­beit von Dia­ne Kerns und Katie Digan. New York, NY: Berg­hahn Books Incor­po­ra­ted (Making Sen­se of Histo­ry Ser, v.28).
Anmer­kun­gen /​ Refe­ren­ces
  1.   Léves­que, Sté­pha­ne: Remo­ving the “Past”: Deba­tes Over Offi­ci­al Sites of Memo­ry. In: Public Histo­ry Weekly 6 (2018) 29, DOI: dx​.doi​.org/​1​0​.​1​5​1​5​/​p​h​w​-​2​018 – 12570. The­re also is a Ger­man and a French ver­si­on. []
  2. Ano­ther such cros­s­ta­bu­la­ti­on has been sug­gested (in Ger­man) by Wolf­gang Has­berg (Ana­ly­ti­sche Wege zu bes­se­rem Geschichts­un­ter­richt. His­to­ri­sches Den­ken im Hand­lungs­zu­sam­men­hang Geschichts­un­ter­richt. In: Mey­er-Ham­me, Johan­nes /​ Thü­ne­mann, Hol­ger /​ Züls­dorf-Kers­t­ing, Meik (Hrsg.): Was heißt guter Geschichts­un­ter­richt? Per­spek­ti­ven im Ver­gleich. Schwalbach/​Ts. /​ Wochen­schau, S. 137 – 160, p. 140). For my cri­tique see Kör­ber 2016 (in Ger­man). I also pro­vi­ded a table, inclu­ding the dif­fe­rent niveaus, but rest­ric­ted to “Fra­ge­kom­pe­tenz” (simi­lar to Lévesque’s “inquiry com­pe­tence”). []
  3. I used this also in a twit­ter-dis­cus­sion with Kim Wag­ner (@KimAtiWagner) recent­ly. []
  4. For more pic­tures and infor­ma­ti­on see also https://​www​.denk​-mal​-gegen​-krieg​.de/​k​r​i​e​g​e​r​d​e​n​k​m​a​e​l​e​r​/​h​a​m​b​u​r​g​-​l​o​-​os/. []
  5. On this type of monu­ments cf. Koselleck, Rein­hart (1994): Ein­lei­tung. In: Rein­hart Koselleck und Micha­el Jeis­mann (Hg.): Der poli­ti­sche Toten­kult. Krie­ger­denk­mä­ler in der Moder­ne. Mün­chen: Fink (Bild und Text), S. 9 – 20, here p. 18f. []
  6. Accor­ding to Klin­gel, Kers­tin (2006): Eichen­kranz und Dor­nen­kro­ne. Krie­ger­denk­mä­ler in Ham­burg. Ham­burg: Lan­des­zen­tra­le für Poli­ti­sche Bil­dung, p.71, the mour­ning-reli­ef initi­al­ly was to be repla­ced by “war sym­bols” but all skte­ches han­ded in by artists (inclu­ding a wrath with swords by Ruwoldt) were rejec­ted, so that he was com­mis­sio­ned to crea­te an eagle, which he did, but in a way which far more resem­bled a dove than an eagle. In how far this can be inter­pre­ted as a sub­ver­si­ve rejec­tion of the new mar­ti­al cha­rac­ter and even be eva­lua­ted as an act of defi­ance, is high­ly ques­tionable, sin­ce the sym­bo­lism of the dove as the uni­ver­si­al sym­bol for peace was crea­ted by Picas­so only after World­War II. []
  7. Cf. e.g. his “Invi­si­ble Monu­ment” in Sar­brü­cken: https://​en​.wiki​pe​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​P​l​a​t​z​_​d​e​s​_​U​n​s​i​c​h​t​b​a​r​e​n​_​M​a​h​n​m​als. []
  8. Cf. a.o. Wij­sen­beek, Dinah: Denk­mal und Gegen­denk­mal. Über den kri­ti­schen Umgang mit der Ver­gan­gen­heit auf dem Gebiet der bil­den­den Kunst. Mün­chen 2010. []
  9. There’s a lot more to be reflec­ted in com­me­mo­ra­ting: Who talks to whom, here? What do they say and expect? Who is the “you”? Is it ” us” — still today? And if so: in how far is the mes­sa­ge the same for all of us, tho­se with Ham­burg ances­tors of the time, and tho­se wit­hout, may­be immi­grants? In how far can this aspect defi­ne our atti­tu­de? Can we force all recent immi­grants into our own “natio­nal” nar­ra­ti­ve (and even more so when it is not WW1, but Holo­caust rela­ted)? But then, how can we not? (cf. also Kör­ber 2014, and see below. []
  10. My mother used to explain the Ger­man word “Denk­mal”, lite­ral­ly referrring to a “mark(er)” for initia­ting thin­king, as an impe­ra­ti­ve: “Denk mal!”, refer­ring to the other mea­ning of the word “mal” as “for once”, resul­ting in “do think for once!” []
  11. Cf. https://​upload​.wiki​me​dia​.org/​w​i​k​i​p​e​d​i​a​/​c​o​m​m​o​n​s​/​t​h​u​m​b​/​1​/​1​5​/​N​e​u​e​n​g​a​m​m​e​_​m​e​m​o​r​i​a​l​.​j​p​g​/​8​0​0​p​x​-​N​e​u​e​n​g​a​m​m​e​_​m​e​m​o​r​i​a​l​.​jpg, (pho­to by Hao Liu in the public domain) []

ANMELDUNG VERLÄNGERT BIS 28.2.2017: Zusätzliches Lehrangebot im SoSe 2017: Seminar mit Exkursion nach USA/​Polen

08. Februar 2017 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Lie­be Kommiliton(inn)en,
nach der ers­ten Anmel­de­run­de sind noch Plät­ze frei — ins­be­son­de­re für den Teil zu Grundwald/​Tannenberg mit der Exkur­si­on nach Polen!
Neue Anmel­de­frist: 28. Febru­ar 2017!
Anmel­dun­gen bit­te zur Sicher­heit per Mail AUCH AN MICH: andreas.​koerber@​uni-​hamburg.​de


Das Semi­nar ist für Lehr­amts­stu­die­ren­de ein Fach­di­dak­tik M.Ed.-Seminar “Wei­ter­füh­rung der Fach­di­dak­tik Geschich­te” (Modul 001k). Es ist für Stu­die­ren­de im B.A./B.Sc.-Lehramt Geschich­te mit abge­schlos­se­ner Modul­prü­fung zugäng­lich und kann spä­ter im M.Ed.-Studium ange­rech­net werden

Vortrag zu interkulturellem Lernen an Gedenkstätten

27. Mai 2014 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Kör­ber, Andre­as (27. 5. 2014): “Teac­Mem – Deve­lo­ping Com­pe­tence-Ori­en­ted Tea­ching on His­to­ri­cal Memo­ries.” Vor­trag auf der Fach­ta­gung »Gemein­sam erin­nern, gemein­sam Zukunft gestal­ten« des Päd­ago­gi­schen Aus­tausch­diens­tes (PAD) der Kul­tus­mi­nis­ter­kon­fe­renz am 26./27. Mai 2014 in Bonn.

gerade erschienen: Körber, Andreas “De-Constructing Memory Culture.”

12. Februar 2014 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Ein Kri­te­ri­en­ka­ta­log zur Ana­ly­se von Aus­drucks­for­men his­to­ri­scher Erinnerungen.

Kör­ber, Andre­as “De-Con­s­truc­ting Memo­ry Cul­tu­re.” In: Bjerg, Hel­le; Kör­ber, Andre­as; Lenz, Clau­dia; von Wro­chem, Oli­ver (2014; Eds.): Tea­ching His­to­ri­cal Memo­ries in an Inter­cul­tu­ral Per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and Methods. Expe­ri­en­ces and Results from the Teac­Mem Pro­ject. Ber­lin: Metro­pol (Neu­en­gam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en; 4); ISBN: 9783863311148, S. 145 – 150.

Körber, Andreas: “Historical Thinking and Historical Competencies as Didactic Core Concepts”

Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

gera­de erschienen:

Kör­ber, Andre­as: “His­to­ri­cal Thin­king and His­to­ri­cal Com­pe­ten­ci­es as Didac­tic Core Con­cepts”. In: Bjerg, Hel­le; Kör­ber, Andre­as; Lenz, Clau­dia; von Wro­chem, Oli­ver (2014; Eds.): Tea­ching His­to­ri­cal Memo­ries in an Inter­cul­tu­ral Per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and Methods. Expe­ri­en­ces and Results from the Teac­Mem Pro­ject. Ber­lin: Metro­pol (Neu­en­gam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en; 4); ISBN: 9783863311148, S. 69 – 96.

Neuerscheinung: Bjerg/​Körber/​Lenz/​v. Wrochem (Eds.; 2014): Teaching Historical Memories

Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Bjerg, Hel­le; Kör­ber, Andre­as; Lenz, Clau­dia; von Wro­chem, Oli­ver (2014; Eds.): Tea­ching His­to­ri­cal Memo­ries in an Inter­cul­tu­ral Per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and Methods. Expe­ri­en­ces and Results from the Teac­Mem Pro­ject. Ber­lin: Metro­pol (Neu­en­gam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en; 4); ISBN: 9783863311148. Darin:

  • Kör­ber, Andre­as: “His­to­ri­cal Thin­king and His­to­ri­cal Com­pe­ten­ci­es as Didac­tic Core Con­cepts”; pp. 69 – 96.
  • Kör­ber, Andre­as “De-Con­s­truc­ting Memo­ry Cul­tu­re.” pp. 145 – 150.




In die­ser Woche ist eine Publi­ka­ti­on erschie­nen, an wel­cher Mit­glie­der des Arbeits­be­reichs betei­ligt waren:

Bjerg, Helle/​Körber, Andreas/​Lenz, Clau­dia et al. (Hg.) (2014): Tea­ching His­to­ri­cal Memo­ries in an Inter­cul­tu­ral Per­spec­ti­ve. Con­cepts and Methods (= Neu­en­gam­mer Kol­lo­qui­en, Band 4), Berlin.

Bjerg/Körber/Lenz/von Wrochem (Eds.; 2014)

Vgl. auch: Blog-Ein­trag im Blog des Pro­jects TeacMem

Abschlusskonferenz des TeacMem-Projekts zur Erinnerungskultur

28. November 2012 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Vom 19. bis 22. Novem­ber 2012 fand an der Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg und im Stu­di­en­zen­trum der KZ-Gedenk­stät­te Neu­en­gam­me die Abschluss­kon­fe­renz des tri­na­tio­na­len Pro­jekts “Teac­Mem” statt.

Das Pro­jekt brach­te — koor­di­niert von Prof. Dr. Andre­as Kör­ber — For­scher, Lehrerausbilder(innen), Lehrer(innen), Gedenk­stät­ten- und Museumspädagog(inn)en sowie Stu­die­ren­de aus Däne­mark, Nor­we­gen und Deutsch­land zusam­men. In drei Seminaren/​Konferenzen in Ham­burg-Neu­en­gam­me (2010), Kopen­ha­gen (2010) und Oslo (2012) erkun­de­ten sie die jewei­li­gen geteil­ten (“shared” und “divi­ded”) Erin­ne­rungs­kul­tu­ren der Gast­ge­ber­län­der zum Zwei­ten Welt­krieg und der gemein­sa­men Geschich­te und erar­bei­te­ten Kon­zep­te und Metho­den für die Inte­gra­ti­on die­ses The­men­ge­bits in die Leh­rer­bil­dung und den schu­li­schen Geschichtsunterricht.

Auf der Abschluss­kon­fe­renz, zu der Lehrerausbilder(innen) und ande­re Multiplikatori(inn)en sowie Stu­die­ren­de aus allen drei Län­dern anreis­ten, prä­sen­tier­te das Pro­jekt sowohl sein Vor­ge­hen als auch eini­ge Ergeb­nis­se. Als exter­ne Gäs­te prä­sen­tier­ten Joke van der Lee­uw-Roord, Direc­tor von EUROCLIO (dem euro­päi­schen Geschichts­leh­rer­ver­band), Ceci­lie Feli­cia Stok­holm Ban­ke vom Däni­schen Insti­tut für Inter­na­tio­na­le Stu­di­en (DIIS) und Prof. Dr. Kris­tin Skin­stad van der Kooij vom Mas­ter­pro­gramm in Mul­ti­kul­tu­rel­ler und Inter­na­tio­na­ler Bil­dung des Oslo und Akers­hus Uni­ver­si­ty Col­lege zusätz­li­che Aspek­te zum Gegen­stand und Kon­text des Pro­jekts sowie zu sei­ner Evaluation.

Die Kon­fe­renz begann im Licht­hof der Staats- und Uni­ver­si­täts­bi­blio­thek Carl von Ossietz­ky  mit der Prä­sen­ta­ti­on des in Vor­be­rei­tung befind­li­chen Buches “Tea­ching His­to­ri­cal Memo­ries in an Inter­cul­tu­ral Per­spec­ti­ve” (hgg. von Hel­le Bjerg, Andre­as Kör­ber, Clau­dia Lenz und Oli­ver von Wrochem),welches Bei­trä­ge zu den Erfah­run­gen der Pro­jekt­teil­neh­mer in den drei inter­na­tio­na­len und inter­pro­fes­sio­nel­len Begeg­nungs­se­mi­na­ren sowie zu den Kon­zep­ten und Metho­den für Lehrer(innen)bildung und schu­li­schen Geschichts­un­ter­richt ver­sam­melt, aber auch sol­che, in wel­chen Mate­ria­li­en zu beson­ders ertrag­rei­chen The­men­fel­dern prä­sen­tiert werden.

An die­sem ers­ten Abend wur­de auch aus­schnitt­wei­se eine Video­do­ku­men­ta­ti­on über die drei Pro­jekt­se­mi­na­re prä­sen­tiert, wel­che das “look and feel”, aber auch die Dyna­mik der Dis­kus­sio­nen und Lern­pro­zes­se sicht­bar mach­te. Auf der Grund­la­ge die­ses Video­ma­te­ri­als wird auch ein päd­a­goi­gi­sches Video­kon­zept ent­ste­hen. Gefolgt wur­de die­se Prä­sen­ta­ti­on vom Haupt­vor­trag des Abends durch Ceci­lie Stok­holm Ban­ke über “Memo­ry Cul­tu­re as a Sub­ject of Histo­ry Didactics”.

Der zwei­te Tag bot den Teilnehmer(inn)en die Mög­lich­keit, die KZ-Gedenk­stät­te neu­en­gam­me ken­nen­zu­ler­nen, war aber vor allem der Prä­sen­ta­ti­on (und par­ti­ell dem Aus­pro­bie­ren) und der Dis­kus­si­on von Akti­vi­tä­ten und Metho­den des Pro­jekts gewid­met. neben einer Prä­sen­ta­ti­on der theo­re­ti­schen Grund­la­gen des Pro­jekts im Kom­pe­tenz­mo­dell his­to­ri­schen Den­kens nach “FUER Geschichts­be­wusst­sein” wur­den hier sowohl sol­che Metho­den vor­ge­stellt, die der Initi­ie­rung von Selbst­re­fle­xi­on und von Dis­kus­si­ons­pro­zes­sen zu Beginn von Begeg­nungs­se­mi­na­ren und in Pro­jek­ten die­nen (Hel­le Bjerg und Kat­ri­ne Vin­ther Schei­bel), als auch sol­che, die die Re- und De-Kon­struk­ti­on von Erin­ne­run­gen för­dern (Clau­dia Lenz und Anne Tals­nes. die­ser Aspekt stand auch im Zen­trum der Prä­sen­ta­ti­on eines Lehr­pro­gramms zu Denk­mä­lern an die Zer­stö­rung des nor­we­gi­schen Fischer­dorfs Tela­vag dort und im nahen Ber­gen, durch Jen­ny Hegg­vik und May Britt Wiel Haug­land, das eine Rei­he von instruk­ti­ven Fotos die­ser Denk­mä­ler enthält.

sowie sol­che für Akti­vi­tä­ten im übli­chen Klas­sen- oder Lern­grup­pen­ver­band (Harald Syse). dar­über­hin­aus wur­den Kon­zep­te und Mate­ria­li­en für die The­ma­ti­sie­rung beson­ders ertrag­rei­cher Pro­blem­the­men wie etwa die The­ma­ti­sie­rung von “Tätern” und die ambi­va­len­ten Erin­ne­run­gen im Zusam­men­hang mit der Ret­tungs­ak­ti­on der Wei­ßen Bus­se prä­sen­tiert (Oli­ver von Wro­chem; Ulri­ke Jensen).

Der drit­te Tag war der Refle­xi­on und Eva­lua­ti­on gewid­met. Neben drei Stu­die­ren­den, die ihre Sicht auf Erfah­run­gen mit den Lern­pro­zes­sen aus einem der Begeg­nungs­se­mi­na­re reflek­tier­ten, the­ma­ti­sier­ten Joke van der Lee­uw-Roord von EUROCLIO und Kris­tin Skin­stad van der Kooij das Pro­jekt, sei­ne Prä­mis­sen und Kon­zep­te wie auch die Ergeb­nis­se zum einen aus der Sicht des Geschichts­ler­nens zum Ande­ren aus der­je­ni­gen der inter­kul­tu­rel­len Bil­dung. Bei­de Kom­men­ta­to­rin­nen wür­dig­ten den Bei­trag des Pro­jekts zur Ent­wick­lung eines wich­ti­gen Fel­des des Geschichts­ler­nens und emp­fah­len die Über­tra­gung sei­ner Prin­zi­pi­en auf ande­re The­men der euro­päi­schen aber auch außer­eu­ro­päi­schen Geschich­te und Erinnerung.


Vgl. auch


  • TeacMem Project Sponsors

    With the support of the COMENIUS programme of the European UnionWith the support of the COMENIUS programme of the European Union
    This pro­ject has been fun­ded with sup­port from the Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on. This publi­ca­ti­on /​communication reflects the views only of the aut­hor, and the Com­mis­si­on can­not be held respon­si­ble for any use which may be made of the infor­ma­ti­on con­tai­ned therein.Reg.-Nr.: 504689-LLP‑1 – 2009-1-DE-COMENIUS-CMP


Internationale Konferenz zur Erinnerungskultur in Ghana und Deutschland im Vergleich

30. September 2012 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare


Vom 20. bis 24. Sep­tem­ber 2012 fand in Ham­burg die vom Arbeits­be­reich Geschichts­di­dak­tik der Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg gemein­sa­me mit dem Stu­di­en­zen­trum der KZ-Gedenk­stät­te Neu­en­gam­me und der Mis­si­ons­aka­de­mie an der Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg ver­an­stal­te­te inter­na­tio­na­le Kon­fe­renz “Struc­tures and Pro­ces­ses of Com­me­mo­ra­ting Cruel­ties in Aca­de­me and Histo­ry Tea­ching: The com­me­mo­ra­ti­on of the Trans­at­lan­tic Slave Trade and of the Natio­nal Socia­list Cri­mes in Com­pa­ri­son” statt.

Die Kon­fe­renz hat­te zum Ziel, Struk­tu­ren und For­men des öffent­li­chen Erin­nerns in Deutsch­land an die natio­nal­so­zia­lis­ti­schen Ver­bre­chen in Deutsch­land und Euro­pa und die­je­ni­gen der öffent­li­chen Prä­sen­ta­ti­on der Geschich­te des Trans­at­lan­ti­schen Skla­ven­han­dels (wie auch der ein­hei­mi­schen Skla­ve­rei) in Gha­na sowie die gegen­wär­ti­ge Rol­le die­ser The­men in schu­li­schem und uni­ver­si­tä­rem Geschichts­ler­nen zu ver­glei­chen und auf die didak­ti­schen Poten­tia­le gera­de auch des Ver­gleichs hin aus­zu­lo­ten. Dabei wur­de auch die Bedeu­tung von Reli­gi­on und reli­giö­sem Den­ken sowohl für die Skla­ve­rei, den Skla­ven­han­del und ihre Über­win­dung als auch für his­to­ri­sches Den­ken und Erin­nern sowie Ler­nen an die­sem Gegen­stand thematisiert.

Die The­ma­tik der Tagung ent­sprach einer gemein­sa­men Idee von Prof. Dr. Kofi Dark­wah von der Uni­ver­si­ty od Edu­ca­ti­on in Win­ne­ba/​Ghana und Prof. Dr. Andre­as Kör­ber. Sie wur­de in enger Zusam­men­ar­beit mit Kol­le­gin­nen und Kol­le­gen meh­re­rer Uni­ver­si­tä­ten in Gha­na von Jan Brei­ten­stein, Dok­to­rand der Geschichts­di­dak­tik an der Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg, vor­be­rei­tet und organisiert.

Refe­ren­ten der Tagung waren:

  • Dr. Kofi Baku (Uni­ver­si­ty of Gha­na, Legon; Head of Histo­ry Depart­ment): “Memo­ry and Memo­ri­a­li­sing Slavery and Slave Trade in Gha­na: Who­se memo­ry, Which memo­ri­als and for What Purpose?”
  • Prof. Dr. Andre­as Kör­ber (Ham­burg Uni­ver­si­ty):  “His­to­ri­cal Remem­be­ring and Lear­ning at Memo­ri­als in Ger­ma­ny” and a Cam­pus-Tour on “Decen­tra­li­zed Remem­be­ring of the Cri­mes of Natio­nal Socialism”
  • Prof. Dr. Eliza­beth Amo­ah (Uni­ver­si­ty of Gha­na, Legon;): “Reli­gi­on and Slavery in Ghana”
  • Prof. Dr. Wer­ner Kahl (Aca­de­my of Mis­si­on, Ham­burg): “Theo­lo­gy after Ausch­witz: Whe­re is god? — Expe­ri­en­ces and reflec­tions of Afri­can migrant pas­tors in Neuengamme.”
  • Dr. Ako­sua Per­bi (Uni­ver­si­ty of Gha­na, Legon;): “Slavery in Gha­na: The Unf­or­got­ten Past”
  • Ulri­ke Jen­sen and Mar­co Küh­nert (Neu­en­gam­me Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp Memo­ri­al): Gui­ded Tour
  • Dr. Oli­ver von Wro­chem (Neu­en­gam­me Con­cen­tra­ti­on Camp Memo­ri­al Stru­dy cent­re): “Neu­en­gam­me as a Memo­ri­al and Place for His­to­ri­cal Learning”
  • Nicho­las Ivor (Head of the Gha­na Muse­ums and Monu­ments Boards (GMMB) for the Cen­tral and Wes­tern Regi­ons): “Cape Coast Cast­le as a Memo­ri­al and Place for His­to­ri­cal Learning”
  • HMJo­ki­nen (Ham­burg): “Wands­bek World White Revi­si­ted” (com­me­mo­ra­ti­ve performance)
  • Prof. Dr. Klaus Weber (Euro­pa-Uni­ver­si­tät Via­dri­na, Frankfurt/​Oder): “The­re were many Schim­mel­manns: Hamburg’s and Cen­tral Europe’s Links with the Atlan­tic Slave Trade and Plan­ta­ti­on Eco­no­mies, 16th to the 19th Centuries”
  • Jan Brei­ten­stein (Ham­burg Uni­ver­si­ty): “Per­for­ma­ti­ve Com­me­mo­ra­ting and Fluid­Re­mem­be­ring of the Trans­at­lan­tic Slave Trade: Impul­se or Frame­work for (pro­cess-ori­en­ted) His­to­ri­cal Learning?”
  • Dr. Yaw Ofu­su-Kusi (Uni­ver­si­ty of Edu­ca­ti­on, Win­ne­ba/​Ghana): “Vio­la­ti­ons of Child­hood through Ens­lavement of Child­ren in West Afri­ca: Past, Pre­sent and the Future.”
  • Prof. Dr. (em.) Bodo von Bor­ries (Uni­ver­si­tät Ham­burg): „Trans­at­lan­tic Slave Trade“ and „German/​ Euro­pean Holo­caust“ as Mas­ter Nar­ra­ti­ves – Edu­ca­ti­on in bet­ween Com­me­mo­ra­ti­on of Geno­ci­des and Neces­si­ty of Human Rights.”
  • Dr. Felix Duo­du (Uni­ver­si­ty of Edu­ca­ti­on, Win­ne­ba/​Ghana): “The rele­van­ce of socie­tal diver­si­ty for Inter eth­nic (histo­ry) Tea­ching in Ghana.”
  • Dr. Clau­dia Lenz (The Euro­pean Wer­ge­land Cent­re, Oslo/​Norway): “Com­pe­tence ori­en­ted his­to­ri­cal lear­ning as inter­cul­tu­ral lear­ning – expe­ri­en­ces from the Teac­Mem pro­ject.”
  • Joke van der Lee­uw-Roord (Euro­clio, The Hague): “Chan­ging His­to­ri­cal Lear­ning in Schools and its impli­ca­ti­ons for Tea­ching about Slavery and Natio­nal Socialism”
  • Emma­nu­el Koom­son (Afri­can Chris­ti­an Mis­si­on A.C.M. Juni­or High School, Winneba/​Ghana): “Slave Trade and its Com­me­mo­ra­ti­on as a Topic for His­to­ri­cal Lear­ning in Ghana.”
  • Hil­de­gard Wacker (Gym­na­si­um Cor­vey­stra­ße, Ham­burg and Ham­burg Uni­ver­si­ty): “Natio­nal Socia­lism and its Com­me­mo­ra­ti­on as a Topic for His­to­ri­cal Lear­ning in Germany.”


Seite 1 von 2