Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, sought to reclaim the glory of ancient
Angkor and remove French and American influence. Ironically, it was French
colonialists, archaeologists, and historians who pieced together much of Angkor's
history, while Pot himself was educated in France. Nonetheless, France, like many
other colonial powers, had united previously warring ethnic groups into one
colony, which led to further disdain between parties. When Cambodia gained
its independence, the Khmer Rouge used ruthless tactics to 'purify' their culture
of any outsiders and undesirables. People were killed and books were burned.
At first it was Western books, but over time the revolution had become so anti-
intellectual that a majority of all texts in the country would eventually
be destroyed.46
The effects are clear at the National Archives of Cambodia, which states:
'[t]his collection is far from being complete because of Cambodia's tragic
history during the 1960s and 70s. The majority of ministerial documents from
the Sangkum Reastr Niyum period (1954-1970) had not been transferred to the
National Archives when, in 1975, the Pol Pot regime seized control of Cambodia
and embarked on a 4-year period of destruction that included documents held in
the ministries.'47
It is incredible that the NAC has any records available today for viewing, but they
do, from all periods of Cambodian history since French occupation. Included in
their collection are the records of the Khmer Rouge, a group which, despite their
rhetoric and actions, 'were meticulous record keepers.'48 We look back in horror
at Pot's regime, and we are afforded that ability through the use of records. While
it is a deeply troubling period of history, it is one we cannot remove or hide,
as the Khmer Rouge tried to do to what they regarded as wrong history. Thus,
post-colonial societies are left in an awkward situation - they cannot deny their
colonial history, yet they also do not wish to revere it too much for fear of living
in a continuous state of neo-colonialism.
While it may be true that all former colonies will always have the colonial
period as a major aspect of their history, there is a real danger assuming that
colonization brought 'primitive' societies to civilization. It can be easy to lose
sight of this and link the birth of the archive to the birth of history.49 Empire
certainly brought archival practices to nations around the world, and thus
documentation of history. It is this reason that many history books only begin
to discuss a country with its colonial 'founding.' This line of thinking is what
lead 19th century Spanish intellectual W.E. Retana to proclaim, 'the History of
the Philippines is nothing more than a chapter in the History of Spain.'50 But
rather than give savage people a history, colonization forced non-Europeans 'to
exist as part of a world essentially constructed by Eurocentrism.'51 The danger is
especially apparent when we believe that what was archived was an unwavering
culture existing for centuries. It has been theorized that rather than document
truthful representations of cultures, archives - or the over-documentation
prevalent in the 19th century - held societies in an exotic, pre-historic state
MICHAEL KARABINOS POST(-)cOLONIAL ARCHIVES
http://www.camnet.com.kh/archives.cambodia/English/holdingstextenglish.htm, accessed
September 2, 2008.
48 'Archives at Risk,' National Archives of Cambodia, http://www.camnet.com.kh/archives.cambodia/
English/archrisk.htm, accessed September 2, 2008.
49 For instance, the chronology of many African countries jumps from 'pre-history' to colonialism. If there
was no written word, there was no archive, and therefore, the assumption goes, no history.
50 Schmidt-Nowara, The Conquest of History, 164.
51 Ashcroft, 'Modernity's First Born', 194.
37
