A new chapter titled “From the Battlefield to the Stadium. The Transformation of Male and Female Bodies in German Commemorative Practices regarding the First World War in the 1920s and 1930s.” by Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska has been published in a collective volume “Monuments and Cemeteries of the First World War in Europe”, edited by Kamil Ruszała, and issued by the Brill.
In her chapter, Karolina examines how, in interwar Germany, First World War memorials shaped collective memory by idealizing the male body and linking commemoration with sport.
A link to the full text you can find here and here.
We are pleased to announce that Michal Korhel is one of the guest editors of a special issue of Český lid. We encourage researchers to submit their articles for consideration.
More information below.
Deadline for abstracts: 15 November 2026
Český lid, 1/2028 – Special Issue
WALKING MATTERS: Kinaesthetic Modes of Memory, Belonging and Research
Guest editors: Michal Korhel (Institute of Slavic Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw), Jana Nosková (Institute of Ethnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno), Sabine Stach (Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe, Leipzig)
Walking, hiking, pilgrimage, biking or even running – moving of one’s own accord – are essential for exploring historic sites, experiencing landscapes, researching cultures and commemorating past events and people. Walking is not just a way of getting from A to B; it can also be used deliberately to stimulate thoughts, memories or relationships, and to foster a sense of identity. For more than ten years, hundreds of people have each year walked the 32-kilometre “March of Reconciliation” (“Pouť smíření”) route from Pohořelice to Brno. In May 1945, some 20,000 German-speaking residents of Brno were driven out along this same route towards Austria. In Warsaw, more than 12,000 people took part in this year’s 35th commemorative run for the “heroes” of the 1944 Warsaw Uprising (“Bieg Powstania Warszawskiego”). In addition, there are numerous other commemorative activities that are based on physical, and in some cases athletic, practices. For instance, people hike through their families’ regions of origin, traverse former borders, retrace historical routes, undertake pilgrimages to historic sites or explore landscapes through tourism and everyday movement.
For researchers in the fields of Memory Studies, Heritage Studies or Public History, such kinaesthetic modes of engaging with the past require a broader methodological toolkit: they must become physically active themselves. Consequently, researchers are increasingly drawing on methods that anthropologists have been using and discussing for many years. Approaches such as walking ethnography, participant observation, mobile interviews and sensory ethnography are based on the idea that knowledge is inextricably linked to the physical and spatial context in which it is created. When walking alongside their interviewees, researchers perceive the landscape differently from how they would in a stationary interview. Conversations, memories and narratives can also be transformed by movement and encounters with specific places. This raises the question of the positionality of the ‘walking’ researcher; terrain, weather, physical exertion, speed, breaks and shared spatial orientation all influence the research situation. Therefore, walking ethnography is not merely a mobile variant of the qualitative interview, but rather a research approach that actively incorporates the body, movement and the environment into the production of knowledge.
This special issue explores the relationship between movement, perception and knowledge. Taking walking as a case study (while also considering other forms of non-motorised movement), it examines the interplay between memory, belonging and research. It considers the various contexts and forms of mobile experience, ranging from everyday walks and hikes to tourist activities, border crossings, journeys through ancestral landscapes, pilgrimages, processions, memorial marches, memory walks and historical re-enactments. Particular attention is given to the interplay between physicality, landscape, materiality, movement, repetition, collective participation, emotion and a sense of belonging. How can the increasing use of the body as a medium of memory be explained and explored? What relationship exists between historical tradition, individual memory, political activism and the search for unique experiences? It also asks: How does the perception of a place change when it is traversed rather than merely observed? In what ways are memories activated through movement and tied to the landscape? What role do distance, speed, rhythm, exhaustion, the weather or the terrain play? In terms of explicit remembrance practices, the tension between the significance attributed to such events and how participants actually experience them is also worth noting, as well as is the overlap between leisure, sport, commemoration and historical education that characterises many of these formats.
Český lid / Czech Ethnological Journal is the leading, peer-reviewed Czech ethnological journal, published in print and in diamond open access by the Institute of Ethnology of the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague; it is regularly indexed and abstracted in Scopus (Q2). The aim of this special issue, co-edited by Michal Korhel, Jana Nosková and Sabine Stach, is to encourage dialogue among scholars working in ethnology and anthropology, history, human geography, memory and heritage studies, mobility studies and tourism research. The focus is on contemporary examples (generally dating from around 1989 onwards), though historical genealogies may be included where they are relevant to understanding current practices. We particularly welcome contributions that present innovative methodological approaches through concrete case studies, while also exploring the analytical value of a kinaesthetic perspective for understanding space, memory and belonging.
Possible topics include, among others:
Walking and remembering: commemorative marches, memory walks, pilgrimages, processions, historical re-enactments, commemorative marathons and runs, and other forms of physically practised remembrance;
Walking and belonging: heritage tourism, genealogical journeys, return journeys to regions of origin and movement through familial and biographical landscapes;
Walking and borders: border hikes and bike tours, routes along former and current borders, such as the Iron Curtain Trail, cross-border routes and the physical experience of political spaces;
Walking and landscape: the perception and appropriation of historical, post-industrial, post-Soviet or post-socialist landscapes through movement;
Walking and heritage: themed walks, heritage trails, tourist routes and the production of historical landscapes;
Walking and mobility: the relationship between walking and other forms of physical movement such as running or cycling; questions of speed, rhythm and physical exertion; the experiences of people with physical disabilities, including questions of inclusion and accessibility;
Walking as method: walking interviews, walking ethnography, mobile and sensory methods, and issues of positionality, reflexivity and knowledge production.
Of particular interest are contributions that connect these areas and view walking as a situated and embodied practice of perception and knowledge production.
Abstracts (max. 500 words, in English) should outline the research question(s) as well as the theoretical and methodological approach adopted and can be submitted to sabine.stach@leibniz-gwzo.de and noskova@eu.cas.cz.
Contributors should also include a short, 100-word biographical note (in English).
On August 21st, Karina Hoření was invited to speak at the discussion “Kdo se bojí Sudet?” (“Who is afraid of Sudetenland?”). The debate was a public event of the annual Summer School for Teachers, organized by the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, and the DOX gallery, where it was held.
Together with Olga Nešporová from the Institute of Ethnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, and Matěj Spurný from the Institute of History, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, they shared experience from their research and public work in the region. The debate focused on the recent controversy around the assembly of the Sudetenland Expelees Organization and the March of Reconciliation in Brno this May. During the debate, Karina shared her experience from the march and her interpretation, which she summed up in her latest blog post.
pictures from the debate, author: Markéta Svobodová, FF UK
This year’s Sudeten German Days for the first time took place in Brno, Czechia. This provoked a backlash from Czech nationalists. You can read about it in either Karina Hoření’s or Michal Korhel’s texts published soon after these events. It also became the starting point for a conversation about the history of Czech-German relations in the recent two-part episode in the Czechostacja podcast, where the quest was Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska. Karolina, together with the podcast’s host, Jakub Medek, discuss difficult legacy of Czech-German relations after the Second World War. They explore the German violence toward Czechs during the war and occupation, and then the so-called “wild expulsions” of Germans from Czechoslovakia in 1945, a period marked by death marches and local massacres. How is this remembered in contemporary Czechia? And is there a way out of such an entangled history of violence?
We invite you to listen to both episodes available here and here.
From 21 to 24 July 2026, members of our project team took part in the biennial conference of the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA), held in Poznań under the theme “Anthropology: Possibilities in a Polarised World”. The event brought together anthropologists from across Europe and beyond to discuss current challenges, methodological innovations, and new directions in anthropological research.
Researchers from the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences were strongly represented at the conference, presenting their work and co-organising panels and workshops. Our project team actively contributed to these activities.
Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska co-organised the panel “Entangled Ruins: Polarised Temporalities and the Afterlives of Decay” together with Václav Sixta (Charles University, Prague). The panel explored different ways in which ruins can be powerful actors of the polarised temporalities of our age, as they embody collisions between past and future, decay and renewal, endurance and disappearance. Thanks to the collaboration with colleagues from Charles University, Karolína Pauknerová and Eliška Fulinová, who served as discussants, the panel sparked inspiring discussions, creating new opportunities for future collaboration. We are happy that it was again an occasion to meet our colleagues from the project “The Land Gone Wild. Archaeological and Transdisciplinary Research on Resilience Strategies in the 20th Century”, affiliated with several Czech institutions and interested in tracing German traces.
Karina Hoření presented the paper “Ethnography to Make It to the Pre-School – New Vocabulary for Ethnographic Practice” as part of the panel on Patchwork Ethnography. Her presentation reflected on methodological adaptations in contemporary ethnographic research and contributed to ongoing conversations about flexible and sustainable fieldwork practices. She used her experience in Spectral Recycling, conducting fieldwork in Liberec.
Magdalena Bubík presented the paper “Can a Ghost Hinder Urban Development? The Site of the Former Town Church and Victory Square in Piła” in a panel dedicated to the agency of religious buildings. Her presentation examined how the memory of a demolished church continues to influence urban space and local perceptions, demonstrating the lasting social significance of places that have physically disappeared in post-displacement regions.
Participating in EASA 2026 provided an excellent opportunity to share our research with the international anthropological community, receive valuable feedback, strengthen existing collaborations, and establish new academic connections that will contribute to the further development of the project.
Karina Hoření during presentationMagdalena Bubík during presentationKarolina Ćwiek-Rogalska with Václav Sixta Astrea Nikolovska (an associated researcher for the ERC-funded project “Memory and Populism from Below” (MEMPOP)), Karina Hoření, Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska, Magdalena Bubík
The swastika is widely recognized as the emblem of Nazism and the Second World War. Yet today it also appears in parks, cemeteries, on walls, and in other public spaces, where it often carries meanings that extend beyond its historical association.
Drawing on field research conducted in Central Europe, Michal Korhel examines how the swastika functions as a dynamic symbol whose significance is continually redefined in changing social and political contexts. While its connection to Nazism remains central, the symbol is increasingly employed to express anger, hostility, protest, or moral condemnation in contemporary public discourse.
Rather than treating the swastika as a symbol with a single, fixed meaning, the blog post demonstrates how its interpretation is shaped by the contexts in which it appears, the spaces it occupies, and the ways it is understood within collective memory.
[ENG, Slovak version below] The swastika is widely known as the symbol of Nazism and the violence of the Second World War. Today, however, it also appears in parks, cemeteries, walls, and other public places, where it is often used in ways that go beyond its original historical meaning. Based on field research conducted in Central Europe, this article argues that the swastika has become a symbol whose meaning is continuously updated in new social and political contexts. While its historical connection to Nazism remains important, the symbol is increasingly used to express anger, hostility, protest, or moral condemnation in contemporary conflicts. The article suggests that the meaning of historical symbols is not fixed but shaped by the places where they appear and by the ways people interpret them. Rather than treating the swastika as a fixed historical symbol, the article explores how its meaning is continuously reshaped through new political contexts, public spaces, and collective memory.
Z učebníc dejepisu poznáme svastiku ako symbol nacistickej ideológie a genocídneho násilia 20. storočia. Zároveň patrí medzi najľahšie rozpoznateľné a najjednoduchšie reprodukovateľné symboly vôbec. Práve preto sa neobjavuje len v knihách či historických dokumentoch, ale aj vo verejnom priestore: na múroch, v parkoch, na cintorínoch alebo nenápadne vyrytá do kameňa, okolo ktorého ľudia denne prechádzajú. Ako historik, ktorý sa dlhodobo venuje nemeckému dedičstvu v strednej Európe, som si začal tento znak všímať predovšetkým v rámci môjho terénneho výskumu. Skoro počas každého pobytu v Česku, Poľsku alebo na Slovensku som na nejakú natrafil. Miesta, ktorými som prechádzal, sa pre mňa postupne stali priestorom, v ktorom som svastiky prestal vnímať ako ojedinelé prejavy vandalizmu a začal ich chápať ako súčasť širšieho fenoménu. Nevyhnutne to neznamená, že sa v regiónoch s nemeckou históriou objavujú častejšie než inde. Vnímam ich tam však citlivejšie, pretože ich čítam v kontexte krajiny, ktorej dejinám sa dlhodobo venujem. V tomto texte svastika nie je predmetom záujmu preto, že ide o nacistický symbol, ale preto, že ukazuje, ako spoločnosť pracuje s historickou pamäťou.
Svastiky na tehlách starého domu na Slovensku, foto: Michal Korhel
Svastiky, s ktorými sa dnes stretávame vo verejnom priestore, nemajú spoločný pôvod. Niektoré sú autentickými pozostatkami obdobia nacizmu, ktoré po vojne neboli odstránené, pretože sa nachádzali na nenápadných alebo čiastočne skrytých miestach. Patria k nim napríklad svastiky v podobe pečiatok na tehlách viditeľných na boku staršieho domu v jednej slovenskej dedine či svastika na zvyšku bývalého pomníka ukrytá v parku menšieho poľského mesta. V týchto prípadoch ide o historické artefakty, ktorých prítomnosť vypovedá o minulosti daného miesta.
Popri nich však existujú aj svastiky, ktoré vznikli len nedávno. Tie zvykneme automaticky pripisovať „extrémistom“ alebo ich odbaviť ako izolované prejavy vandalizmu. Takéto vysvetlenie je však často príliš zjednodušujúce. Nevysvetľuje totiž, prečo sa tento symbol objavuje práve na konkrétnych miestach, aké významy mu jeho autori pripisujú ani ako ho čítajú ľudia, ktorí okolo neho denne prechádzajú. Práve tieto otázky robia zo svastiky nielen historický symbol, ale aj súčasný spoločenský fenomén.
Svastika na zvyšku pomníka v Poľsku, foto: Michal Korhel
Počas môjho terénneho výskumu naprieč strednou Európou som sa opakovane stretával s oboma prípadmi. Svastiky vyryté na zemi v parkoch, na náhrobných kameňoch alebo namaľované na podstavcoch sôch sú často výpovednejšie než tie monumentálne z učebníc dejepisu. Naznačujú totiž, že svastika už nefunguje výlučne ako historický symbol nacizmu. V mnohých prípadoch sa z nej stala univerzálna skratka radikálneho odmietnutia – znak, ktorým možno bez vysvetlenia označiť protivníka, spor či jav ako nelegitímny. Vizuálna forma tu nahrádza argument a historický kontext ustupuje bezprostrednej emócii.
Svastika na zemi v parku v Liberci, foto: Michal Korhel
Keď som v jednom z parkov v Liberci hľadal stopy po cintoríne, na ktorého mieste park vznikol, narazil som na svastiku vyrytú do zeme. Nachádzala sa neďaleko pomníka venovanému nemeckým obyvateľom mesta, ktorí boli odtiaľ po vojne vyhnaní alebo nútene vysídlení. Na základe jej polohy som predpokladal, že ide o reakciu na nemeckú minulosť mesta. Na moje prekvapenie ju však miestni obyvatelia, s ktorými som sa o nej rozprával, interpretovali ináč. Podľa nich s regionálnou nemeckou minulosťou prakticky nesúvisela. Vnímali ju skôr ako reakciu na vtedy dominujúce mediálne témy, najmä vojnu na Ukrajine či izraelsko-palestínsky konflikt, v ktorých verejná diskusia často pracovala s obvineniami z fašizmu či nacizmu. Samozrejme, z týchto výpovedí nemožno vyvodzovať úmysel autora. Aj keby bola svastika vytvorená ako odkaz na miestnu históriu, je pozoruhodné, že obyvatelia ju čítali predovšetkým cez prizmu aktuálnych politických udalostí. V ich interpretáciách sa tak do popredia dostávali súčasné politické konflikty, zatiaľ čo historické ukotvenie symbolu ustupovalo do úzadia. Prípad z Liberca zároveň naznačuje, že význam svastiky nevzniká iba v okamihu jej vytvorenia, ale je priebežne utváraný aj prostredníctvom interpretácií jej recipientov.
Tento posun ukazuje, ako sa historický symbol priebežne aktualizuje v nových spoločenských a politických kontextoch. Čím častejšie je svastika používaná mimo svojho pôvodného historického kontextu, tým častejšie nadobúda nové významové vrstvy. Popri odkaze na nacizmus a holokaust sa stáva aj všeobecným znakom nepriateľa, násilia, agresie či morálneho odsúdenia. Neznamená to, že jej historický význam zaniká. Skôr prestáva byť jediným interpretačným rámcom, prostredníctvom ktorého je symbol čítaný. Dochádza tak k paradoxu. Symbol, ktorý by mal byť zdiskreditovaný vlastnou minulosťou, čerpá svoju účinnosť práve z nej. Aj keď je dnes často používaný na komentovanie udalostí, ktoré s nacizmom historicky nesúvisia, jeho sila spočíva v tom, že dokáže protivníka okamžite zaradiť do morálneho registra absolútneho zla. Nepotrebuje zložitý výklad ani argumentáciu. Ak je rozpoznaný, spravidla vyvoláva silnú emocionálnu reakciu.
Osobitnú pozornosť si však zasluhujú svastiky, ktoré zjavne neboli určené širokej verejnosti. Vyryté na zadnej strane náhrobku alebo na inom skrytom mieste nepôsobia predovšetkým ako verejná provokácia. Skôr predstavujú zásah do pamäťového priestoru, v ktorom sa stretávajú rozličné vrstvy minulosti a ich súčasné interpretácie. Cintoríny pritom nie sú iba miestami posledného odpočinku. Sú zároveň priestorom, v ktorom sa materializuje kolektívna pamäť: v podobe náhrobkov, pamätníkov či nápisov, ale aj prostredníctvom rozhodnutí o tom, koho si pripomíname a akým spôsobom interpretujeme minulosť. Najmä v regiónoch poznačených vojnou, zmenami hraníc či vysídľovaním obyvateľstva sa cintoríny stávajú miestami, kde sa stretávajú rozdielne predstavy o minulosti a identite. Práve preto môže mať aj nenápadne umiestnená svastika význam, ktorý presahuje samotný akt vandalizmu. Takýto prípad som zaznamenal na židovskom cintoríne v Nitrianskom Pravne. V tomto meste, ktoré bolo pred druhou svetovou vojnou prevažne nemecké, zanikla židovská komunita už v roku 1939. Významným svedectvom jej prítomnosti zostáva židovský cintorín na okraji mesta. To, že bola svastika vyrytá na zadnej strane náhrobku, naznačuje, že jej autor neusiloval o okamžitú verejnú pozornosť. Skôr išlo o zásah do jedného z posledných hmotných nositeľov pamäti zaniknutej židovskej komunity.
Svastika vyrytá na náhrobný kameň na židovskom cintoríne v Nitrianskom Pravne, foto: Michal Korhel
Podobne ambivalentný charakter mala aj svastika, ktorú som si všimol na podstavci stĺpa so sochou sv. Václava v Postoloprtoch na severozápade Čiech. Mesto je dodnes spojené s povojnovým masakrom nemeckého civilného obyvateľstva, pričom interpretácia tejto udalosti zostáva predmetom sporov. Popri snahách o jej verejné pripomínanie sa stále objavujú postoje, ktoré masaker popierajú, ospravedlňujú ako dôsledok nacistickej okupácie alebo ho považujú za uzavretú kapitolu dejín, ku ktorej sa netreba vracať. Verejný priestor tak zostáva miestom, kde sa stretávajú odlišné interpretácie minulosti. V tomto kontexte by sa dalo očakávať, že svastika bude odkazovať predovšetkým na miestnu nemeckú minulosť alebo na udalosti roku 1945. Jej súčasťou je však aj výrazne namaľovaný symbol Z, spájaný s ruskou inváziou na Ukrajinu. Táto kombinácia naznačuje, že historické významy sa v danom priestore opakovane prepisujú a prepájajú so súčasnými politickými konfliktmi. Takéto prípady otvárajú otázku, či sa svastika nestáva akýmsi symbolom, ktorého význam sa neustále aktualizuje v nových politických kontextoch a prostredníctvom ktorého možno vyjadriť veľmi odlišné politické postoje. Neznamená to, že jej historický význam zaniká. Skôr sa ukazuje, že sa vrství o nové významy, ktoré presahujú historický kontext nacizmu, no zároveň čerpajú z jeho silného symbolického a emocionálneho potenciálu.
Svastika namaľovaná na podstavec stĺpu so sochou sv. Václava v Postoloprtoch, foto: Michal Korhel
Určite má zmysel pýtať sa, kto tieto svastiky kreslí a prečo. Rovnako dôležité je však sledovať, ako ich spoločnosť interpretuje a aké významy im pripisuje. Práve v tomto procese sa ukazuje, že svastika dnes často funguje ako všeobecný znak absolútneho zla, násilia či nepriateľa, ktorý možno použiť v najrozličnejších politických a spoločenských konfliktoch. Neznamená to, že jej historický význam zaniká. Skôr prestáva byť jediným rámcom, prostredníctvom ktorého je symbol čítaný. Svastika tak zostáva mimoriadne účinným symbolom, no jej účinnosť čoraz častejšie spočíva v schopnosti aktualizovať sa v nových spoločenských a politických kontextoch. Prípad svastiky zároveň ukazuje, že historické symboly nie sú nemennými nositeľmi významu. Ich význam sa mení a aktualizuje v závislosti od kontextov, v ktorých sú používané. Spôsob, akým s nimi pracujeme dnes, preto veľa vypovedá nielen o minulosti, ale aj o našom súčasnom vzťahu k dejinám a kolektívnej pamäti.
From 26 June to 1 July, Magdalena participated in the international summer school “Recording & Transformation,” organized by the Anthropos Doctoral School and the Tadeusz Manteuffel Institute of History of Polish Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the University of Liverpool, Leipzig University, and the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO). The summer school took place in the picturesque village of Pozorty in the Masuria region, right by a lake. After intensive days filled with lectures and workshops, participants enjoyed relaxing by the water – especially as the exceptionally hot weather made the lakeside setting particularly welcome.
The program featured lectures, workshops, and practical sessions led by distinguished scholars from various academic institutions: Prof. Harald Braun (Liverpool), Prof. Megan Maruschke (Leipzig), Dr. Nuala Caomhanach (Graduate Institute, Geneva), Dr. Izabela Mrzygłód (DHI, IH PAN) & Dr. Zachary Mazur (POLIN, IH PAN). Together with an international group of doctoral researchers, participants discussed contemporary archival studies, transformations of archives, and the role of archives during periods of social and political change.
Magdalena was part of the group that prepared a presentation and discussion on Michelle Caswell and Marika Cifor’s article From Human Rights to Feminist Ethics: Radical Empathy in the Archives (2016). The discussion focused on the concept of radical empathy in archival and research practice. Magdalena sees this approach as highly relevant to her own doctoral research, as her project explores the relationships between the researcher, archives, archivists, and interviewees, who not only contribute source material but also actively participate in the creation of historical narratives. Another important component of the program consisted of workshops designed to develop participants’ presentation skills, including Elevator Pitches and Public Speaking & Job Talks. For Magdalena, the summer school was not only an opportunity to acquire new skills but also to refine and further develop the key arguments of her doctoral dissertation.
The organizers also included a field excursion in the program. Participants took a boat trip along the Elbląg Canal, where they learned about one of Europe’s most remarkable achievements in hydraulic engineering. Particular attention was devoted to the canal’s unique inclined-plane system, which allows boats to travel over land on specially designed rail-mounted carriages. Invented in the nineteenth century by Prussian Georg Jacob Steenke, this engineering solution also serves as a reminder of the region’s multicultural past, when much of Masuria was inhabited by German-speaking communities. In this way, the summer school successfully combined theoretical reflection on archives and memory with the direct experience of a landscape that itself bears witness to historical transformations.
exercises during Summer School, photo: Magdalena Bubík boat trip during Summer School, photo: Magdalena Bubík (and boat captain)group photo by Magdalena SobolskaMagdalena during the discussion with other students, photo: Magdalena Sobolska
A new chapter titled “Historia poruszających się przedmiotów. O pojęciu poniemieckości” by Karolina Ćwiek-Rogalska has been published in a collective volume “Ziemie Odzyskane. Przestrzeń, przyroda, rzeczy”, edited by Małgorzata Praczyk and Emilia Kledzik, and issued by the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.
In her chapter, Karolina addresses the problem of the category of being formerly German, which was incorporated into Polish law as early as 1946, and examines its consequences. To do so, she analyzes a specific case involving two clockmakers in the town of Koszalin, formerly the German city of Köslin, in Central Pomerania. She demonstrates that former Germanness (Polish poniemieckość) can be understood as a pragmatic category and that it was not necessarily preceded by an object’s having been German property. In this way, she contributes to one of the main objectives of our research.
The migration crisis of 2021 has largely disappeared from public attention but it continues to affect the lives of local people and those trying to cross the border. Based on his experience of the border walk in the Białowieża Forest, Michal explores the experience of ordinary visitors and that of migrants, for whom the same landscape means different things. While people usually talk about migration using statistics, national security, and politics, Michal points to the fact that when we do this, it is easy to forget about the real people involved. In the end, his article asks readers to stop looking at migrants as just a political group, and to start seeing them as human beings.
