Luz e dignidade, o monumento de Pepe Galán aos Mortos do Portiño. A PRAXE DA MEMORIA HISTÓRICA: O MONUMENTO DE PEPE GALÁN. John Thompson (galego, english)

A praxe da memoria histórica: o monumento de Pepe Galán
John Thompson

Erixidos desde o final do século pasado, os monumentos que simbolizan os crimes fascistas desempeñan un papel problemático no proceso da recuperación da memoria histórica. A grande maioría deles abandonáronse unha vez inaugurados, e máis que símbolos do recordo agora son recordos do esquecemento. Os marcadores materiais da memoria son complexos e é máis probábel que funcionen en contra da memoria que a prol dela. Unha excepción é a obra de Pepe Galán colocada no valigato que desemboca na cala doPortiño,localizadona cidadeda Coruña. O monumento alude ao masacre dun grupo de militantes de esquerdaque tentaron fuxir desde O Portiñoaté Asturias, aínda na legalidade republicana.
Feito en aceiro dunha cor entre vermello e laranxa debido ao óxido, o monumento é unha pasarela de vinte metros de longo e dous metros de largo. A pasarela apunta ao mar e ten escadas nos dous extremos, unhas que descencara ao mar e outras que soben na dirección oposta. No medio aparecen en chumbo os nomes dos fuxidos asasinados, e acima deles dous focos de luz azulada sostidos por postes de alumíneo de sete metros. Cando chega o anoitecer, os focos acéndense e un deles chisca en intervalos duns cinco segundos.

(inserir fotos #1,2,3,4)

Este monumento, erixido en 2008, nunca foi analizado malia posuírpotencial para avanzar a causa da memoria histórica . Os lugares simbolizados poden ser acicates para unha comunidade manter a súa memoria; son patrimonio material e resisten o paso do tempo, sobre todo se se tratar dos lugares onde aconteceron os feitos. Estes denomínanse “lugares de represión” e a súa forza deriva do seu valor testemuñaldos crimes. Os monumentos levantados despois dos feitos, neste caso no posfranquismo,adoitan ter menos poder evocador, unha vez que a súa razón de sernon é fornecer autenticidadeaos feitos, senón interpretalos.
Recordo a construción de Pepe Galán como a primeira na que reparei cando decidín facer un estudo sobreos monumentos conmemorativos en Galiza. Orballaba eanoitecía entre lusco e fusco, eimpactáronme as lámpadas que creaban unha aura azul. Quería baixar ver todo de perto, mais o orballo converteuse en choiva e daquela tiven que adiar a visita para outra ocasión.

1. A fuxida frustrada e a reivindicación da súa memoria
Chovía tamén a noite do masacre do tres de marzo de 1937. O sindicato anarquista“El Despertar Marítimo”organizou unha fuxida para aproximadamente cen persoas perseguidas polo recentemente instaurado réxime fascista. Os fuxidos agardabanen botes para que, cando se dese o sinal,alcanzasen dousbous que supostamente os esperaban mar afora (Pereira 2009: 130,Fernández 2009a: 164). A meta erachegar a Asturias, que aínda non caera en mans dos sublevados. Porén, o escape non se puido levar a cabo porque a Garda Civil descubriu o plano. Disparando contra os fuxidos, estes escaparon “gabeando monte arriba entre rochas e toxeiras”, ou abeirando a costa“quer a nado, quer nalgunha buceta que xa estivese preparada” (Pereira 2010: 410). Antón Patiño, unha testemuña ocular do evento, describe:“Os homes trataban de fuxir dos disparos nadando ou subindo por penedos e rochas. Algúns foron presos, bastantes feridos e outros aparecerían aboiados nas praias e cantís días despois” (2005: 72).Vinte e sete foron detidos, quince fusilados, un morreu no cárcere e polo menos tres afogaron. Dos asasinados, tres das vítimas tiñan menos de vinte e un anos (Lamela1998: 119,Fernández 2009b: 190-191, Pereira 2009: 130 e 2010: 410).

——————
1AmayaCaunedo fai un breve resumo das características do monumento e do suceso que representa, mais trátase dun texto descritivo, non analítico (2013: 79-80).
——————
Até 2005 este evento era practicamente descoñecido. A memoria existía de xeito espectral como se mostra na reflexión de Fernando Souto que, natural do bairro dos mariñeirosa carón doPortiño, escribe que na súa familia se falaba do evento, mais sen explicar como e por que acaeceu, e sen especificar como se chamaban os fuxidos:“Eu non sabía por que estaban fuxidos, de que fuxían, por que os perseguían, mais si tiña a sensación de que eran boa xente” (2009: 5).
O motor atrás da reivindicación do Portiño foi Antón Patiño. En 1996a súa iniciativa deuse a coñecer nun artigo de Xosé Luís Méndez Ferrín publicado no Faro de Vigo(Souto 2005). En 2005 Patiño publicou o seu libro testemuñalMemoria de Ferroe contactou coa Comisión pola Recuperación da Memoria Histórica da Coruña (CRMH), e foi através das presentacións do libro organizadas por este grupocomo se decidiulevantar un monumento(Monge2008,Ventureira 2007). A Comisión organizou un concurso de ideas e presentáronse varios proxectos. Os concursos, moi comúns en Alemaña no que respectaácreación de marcadores referidos ao Holocausto, no se fixeron en Galiza agásneste caso.A vantaxe dos concursos é que abren o proceso de monumentalización á cidadanía. E se se producir un debate social, o proceso permea aínda máis o foro público.
A historia do Portiño no posfranquismotamén incide na nosa análise. En 1977, oConcello da Coruña decidiu converter o lugar nun vertedoiro. Sería imposíbel atopar unha metáfora máis apta para a ocultación da memoria histórica. No mesmo período en que os adeptos da ditadura destruían a eito documentos comprometedores, tapar o val con 200.000 toneladas de lixofoi unha iniciativa brillantepara se desfacerdun lugar simbolizado polo trauma, aínda que o simbolismo naquel tempo fose fragmentario e desartellado.“Era un lugar”, contou Galán,“cheirón como podía ser en Pontevedra a ENCE; dependía de como sopraba o vento, viñan os cheiros para A Coruña” (entrevista co autor). Debido á saturación inxente, en setembro de 1996 o vertedoiro derrubouse e levou pola fronte carros, barcos e matou un home cuxo corpo nunca apareceu. Segundo Galán, a derruba “foi como un volcán sen lava” (entrevista) .
Esta transformación de trauma en lixo recorda, aínda que á inversa,a renovación da illa de San Simón que, efectuada entre 1998 e 2005, converteu o meirande símbolo dos crimes fascistas en Galiza nunha fantasía tropical presidida por Jesús Pérez Varela, César Portela e o Capitán Nemo. Aquí, no canto de lixo, foi beleza e exotismo queserven a mesma función de soterraros recordos que poidan ameazar o sistema .
Mesmo así, é preciso diferenciar entre estes tipos de ocultacións, que son reversíbeis (en maior ou menor grao), e as destrucións de lugares de memoria que son irreversíbeis. A máis danosaen España foi a demolición da praza de touros de Badaxoz,sen dúbida o maiorsímbolo do exterminio franquista, ideada e executada por Juan Carlos Rodríguez Ibarra.

——————–
2Esta interpretación do lixo como un soterramento do trauma non se pode probar empiricamente, visto que para iso farían falta documentos escritos ou testemuños orais que puidesen verificala. Con todo, consideramos que non se debe desbotar esta apreciación porque a iniciativa de crear o vertedoiro se realizou cando aínda restaban abundantes testemuñas directas do evento cuxos recordoseran molestos para a casta política, afervoada defensora do esquecemento abandeirado polamonarquía constitucional. Tampouco excluímos a posibilidade de que a decisión de enviar o lixo ao Portiño fose influída polo inconsciente colectivo condicionado pola narrativa do tardofranquismo, que promovía asupresión dos feitos e a memoria. Esta hipótese é coherente coas decisións tomadas na transición á democracia e coa política da desmemoria –que chega até os nosos días– executada polo Partido Socialista Obrero Español.
3Sobre esta desfeita da memoria, véxaseThompson2017.
——————–
A recuperación do Portiñofoi un fito para o movemento da memoria histórica en Galiza. Canda a inauguración, houbo actos con persoeiros da esquerda que axudaron a espallar o coñecemento da historia traumática; e para os familiares e achegados das vítimas que asistiron a esta reivindicación pública dos seus seres amados, o monumento supuxo un aceiramento de orgullo e ánimo. Mesmo así,é preciso recoñecer unha falla seria que prevalece en practicamente todos os proxectos e actos do movemento memorialista de todo o Estado: a grande ausencia da mocidade. Esta realidade é un claro indicio de que a memoria histórica, se non se tomaren medidas inmediatas e radicais, vai morrer talvez na cuarta xeración e seguramentena quinta .

2. O fetichismo e a perda da memoria
Robert Musil iniciou en 1957 unha liña crítica cara ao fenómeno dos monumentos. As súas observacións son demoledoras: “Non hai nada neste mundo tan invisíbel como un monumento (…) están impregnados de algo que nos repele (…) Non se pode dicir que non nos fixamos neles, senón que eles non se fixan en nós, eluden as nosas facultades perceptivas (…) incítannos a vandalizalos” (1957: 61-62) . Aínda que acertado, este discurso é determinista; non abre a porta a outras formas de crear e usar os monumentos.
James Young, unha figura eminente neste eido,desconfía taméndos monumentos; por exemplo:“[A] memoria sen consecuencias contén as sementes da súa propia destrución” (1994:15) . As súas análises sobre as construcións estéticasque representan os eventos e as vítimas do Holocaustoson igual de aplicábeis –e mesmo máis– aos monumentos galegos e aos do resto do Estado. O que diferencia Young de Musil é que defende unha posición en xeral favorábel, malia as súas sospeitas,cara aos monumentos. Nós defendemos unha posición non determinista mais tampouco tan positiva. As pescudas que fixemos sobre esta cuestión leváronnos a non confiar nas construcións simbólicas.Encanto para Young un monumento é efectivo se conseguir atraer a atención dos transeúntes, para nós só é efectivo se desempeñar un rol transformador, se se usar como impulsor para avanzar a causa da memoria histórica. O discurso de Young, pola contra,semella querer conter o potencial revolucionario da memoria.
O obstáculo principal a respecto da efectividade dos monumentos é o fetichismo. O fetichismo consiste en atribuír aos obxectos propiedades que non teñen; daquela no caso dos monumentos, os axentes da memoria tenden a pensar que axudan a manter viva a memoria pola simple razón de estaren colocados. A reflexión de Antón Figueroa bota luz sobre a cuestión:

————
Estamos nun país onde se “recollen” e “salvan” cantidade de fetiches, mentres a historia corre por outro lado. Parece que neste país todo o mundo está a escavar para logo gardar; continuamente estamos asistindo á presentación de alfaias de todo tipo que “de non ser polo esforzo de X, se perderían para sempre….” Nunha situación coma esta, iso é lóxico, e mesmo ás veces necesario. O máis grave de todo é que se pense que iso é o mellor e o único que se pode e debe facer. Cando a escavación se converte na única posibilidade de cultura, o que en realidade se fai é enterra-las posibilidades que quedaban. (1988: 13)

——————
4A primeira xeración –case desaparecida no ano en que se escribe este artigo (2019)– son as persoas que viviron a guerra civil e con suficiente idade para teren recordos da época. A segunda xeración, entre oitenta e cinco e cincuenta e cinco anos, naceu ou no final da contenda ou no inicio da ditadura. A terceira xeración naceu ou no final da ditadura ou ao principio do posfranquismo. A cuarta xeración son os bisnetos das testemuñas directas da guerra e os primeiros da quinta veñen de nacer ou están a piques. Véxase Valverde 2014: 69-79, quen explica as características das diferentes xeracións.
5Tradución miña do inglés. A obra orixinal está en alemán.
6Tradución miña do inglés.
——————-

Estamos nun país onde se “recollen” e “salvan” cantidade de fetiches, mentres a historia corre por outro lado. Parece que neste país todo o mundo está a escavar para logo gardar; continuamente estamos asistindo á presentación de alfaias de todo tipo que “de non ser polo esforzo de X, se perderían para sempre….” Nunha situación coma esta, iso é lóxico, e mesmo ás veces necesario. O máis grave de todo é que se pense que iso é o mellor e o único que se pode e debe facer. Cando a escavación se converte na única posibilidade de cultura, o que en realidade se fai é enterra-las posibilidades que quedaban. (1988: 13)

Do mesmo xeito que un libro non lido é un libro inútil, pódese afirmar o mesmo verbo dos monumentos. Se estes non son visitados e interpretados, non valen para nada. O exalcalde da Coruña Francisco Vázquez deuun exemplo de fetichismo digno de traer a consideración. Cando lle perguntamos se ía sobrevivir o galego ou non, respondeu: “Sí, posiblemente. Yosoy bilingüe, yohablogallego y hablocastellano. Conozco el gallego y conozco el castellano. Tengoademás una gran biblioteca en lenguagallega de cerca de mil volúmenes” (entrevista co autor).
A observación de Figueroa aplícase sen fisuras ao fenómeno dos monumentos, só que no canto de escavar trátase de levantar. O material conmemorativo non entra en nós, non lembra por nós. As persoas teñen que entrar nos monumentos para estes significaren algo. Só funcionan, daquela, se foren catalizadores de diálogo e debate.
É por isto que cando mellor poden funcionaros monumentos é antes de levantárense. Isto demostrouseco monumento de Valdi, localizado na Avenida de Navarra na cidade da Coruña. A causa da oposición creada polos sectores reaccionarios á memoria histórica, representados poloPSdeG e mais o PPdeG, e grazas á afouteza dos promotores agrupados na CRMH, creouse un debate que atinxiu abondosa visibilidade mediática. Através da pugna dialéctica, espalláronse os valores republicanos e normalizouse, até certo punto, o debate público verbo da memoria histórica. Porén, unha vez acadado o dereito de erixir a obra, desapareceu ese debate e esa pugna .

3. Praxe e utopía no monumento de Pepe Galán
A praxe dun discurso teórico ou artístico realízasecando se reúnen no discurso un concepto abstracto e unha idea concreta que xuntos xeran un mapa de acción que de ser implementado pode contribuír a socavar as estruturas de opresión. Na memoria histórica, o elemento abstracto é a historia e a memoria (como fenómenos xenéricos)encanto o concreto son os proxectos que representan e utilizan parcelas da historia e da memoria. De seren ben-sucedidos os proxectos, a súa praxe pode provocar na sociedade unha transformación cognitiva, unha praxe de pensamento.
Como ferramenta revolucionaria, a praxenaceu nopensamento marxista. Un representante desta liña teórica, Luis González,escribe que a praxe é “conocer la lógicaestructural del modo de producción capitalista; criticar los efectos deshumanizadores de la misma y proponer –desde ese saber y esta crítica– un proyecto de sociedad en el que esa lógicafuese superada en sus raíces” (1991: 197). Trátase daquela de vencellaro coñecemento coa crítica da realidade(praxe de pensamento)eexecutarun plano de acción alicerzado nese coñecemento e posicionamento ético(praxe política).Para a praxe transformar a realidade é preciso que da contemplación se pase á acción (Adorno 1962: 23) .
A estrutura base de calquera praxe e pensamento dialéctico é un binario conceptual .No monumento de Galán hai tres binarios conceptuaisque,artellados pola abstracción e a concreción, dan lugar á praxe do pensamento. O primeiro estabeléceseentre o discurso escrito –a placa descritiva– e o discurso artístico.O primeiro constitúe o elemento concreto na medida en que evoca un evento específico e empiricamente demostrado; o segundo é a representación abstracta dese feito .A placaenmarca a interpretación da obra e constitúe o primeiro e indispensábel ingrediente para a funcionalidade da construción:

——————
7Sobre este asunto, véxase Thompson 2014.
8Explicado este concepto noutras palabras, o teórico marxista Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez (militante socialista durante a guerra civil e exiliado en México) explica que a praxe é “el gozne en que se articula el marxismo en sutriple dimensión de proyecto, crítica y conocimiento” (1985: 442).
9Para FredericJameson o pensamento dialéctico consiste en inventar un espazo ou idea que transcende o Bo e o Mao que, sen esquecer esta diferenza, visa a comprensión das interrelacións entre os dous (1981: 234).
——————-

MORTOS DO PORTIÑO

Lembranza das persoas que deron a vida pola nosa liberdade o 3 marzo de 1937. Simboliza o acontecido no intento de fuxida dun cento de persoas polo mar do Portiño, a causa da represión franquista.
MONUMENTO: corredor de aceiro, que vai de sudeste a noroeste, con escadas de fuxido ou de reencontro, que soben ou baixan do monte, van ou veñen do mar.
TEXTO: pano de nomes con dezaseis fusilados, dous afogados e un morto na cadea; signos cuñados no chan de metal, recheos de chumbo, como o aplicado nos seus pasamentos.
LUZ AZUL DOS FAROIS: elemento secuencial semellante ao latexo do corazón, querendo representar con isto un xeito de presenza continua.
Camiñantes!
Ollade o ceo!
Ulide o mar!
Sentide o vento!
Non esquezades a quen morreu pola liberdade!

Comisión pola Recuperación da Memoria Histórica da Coruña
Concello da Coruña
Ministerio da Presidencia
A Coruña 12 de Abril de 2008

A mensaxe é clara e a explicación permite ao visitante apreciar, aínda que de xeito restrinxido, o simbolismo (o discurso artístico), o cal abre a posibilidade de imaxinar o evento representado. A placa tamén estabelece límites a respecto da interpretación. Para este tipo de obras, a estética debe estar sempre ao servizo da memoria evocada. A liberdade total de interpretación é para a arte desvencellada dos crimes contra a humanidade .
Unha das eivas serias que amosan moitos dos monumentos é a falta da explicación do simbolismo intencionado. E cando existen placas, as explicacións son decote ambiguas ou insuficientes; por exemplo, o espiral de AciscloManzano en Santiago, cuxa placa reza “VaeVictis 1936”. En non poucos casos as lendas deturpan os feitos como sucede co monumento en Ares, elaborado por Miguel Couto, que alude ás vítimas na comarca que foron deportadas a Mauthausen: “Aos nosos veciños en Mauthausen” lese. O resultado é a suxestión de que as vítimas ou ben emigraron a Mauthausen ou mesmo foron alí de ferias. Como intervencións éticas e socio-políticas, os monumentos teñen que se defender de calquera trivialización. A todo custo se debe evitar caer no relativismo e sobre todo na mentira como ocorre en Ares e noutros lugares .

——————–
10Distingo aquí a historia dun evento concreto e a historia como fenómeno xenérico e por tanto abstracto.
11O único defecto que detectamos no texto da placa é a palabra “pasamentos”, que suxestiona que non houbo vítimas e vitimarios. As vítimas foron fusiladas e cómpre expresalo sen eufemismos.
13A placa máis ignominiosa do Estado é con certeza a do cemiterio de Badaxoz que adxudica a culpa do masacre tanto aos fascistas como aos republicanos: “El pueblo de Badajoz a todos sushijos que perdieron la vida en ella y
———————

Os outros dous binarios da obra de Galánconforman o miolo da imaxinación utópica. En termos xerais, a Utopía consiste en ter esperanza na posibilidade de dar volta ao sistema. Segundo o fundador dos Estudos Utópicos,ErnstBloch, pensar a Utopía é soñar esperto –conscientemente– ao contrario do soño freudiano no que domina o inconsciente. Para Bloch, o obxectivo dunha Utopía revolucionaria é forxar un novo vieiro desde o soño individual ao soño colectivo “que sae para moldear o mundo externo polo menos para alivialo, polo menos como locusminorisresistentiae, ou mesmo como a instrumentalización para [atinxir] o obxectivo” (2000: 237)13 .
A Utopía que nos concirne é ollar ao futuro no sentido contrario ao que propón a narración que se xestou na Trasición (“todos tivemos a culpa”) e adoptou con tenaz dedicación o PSOE. O discurso dominante deste partido parte da premisa de que este autoengano resolverá todos os conflitos políticos actuais e vindeiros. A ollada ao futuro implica xa que logo a aniquilación da historia traumática. Para o movemento memorialista, en contrapartida, o futuro nútrese dese pasado que serve como elemento transformador da sociedade actual e futura. O mantra neoliberal da “fin da historia” implica que non hai xa outro sistema mellor que o capitalismo tardío e por tanto acabouse a necesidade de coñecer a historia como un acervo que constrúe as sociedades. Trátase dunha fe cega na evolución positiva da sociedadenon moi diferente da que alimentou o ascenso ao poder dos nazis.
No pensamentoutópico que propón a obra de Galánentran dous elementos; primeiro, o sobe-baixa das escadas. As que baixan cara ao mar simbolizan os fuxidos perseguidos e baleados; as que soben na dirección contraria son os recordos do masacre que retornan. Esta dialéctica xunta o evento –o masacre– co recordo del; e isto conduce áconcienciación social que se acada grazas ao coñecemento do crime e ao entendemento das súas causas e consecuencias.
Por súa vez, os faros e mais os postes que os sustentanxeran outro binario menos evidente, xa que os dous compoñentes non se producen simultaneamente.E é que o monumento ten dúas vidas por así dicir: de noite os faros iluminan os nomes dos asasinados, o que converte o monumento de maneiraexclusiva nun lugar deconmemoración. De día, en contraste, os nomes non son tan aparentes e os elementos que destacan son as escadas, o horizonte e o océano .
De día pódese imaxinar o cruzamento do pasado e presente –a fuxida das vítimas e o retorno dos seus recordos– simbolizado polas escadas. Ao mesmo tempo, os postes crean unha xanela que mapea a mensaxe do monumento sobre o horizonte. Por esta razón, é preciso facer dúas visitaspara entender e apreciar mellor a obra. O máis efectivo é comezar coa visita nocturna porque o evento tivo lugar na noite. Desde o monumento séntese a presenza próxima do mar e ao ver os nomes iluminados pódese facer unha idea do que alí aconteceu. O faro que chisca como o latexo do corazón aumenta a ilusiónda presenza das vítimas. O que imperanesta visita sondaquela a conmemoración e a imaxinación en clave negativa.
A combinación de noite e día é a faceta do monumento que permite ir alén da praxe de pensamento e entrar no pensamento utópico. Pódense distinguir tres movementos: o primeiro é a baixada ao mar que acabou no masacre; o segundo é a volta da memoria que leva á concienciación sociale o terceiro é voltar ao marde día desde o pensamento e a olladaen clave positiva. É neste estado cando se soña esperto con ese mundo diferente do noso. Esta ollada semella ademais proxectar a memoria da fuxida frustrada ao resto do mundo, o que libera e universaliza os recordose as visións democráticas das vítimas.O pensamento utópico é a consumación da praxe de pensamento e a fase previa á praxe política.

——————
que aquí reposan con el deseo de que nunca más en el suelo hispano sucedan hechos como los que hace 50 años comenzaron”.
13Tradución miña do inglés, que é unha tradución do alemán orixinal. Esta obra referencialpublicouse en 1923.
14Hai que salientar a estética mesurada do monumento que non cae na estetización do trauma como acontece (opinamos)no monumento de TomaszLec en Varsovia, que representa a ponte que unía o gueto grande co gueto pequeno(véxanse fotos en “WarsawGhettoBridge Memorial”).
——————

4. O desafío
Aínda que teoricamente se pode considerar o monumento de Pepe Galán un lugar de memoria,non o é porque non é visitado, agás contadas excepcións. Para conseguir que unha construción como a de Galán funcione, cómpre un grande esforzo que ten que vir principalmente das asociacións de memoria, dos institutos e das universidades. A política institucional pode tamén contribuír por medio de colaboracións puntuais.
É preciso expulsar a todo custoa concepción fetichista verbo dos monumentos. O fetichismo leva á mitoloxía (Adorno 1962: 16) earruína a Utopía igual que a ansiedadeafoga o sexo. Todos os monumentos sofren a mesma sorte, en maior ou menor grao, de abandono.
Unha opción para levar á práctica é converter a obra de Galánnun “lugar de conciencia”.LizSevcenkoexplica que os lugares de conciencia teñen principalmente tres obxectivos: “[I]nterpretar a historia através dun lugar, crear programas que estimulen o diálogo entorno ás cuestiones sociais urxentes de hoxe e dar oportunidades para o envolvemento do público” (2011: 114) .
O público máis importante é a mocidade.Sen a implicación dela, as tarefas actuais a prol da memoria histórica perden o seu potencial. Para os rapaces interesárense na memoria histórica hai que elaborar planos proactivos para integralos no movemento memorialista. É precisodarlles poder e as ferramentas para eles dirixiren os seus propios proxectos ecrearen o seu propio patrimonio republicano. É fundamental que os rapaces deixen de ser receptores, como ocorre nas aulas, e pasen a ser actores .
Se non se usan os monumentos como catalizadores de transformación política, son inúteis e contraproducentes. De símbolos da memoria deveñen en símbolos do esquecemento.Esta situación de desleixo pódese transformar nunha oportunidade para sensibilizar a sociedade, e sobre todo a xuventude, cara ao trauma causado polo fascismo. Se os rapaces non se implican, o país construirase sobre a mentira e a esquerda perderá as súas raíces. É agora ou nunca.

5. Referencias bibliográficas
Adorno, Theodor (1962):Prismas. Barcelona: Ariel.
Anónimo (2008): “WarsawGhettoBridge Memorial. TheSadStorybehindtheBridge”, Breaking Free without Breaking the Budget 22/08/2008, https://thebudgetsavvytravelers.com/warsaw-ghetto-bridge-memorial/.
Bloch, Ernst (2000):TheSpiritofUtopia. Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress.
Caunedo, Amaya (2013): “Espacios y monumentos para el recuerdo de las víctimas en el norte”, en C.MirCurcó e J.Geloncho Sole (eds.),Duelo y memoria: Espacios para el recuerdo de las víctimas de la represión franquista en perspectiva comparada. Lleida: Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida,pp. 71-106.
Fernández, Eliseo (2009a):“A fuga do Portiño”, en E. Fernández (ed.),A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: Promocións Culturais Galegas, pp. 159-170.

———————
15Traduciónmiña do inglés.
16É preciso citar o cómic de Xosé Tomás, Compañeiros: Homenaxe ás vítimas do Portiño(publicado pola CRMH), que axudou a achegar o coñecemento do evento á mocidade.
———————

——— (2009b): “As vítimas do Portiño”, en E. Fernández (ed.),A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: Promocións Culturais Galegas, pp. 185-213
Figueroa, Antón (1988):Diglosia e texto. Vigo: Xerais.
Galán, Pepe (2011): Entrevista co autor.
González, Luis Armando (1991):“El concepto de praxis en Marx: la unidad de ética y ciencia”, Realidad: Revista de Ciencias Socialesy Humanidades19,pp. 195-226.
Jameson, Frederic (1981): The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithica: CornellUniversityPress.
Lamela, Luís (1998):Estampas de injusticia: la guerra civil de 1936 en A Coruña y los documentos originados en la represión. Sada: Ediciós do Castro.
Monge, Manuel (2008):“Unha cuestión de xustiza”,Gaceta do Portiño, marzo de 2008. A Coruña:A Comisión pola Recuperación da Memoria Histórica, p.2.
Musil, Robert (1987):PosthumousPapersof a LivingAuthor. Hygiene: EridanosPress [versión orixinal en alemán de 1957].
Patiño, Antón (2005):Memoria de ferro. Vigo: A Nosa Terra.
Pereira, Dionisio (2010):Loita de clases e represión franquista no mar (1864-1939). Vigo: Xerais.
——— (2009): “Os mártires do mar: unha achega á represión franquista contra os mariñeiros galegos”,en E. Fernández (ed.),A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: Promocións Culturais Galegas, pp. 35-44.
Sánchez Vázquez, Adolfo (1985): “Mi obra filosófica”, en J. González, C.Pereyra e G. Vargos Lozano (eds.),Praxis y filosofía: Ensayos en homenaje a Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez. México DF: Editorial Grijalbo.
Sevcenko, Liz (2011): “Sites of conscience: Heritage of and for Human Rights”, enH.Anheiere Y. Raj Isar (eds.),Heritage, Memory, and Identity. Newbury: Sage Publications, pp.114-123.
Souto, Fernando (2009):“Prólogo”, en E. Fernández (ed.),A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: Promocións Culturais Galegas, pp. 5-6.
Souto, Xurxo (2005): “Os mortos do Portiño”,La opinión: A Coruña 12/06/2005.
Thompson, John(2017): “FromtheIslandof Trauma to FantasyIsland: TheRenovationof San Simón”, en B.Sampedro Vizcaya e J. A. Losada Montero (eds.),ReroutingGalicianStudies: MultidisciplinaryInterventions. Londres: PalgraveMacmillan, pp. 109-126.
——— (2014): “Os monumentos conmemorativos deValdi na Coruña, Aranga e Santa Mariña (Guitiriz)”,Murguía. Revista Galega de Historia29-30, pp.59-74.
Tomás, Xosé (2008):Compañeiros: Homenaxe ás vítimas do Portiño. A Coruña: A Comisión pola Recuperación da Memoria Histórica d’A Coruña (https://www.foroporlamemoria.info/2010/01/companeiros-homenaxe-as-vitimas-do-portino/).
Vázquez, Francisco (2010): Entrevista co autor.
Valverde, Clara (2014):Desenterrar las palabras: Transmisión generacional del trauma de la violencia política del siglo XX en el Estado español. Barcelona: Icaria editorial.
Ventureira, Rubén (2007): “Ochopropuestas para honrar a las víctimas de O Portiño”,La Voz de Galicia (edición A Coruña) 29/12/2007, https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/2007/12/29/ocho-propuestas-honrar-victimas-portino/0003_6440828.htm.
Young, James (1994): The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven: Yale University Press.

The praxis of historical memory: the monument of Pepe Galán
John Thompson

Erected from the end of the twentieth century, monuments symbolizing fascist crimes perform a problematic function in the process of recovering historical memory. The majority of them were abandoned once inaugurated and, rather than symbols of memory, are now memories of what has been forgotten. The material markers of memory are complex and it is more likely that they work against rather than in favour of memory. One exception is the work of Pepe Galán, located in the small valley that leads down to the cove of O Portiño, near the city of A Coruña. The monument alludes to the massacre of a group of left-wing activists who attempted to flee from O Portiño to Asturias, which still lay in the Republic zone.
Made of steel, its colour somewhere between red and orange due to rust, the monument is a twenty-metre long and two-metre wide walkway, facing the sea. It has steps at either end: some descend towards the sea and others ascend in the opposite direction. In the middle of the memorial the names of the murdered fugitives appear in lead, and above these, two floodlights emitting blueish light, supported on seven-metre tall aluminium posts. At dusk, the floodlights are activated and one of them flickers at five-second intervals.

Erected in 2008, this monument has never beenanalysed in spite of possessing the potential to advance the cause of historical memory . Places that are symbolized can be an incentive for a community to maintain its memory: they are tangible heritage and resist the passage of time, above all if they are located where the events occurred. These are referred to,in Galician and in Spanish, as “sites ofrepression” and their strength lies in their testimonial value as regards the crimes. Material markers constructed after the events (in this case, in the post-Franco era), tend to possess a less evocative power, if their purpose is not to confer authenticity upon the events but to interpret them.
I recall Pepe Galán’s construction as the first of which I became aware when I decided to undertake a study on commemorative monuments in Galicia. Night was falling, it was drizzling and the lamps that created a blue aura had an impact upon me. I wanted to get closer to examine it in greater detail, but the drizzle turned into rain and I therefore had to postpone my visit for another occasion.

1. The thwarted escape and the recovery of its memory
It was also raining on the night of the massacre, on 3rdMarch, 1937. The anarchist trade union, “El Despertar Marítimo” [“The Maritime Awakening”] organised an escape for approximately one hundred people who were being persecuted by the recently established Fascist regime. The fugitives were waiting in boats so that, when the signal was given, they could transfer to the two fishing vessels that were supposedly waiting further out to sea (Pereira 2009: 130, Fernández 2009a: 164). Their objective was to reach Asturias, which had still not fallen to Franco’s rebels. However, the escape did not take place because the Civil Guard discovered the plan. They opened fire on the fugitives, who escaped by “scrambling up the hill between rocks and gorse”, or along the coast, “either by swimming or by some small boat at the ready” (Pereira 2010: 410). Antón Patiño, in an eyewitness account of the event, states: “The men tried to escape the shots by swimming or climbing up over the boulders and rocks. Some were taken prisoner;

———————
1Amaya Caunedo provides a brief summary of the characteristics of the monument and the event it represents, but it is a descriptive rather than analytical text (2013: 79-80).
———————

some were wounded and others were washed up on the beaches and by the cliffs days later” (2005: 72). Twenty-seven were arrested, fifteen shot, one died in prison and at least three drowned. Of those murdered, three of the victims were less than twenty-one years old (Lamela 1998: 119, Fernández 2009b: 190-191, Pereira 2009: 130 and 2010: 410).
This event was practically unknown until 2005. The memory existed in a ghostly manner, as attested to by the reflection of Fernando Souto. As a native of the fishermen’s quarter near Portiño, he writes that the event was spoken of in his family, but without how and why it occurred being explained, and without the names of the fugitives being specified: “I didn’t know why there fugitives, what they were running from, why they were being pursued, but I did have the impression that they were good people” (2009: 5).
The driving force behind the recovery of the Portiño memory was Antón Patiño. In 1996, his initiative was discussed in an article by Xosé Luís Méndez Ferrín which was published in Faro de Vigo newspaper (Souto 2005). In 2005, Patiño published his book of witness accounts, Memoria de Ferro [Memory of Iron], and contacted the Coruña Commission for the Recovery of Historical Memory (CRMH). It was through the launches of the book organized by that group that the decision to create the monument was taken (Monge 2008, Ventureira 2007). The Commission organised an ideas competition and proposed several projects. This was the only case of such competitions, quite common in Germany as regards the creation of markers related to the Holocaust, occurring in Galicia. The advantage of such competitions is that they open up the process of monumentalisation to citizens. If a social debate then ensues, the process permeates the public sphere even further.
The history of Portiño in the post-Franco period also has bearing on this analysis. In 1977, Coruña City Council decided to turn the place into a landfill. It would be impossible to find a more apt metaphor for the concealment of historical memory. In the same period in which the followersof the dictatorship would wantonly destroy compromising documents, covering a valley with 200,000 tons of waste was a brilliant initiative to do away with a place symbolised by trauma, although the symbolism at that time was fragmentary and disconnected. “It was a smelly place”, recounted Galán, “like the ENCE factory in Pontevedra; it depended on which way the wind blew, and the smell drifted towards A Coruña” (interview with the author). Owing to the enormous saturation, in September 1996, the landfill collapsed and carried away cars, boats and killed a man whose body was never found. According to Galán, the collapse “was like a volcano without lava” (interview) .
This transformation of trauma into refuse recalls, although in the opposite sense, the renovation of San Simón Island which, from 1998 to 2005, turned the greatest symbol of fascist crimes in Galicia into a tropical fantasy presided over by Jesús Pérez Varela, César Portela and Captain Nemo. In this case, instead of refuse, it was beauty and exoticism that performed the same function of burying memories that might threaten the system .

———————-
2This interpretation of the refuse like a burying of the trauma cannot be proven empirically, given that written documents or oral testimony is required to verify this. However, this observation should not be disregarded because the initiative to create the landfill was taken when there were still abundant direct witness accounts of the event. Such recollections irritated the political class, a passionate defender of the forgetfulness championed by the constitutional monarchy. Neither should the possibility that the decision to send refuse to Portiño was influenced by the unconscious collective conditioned by the narrative of later Francoism, which promoted the suppression of events and memory, be disregarded. This hypothesis coheres with the decisions taken during the transition to democracy and the politics of disremembering (still in existence today) adopted by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE).
3On this destruction of memory, see Thompson 2017.
———————-

Notwithstanding, these types of concealment should be differentiated into two kinds: those that are reversible (to a greater or lesser extent) and the destruction of sites of memory that are irreversible. The most damaging in Spain was the demolition of the bullring in Badajoz, undoubtedly the greatest symbol of Francoist extermination, conceived and executed by Juan Carlos Rodríguez Ibarra.
The recovery of Portiño was a landmark for Galicia’s historical memory movement. At the inauguration, there were events with figures from the left who helped to promote awareness of that traumatic episode from history. For family members and relativesof victims who attended this public commemoration of their loved ones, the monument represented a strengthening of pride and spirit. However, a serious lack prevailing in practically all projects and acts of the memory movement throughout the Spanish state should be recognised: the conspicuous absence of young people. This reality is a clear sign that historical memory, if immediate and radical measures are not taken, may die in the fourth and undoubtedly fifth generation .

2. Fetishism and the loss of memory
In 1957, Robert Musil 1957 initiated a critical line regarding the phenomenon of monuments. His observations are devastating: “There is nothing in this world as invisible as a monument (…). They are impregnated with something that repels attention (…). One cannot say we did not notice them; one would have to say they ‘de-notice’ us, they elude our perceptive faculties: this is a downright vandalism-inciting quality of theirs” (1957: 61-62). Although correct, this discourse is deterministic; it does not open the door to other forms of creating and using monuments.
James Young, an eminent figure in this field, is also distrustful of monuments; for example: “Memory without consequences contains the seeds of its own destruction” (1994: 15). His analyses on aesthetic constructions that represent the events and victims of the Holocaust are equally (and even more) applicable to Galician monuments and others in the Spanish state. What distinguishes Young from Musil is that he defends a generally favourable position, in spite of his suspicions, concerning monuments. I defend a non-deterministic position, but one that is not so positive. My research on this matter has led me to distrust symbolic constructions. Whereas for Young, a monument is effective if it succeeds in attracting attention from passers-by, for me, it is only effective if it plays a transforming role and is used to advance the cause of historical memory. Young’s discourse, however, seems to wish to contain the revolutionary potential of memory.
The principle obstacle concerning the effectiveness of monuments is fetishism. Fetishism consists in attributing to objects properties they do not possess; in the case of material markers, therefore, the agents of historical memory tend to think that they help to keep memory alive by simply being there. Antón Figueroa’s reflection sheds light on this matter:

——-
We are in a country where a large number of fetishes are “collected” and “saved”, whilst history goes in another direction. It seems that in this country, everyone is excavating to keep what they find; we are continually attending the presentation of all kinds of jewels that “if not for the efforts of X, would be lost forever…” In a
——————–
4The first generation (which has almost disappeared by the time of writing this article [2019]) are the people who lived through the Civil War and are old enough to remember the period. The second generation, between eighty and eight-five years old, was born at the end of the conflict or at the beginning of the dictatorship. The third generation was born either at the end of the dictatorship or the beginning of the post-Franco period. The fourth generation are the great-grandchildren of direct witnesses of the war and the first members of the fifth have just been born or are about to be. See Valverde 2014: 69-79, who explains the characteristics of the different generations.
situation like this, that is logical, and at times necessary. The worst thing of all is that it is thought that this is the best and only thing that can and should be done. When excavation becomes the only possibility for culture, what it actually does is to bury the remaining possibilities. (1988: 13)
———————

In the same way that a book not read is a useless book, the same can be said of monuments. If they are not visited and interpreted, they are worthless. The former mayor of A Coruña, Francisco Vázquez, provided an example of fetishism worthy of consideration. When I asked him if the Galician language was going to survive or not, he replied: “Yes, possibly. I am bilingual. I speak Galician and Castilian. I know Galician and I know Castilian. Furthermore, I have a large library in Galician, with around a thousand volumes” (interview with the author).
Figueroa’s observation can be applied unreservedly to the phenomenon of monuments, where rather than excavating, it is a matter of erecting. The commemorative material does not enter us, does not remember for us. People have to enter monuments for them to signify something. They only work, therefore, if they are catalysts for dialogue and debate.
This is why monuments can function best before they are erected, as was demonstrated with Valdi’s monument, located on Avenida de Navarra in A Coruña. Due to the opposition created by sectors reactionary to historical memory, represented by the PSG (the Galician branch of the PSOE) and the PPG (the Galician branch of the PP), and owing to the determination of the promotors within the CRMH, a debate ensued which attracted considerable visibility in the media. Through this dialectic contest, Republican values were promoted and, to some extent, the public debate about historical memory was normalized. However, once the right to erect the work was obtained, the debate and contest vanished .

3. Praxis and utopia in the monument by Pepe Galán
The praxis of a theoretical or artistic discourse occurs when an abstract concept and a specific idea, which together generate a map of action and when implemented can contribute to the collapse of oppressive structures, combine in a discourse. In historical memory, the abstract element is history and memory (as generic phenomena), while the concrete element is the projects that represent and utilize segments of history and memory If projects are successful, their praxis can bring about in society a cognitive transformation: a praxis of thought.
As a revolutionary tool, praxis was born in Marxist thought. A representative of this line of theory, Luis González, writes that praxis is “to know the structural logic of the capitalist mode of production; criticise the dehumanizing effects of it and propose – from that knowledge and criticism – a project for a society in which that logic was overcome at its source” (1991: 197). It is about linking knowledge with the critique of reality (praxis of thought) and executing an action plan based on that knowledge and ethical positioning (political praxis). For praxis to transform reality, contemplation must lead toaction (Adorno 1962: 23) .
The basic structure of any praxis and dialectical thought is a conceptual binary . With Galán’s monument, there are three conceptual binaries that, articulated by abstraction and specificness, give rise to the praxis of thought. The first is established between the written discourse – the descriptive plaque – and the artistic discourse. The first constitutes the specific

———————–
5Regarding this matter, see Thompson 2014.
6Explaining this concept in other words, the Marxist theoretician Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez (a socialist militant during the Civil War and exiled in Mexico) explains that praxis is “the hinge on which Marxism is articulated in its three-dimensional project, criticism and knowledge” (1985: 442).
7For Frederic Jameson, dialectic thought consists in inventing a space or idea that transcends Good and Evil and which, without forgetting this difference, aims at understanding the interrelationships between the two (1981: 234).
———————–

element insofar as it evokes a specific and empirically demonstrated event; the second is the abstract representation of that fact . The plaque frames the interpretation of the work and constitutes the first and indispensable ingredient for the functionality of the construction:

THE DEAD OF PORTIÑO

A memorial to the people who gave their lives for our freedom on March 3, 1937. It symbolizes what happened when one hundred people attempted to escape Franco’s repression by sea from Portiño.
MONUMENT: a steel walkway, running from southeast to northwest, with steps for an escape or reunion, going up to or coming down from the hill, going to or coming from the sea.
TEXT: the floor of the walkway with the names of the sixteen people shot, two drowned and one who died in prison; signs stamped upon the metal floor, filled with lead as a reminder of their passing.
BLUE LIGHT FROM THE LAMPS: a sequential feature similar to a heartbeat, intending to represent a continual presence.
Travellers!
Watch the sky!
Smell the sea!
Feel the wind!
Do not forget who died for freedom!

The Coruña Commission for the Recovery of Historical Memory
Coruña City Council
President’s Office
A Coruña, April 12, 2008

The message is clear and the explanation enables the visitor to appreciate, albeit in a restricted manner, the symbolism (the artistic text), which opens up the possibility of imagining the event represented. The plaque also establishes the limits concerning interpretation. For this type of work, the aesthetic must always be at the service of the memory evoked. Absolute freedom of interpretation is for art disconnectedfrom crimes against humanity .
One of the serious defects present in many monuments is the lack of explanation of the intended symbolism. When plaques exist, their explanations are often ambiguous or insufficient; for example, the spiral by Acisclo Manzano in Santiago, whose plaque reads “Vae Victis 1936”. In more than a few cases, the legends distort the facts, as is the case with the monument in Ares, created by Miguel Couto, which alludes to the victims from the area who were deported to Mauthausen: “Our neighbours in Mauthausen”, it reads. The result is the suggestion that the victims either emigrated to Mauthausen or even went there on holiday. As ethical and socio-political interventions, monuments have to defend themselves from any trivialization. One should avoid at all costs falling into relativism and especially lying, as occurs in Ares and other places 10 .

————————
8I distinguish here the history of a specific event and history as a generic and therefore abstract phenomenon.
9The only defect I can detect in the plaque’s text is the word “passing”, which suggests that there were no victims or victimizers. The victims were shot and this should be expressed without euphemisms.
10The most ignominious plaque in the Spanish state is undoubtedly that of Badajoz cemetery, which attributes blame for the massacre to both fascists and republicans: “The people of Badajoz to all their children who lost their lives and who rest here with the wish that events like those that began 50 years ago never occur again on Spanish soil”.
————————

The other two binaries of Galán’s work form the core ofutopian imagination. In general terms, Utopia is about having the hope of turning the system around. According to the founder of Utopian studies, Ernst Bloch, to think of Utopia is to daydream – consciously – as opposed to the Freudian dream in which the unconscious prevails. For Bloch, the objective of a revolutionary Utopia is to forge a new pathway from the individual dream to the collective dream, “that goes out to shape the external world at least to alleviate it, at least as locus minoris resistentiae or even as the instrumentation for the goal” (2000: 237) .
The Utopia which concerns us is a gaze towards the future in the opposite sense to that proposed by the narrative created during the Spanish Transition to Democracy (“we wereall guilty”) and adopted with tenacious dedication by the PSOE. The dominant discourse of this party starts from the premise that this self-deception will solve all current and future political conflicts. Looking to the future therefore implies the annihilation of traumatic history. For the memorialist movement, in contrast, the future emerges from that past which acts as a transformative feature of the society of the present and future. The neoliberal mantra of the “end of history” implies that there is no other system better than late capitalism, andtherefore there is no longer the need to know history as a form of heritage from which societies can be constructed. It is blind faith in the positive evolution of society not much different from that which fuelled the rise to power of the Nazis.
Two elements enter the utopian idea proposed by Galán. Firstly, the going up and down the steps. The steps that go down to the sea symbolize the people who were persecuted and shot; those going up in the opposite direction are the memories of the massacre that return. This dialectic links the event – the massacre – with the memory of it; and this leads to the social awareness that is achieved through knowledge of the crime and the understanding of its causes and consequences.
In turn, the headlights and the posts that support them generate another less obvious binary, as the two components do not occur simultaneously. The monument therefore has two lives so to speak: at night the headlights illuminate the names of those killed, which renders the monument an exclusive place of commemoration. By day, in contrast, the names are not so apparent and the features that stand out are the steps, the horizon and the ocean .
By day, one can imagine the meeting of the past and present – the flight of the victims and the return of their memories – symbolized by the steps. At the same time, the posts create a window that maps the message of the monument on the horizon. For this reason, it is necessary to visit the site twice in order to better understand and appreciate the work. The most effective way is to start with a nocturnal visit, given that the event took place at night. From the monument, the presence of the sea is felt and by seeing the illuminated names, one can get an idea of what happened there. The beacon that blinks like the heartbeat increases the illusion of the presence of the victims. What prevails in this visit are therefore the commemoration and the imagination in a negative sense.
The combination of night and day is the facet of the monument that enables us to go beyond praxisof thought and enter into utopian thought. Three movements can be distinguished: the first is the descent to the sea which culminated in the massacre; the second is the return of

————————
11My translation from the text in English, which is a translation from the German source. This key work was published in 1923.
12The measured aesthetics of the monument, which does not fall into the aestheticization of trauma, must be highlighted in contrast to (in my opinion)the monument by Tomasz Lec in Varsovia, which represents the bridge unifying the large ghetto with the small ghetto (see photos at “Warsaw Ghetto Bridge Memorial”).
————————

memory that leads to social awareness and the third is to return to the sea by day through reflection and the gaze in a positive sense. It is in this state when that world different fromours is the subject of daydream. That gaze also seems to project the memory of the thwarted escape onto the rest of the world, which liberates and universalizes the democratic memories and visions of the victims. Utopian thinking is the consummation of the reflective praxis and the phase before political praxis.

4. The challenge
Although Pepe Galán’s monument can be regarded theoretically as a place of memory, it is not because it is not visited (except on rare occasions). In order for a construction like Galán’s to work, a great effort is required, which has to come mainly from memory associations, high schoolsand universities. Institutional policy can also contribute through occasional collaborations.
The fetishist conception of monuments must be expelled at all costs. Fetishism leads to mythology (Adorno 1962: 16) and ruins Utopia in the same manner that anxiety hampers sex. All monuments suffer the same fate, to a greater or lesser degree, of abandonment.
One option to put into practise is to convert Galán’s work into a “site of consciousness”. Liz Sevcenko explains that sites of consciousnesshave three principle objectives: “To interpret history though a site; to engage in programs that stimulate dialogue on pressing social issues today; and to share opportunities for public involvement in those issues” (2011: 114) .
The most important audience is young people. Without their involvement, current historical memory projects lose their potential. In order for young people to take an interest in historical memory, pro-active plans to involve them in the memorialist movement must be developed. They need to be given the power and tools to carry outtheir own projects and create their own Republican heritage. It is crucial that young people cease to be receivers, as in the classroom, and become actors .
Unless monuments are used as catalysts for political transformation, they are useless and counterproductive. Symbols of memory become symbols of forgetfulness. This situation of neglect can be transformed into an opportunity to raise awareness among society, and especially youth, of the trauma caused by fascism. If young people do not get involved, the country will be built on lies and the left will lose its roots. It is now or never.

5. Bibliographical references
Adorno, Theodor (1962): Prismas. Barcelona: Ariel.
Anónimo (2008): “Warsaw Ghetto Bridge Memorial. The Sad Story behind the Bridge”, Breaking Free without Breaking the Budget 22/08/2008, https://thebudgetsavvytravelers.com/warsaw-ghetto-bridge-memorial/.
Bloch, Ernst (2000): The Spirit of Utopia. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.
Caunedo, Amaya (2013): “Espacios y monumentos para el recuerdo de las víctimas en el norte”, in C. Mir Curcó and J. GelonchoSole (eds.), Duelo y memoria: Espacios para el recuerdo

———————-
13My translation from English.
14Reference must be made to the comic by Xosé Tomás, Compañeiros: Homenaxeásvítimas do Portiño [Comrades: a Tribute to the Victims of Portiño] (published by CRMH), which contributed to raising awareness amongst young people about the event.
———————-

de las víctimas de la represión franquista en perspectiva comparada. Lleida: Edicions de la Universitat de Lleida, pp. 71-106.
Fernández, Eliseo (2009a): “A fuga do Portiño”, in E. Fernández (ed.), A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: Promocións Culturais Galegas, pp. 159-170.
——— (2009b): “As vítimas do Portiño”, in E. Fernández (ed.), A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: Promocións Culturais Galegas, pp. 185-213
Figueroa, Antón (1988): Diglosia e texto. Vigo: Xerais.
Galán, Pepe (2011): Interview with the author.
González, Luis Armando (1991): “El concepto de praxis en Marx: la unidad de ética y ciencia”, Realidad: Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades 19, pp. 195-226.
Jameson, Frederic (1981): The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithica: CornellUniversityPress.
Lamela, Luís (1998): Estampas de injusticia: la guerra civil de 1936 en A Coruña y los documentos originados en la represión. Sada: Ediciós do Castro.
Monge, Manuel (2008): “Unha cuestión de xustiza”, Gaceta do Portiño, March 2008. A Coruña: A Comisión pola Recuperación da Memoria Histórica, p. 2.
Musil, Robert (1987): Posthumous Papers of a Living Author. Hygiene: Eridanos Press [original version in German in 1957].
Patiño, Antón (2005): Memoria de ferro. Vigo: A Nosa Terra.
Pereira, Dionisio (2010): Loita de clases e represiónfranquista no mar (1864-1939). Vigo: Xerais.
——— (2009): “Os mártires do mar: unha achega á represión franquista contra os mariñeiros galegos”, en E. Fernández (ed.), A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: PromociónsCulturais Galegas, pp. 35-44.
Sánchez Vázquez, Adolfo (1985): “Mi obra filosófica”, in J. González, C. Pereyra and G. Vargos Lozano (eds.), Praxis y filosofía: Ensayos en homenaje a Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez. México DF: Editorial Grijalbo.
Sevcenko, Liz (2011): “Sites of conscience: Heritage of and for Human Rights”, in H. Anheier and Y. Raj Isar (eds.), Heritage, Memory, and Identity. Newbury: Sage Publications, pp. 114-123.
Souto, Fernando (2009): “Prólogo”, in E. Fernández (ed.), A fuxida do Portiño. Vigo: PromociónsCulturaisGalegas, pp. 5-6.
Souto, Xurxo (2005): “Osmortos do Portiño”, La opinión: A Coruña 12/06/2005.
Thompson, John (2017): “From the Island of Trauma to Fantasy Island: The Renovation of San Simón”, in B. Sampedro Vizcaya and J. A. Losada Montero (eds.), Rerouting Galician Studies: Multidisciplinary Interventions. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 109-126.
——— (2014): “Osmonumentosconmemorativos de ValdinaCoruña, Aranga e Santa Mariña (Guitiriz)”, Murguía. RevistaGalega de Historia 29-30, pp. 59-74.
Tomás, Xosé (2008): Compañeiros: Homenaxe ás vítimas do Portiño. A Coruña: A Comisión pola Recuperación da Memoria Histórica d’A Coruña (https://www.foroporlamemoria.info/2010/01/companeiros-homenaxe-as-vitimas-do-portino/).
Vázquez, Francisco (2010): Interview with the author.
Valverde, Clara (2014): Desenterrar las palabras: Transmisión generacional del trauma de la violencia política del siglo XX en el Estado español. Barcelona: Icaria editorial.
Ventureira, Rubén (2007): “Ocho propuestas para honrar a las víctimas de O Portiño”, La Voz de Galicia(edición A Coruña) 29/12/2007,(https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/coruna/2007/12/29/ocho-propuestas-honrar-victimas-portino/0003_6440828.htm)
Young, James (1994): The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Deja una respuesta

Botón volver arriba