Addressed to: The Municipality of Vlora , the Ministry of Economy, Culture and Innovation, as well and
the institutions responsible for cultural heritage
From: Luiza Hoxhaj, Citizen of Vlora
Dear Institutional Leaders,
The civic reactions of recent days, the different
sensitivities expressed, the views of professionals and representatives of
organisations, as well as the public and political discourse surrounding the
interventions in Vlora’s Historic Centre, have prompted me to reflect and to
share my views publicly.
I do not seek to represent all these positions, nor
do I necessarily share every argument expressed within them. But I believe that
the very existence of such diverse sensitivities is reason enough not to reduce
the issue to a simple division between being “for” or “against” a museum.
That is not how I see the issue.
For me, the question is broader: how can we
honour one history without diminishing another, and how can we intervene in a
historic space without losing the hierarchy, authenticity, and memory it has
inherited?
The decision has been made and the works have
begun. But the fact that a process has entered the implementation phase does
not mean that the decision itself cannot be reconsidered if, along the way,
reasonable questions arise about its impact on historic heritage, authenticity,
proportionality, or its relationship with the ensemble as a whole.
For precisely this reason, I propose that not
only the manner in which the project is being implemented be reviewed but,
where historical, urban-planning, and museological arguments so require, that
the decision itself regarding its concept, function, and location also be
reconsidered.
Reconsideration does not necessarily mean turning
back. It may mean finding a better way forward before an intervention made
today becomes an irreversible reality tomorrow.
An institution does not weaken its authority by
reflecting on a decision. On the contrary, a willingness to listen, to consider
new arguments and, where necessary, to correct a choice is a sign of
responsible decision-making.
Let Us See the Whole Before the
Part
The Ethnographic Museum, the historic building
where the “Labëria” Patriotic Club was founded in 1908, the Sharraj House, and
the other historic buildings surrounding them are not isolated objects. Together,
they form an ensemble and create an architectural, urban, and historical
relationship.
Their value lies not only in each individual
building, but also in the way they are read together. Therefore, every new
intervention should be assessed not only on its individual quality, but also on
the impact it creates on the whole: volumes, heights, materials, façades,
lighting, sightlines, and the visual hierarchy of the ensemble.
In this sense, the intervention in the Sharraj
House should not be considered only in relation to the new function it will
assume, but also in terms of the transformation of the historic building itself
and the relationship that the new additions and volumes create with the
surrounding structures.
The Ethnographic Museum and the former “Labëria”
Patriotic Club should not be overshadowed — either physically or in the
historical reading of this space.
The “Labëria” Club: Let Us
Preserve It, but Also Bring It Back to Life
A historic building is preserved not only when its
walls are restored. It is also preserved when we succeed in keeping alive the
spirit and social function it once had. And the history of the “Labëria” Club
itself offers us an idea for its future.
It was not simply a building. It was a space for
civic organisation, culture, education, and patriotic activity. In 1910, in
this building, Marigo Posio opened an Albanian-language school for the girls of
Vlora. Here, knowledge was passed from one generation to another. Education was
both a means of emancipation and a way of preserving identity. Why not bring
that spirit back to life today?
If Vlora’s Historic Centre needs an active
centre for culture, education, tradition, and civic dialogue, I believe we
should begin precisely with the “Labëria” Club — not by inventing a new
function for it, but by bringing into contemporary life the function that
history itself gave it.
Part of it could once again become a forum for
debate, thought, and civic activity. And why not a “School of Tradition”,
where the living masters of Vlora and Labëria could pass their knowledge on to
younger generations? Vlora still has such people. One of them is master Vendim
Kapaj[i],
a connoisseur and performer of Labëria’s traditional wind instruments — the culë
dyjare, fyell, and pipizanë — who also teaches them to
children.
A century ago, the girls of Vlora entered this
building to learn Albanian. Today, the children of Vlora could enter it to
learn an instrument, a song, a craft, an element of the culture that belongs to
them.
What is taught changes; the act of transmission
continues. Then the
museum is no longer only a place we visit to see what we once were. It
becomes a place where we learn how to carry forward what we are.
This, for me, is what bringing heritage back to
life means.
Jewish History Is Part of the
History of Vlora
The history of a city is not made up only of the
events or people we choose to honour. It is built from all the layers that time
has left upon it.
Ancient, Roman, Byzantine, medieval, and Ottoman
history; the presence and passage of different populations and communities; the
Albanian National Awakening; Independence; the Vlora War; and later
developments are all part of the city’s history.
The Jewish presence is also one of these layers and
deserves to be documented and passed on with due seriousness. In this case,
there is another valuable dimension: a history of hospitality and coexistence
across different periods, which, in the darkest moment of Nazi persecution,
became a story of protection and rescue. This is a history that should be told.
The question, therefore, is not whether it
“deserves” to be part of the city’s memory. The question is how to tell it
in the appropriate proportion, context, and relationship with the history of
Vlora as a whole.
For precisely this reason, my primary proposal
remains that the history of the Jewish presence and Albanian-Jewish relations
should have a dedicated section within the Historical Museum of Vlora.
There, it could be placed in relation to the other
layers of the city’s history, without being diminished and without being
separated from them.
Let us strengthen the whole and, through it, the
part.
Not Only Presence, but
Relationship
The narrative itself also deserves reflection.
The history we have to tell is not only the history
of a community that lived in Vlora. It is also the history of how that
community was received, the relationships it developed with the city and, in
the most difficult moments, of the people who opened their doors and took risks
upon themselves to protect human lives.
Therefore, whether within the Historical Museum or
— if, after reconsideration, the choice of a separate museum is retained — I
believe that a narrative built around presence, hospitality, Besa,
protection, and rescue would be more representative.
In the case of a separate museum, consideration
could also be given to a concept such as the “Museum of Besa and Rescue”
or the “Museum of Vlora’s Besa.”
Not to replace Jewish history with a
self-congratulatory Albanian narrative, but rather to tell the story of the
relationship between them. In this narrative, Besa does not divide two
histories. It connects them.
Must All Memory Be Concentrated
in One Place?
Here, I believe, we should ask another question.
Is it necessary for all the layers of Vlora’s
memory to be physically concentrated in the same area of the Historic Centre?
It could become a living space of interpretation,
where documents, family histories, photographs, testimonies, guided visits, and
contemporary interpretive tools could tell the story of the Jewish presence in
Vlora, coexistence with the city, hospitality, and protection.
In this way, memory would not be artificially
concentrated at a single point. It would follow the real geography of the
city’s history.
The “Labëria” Club could be revitalised as an
active centre for culture, education, tradition, and civic dialogue. The Street
of the Jews could be revitalised as a place of memory and interpretation of the
Jewish presence and Albanian-Jewish relations.
Other authentic places connected with this history
could become part of the same itinerary. The Historical Museum could connect
these layers within the broader narrative.
And the city itself could become the museum that
brings them together.
Not every history needs to be relocated into the
same building in order to become visible. Sometimes the most authentic way to
tell history is to allow it to speak where it actually happened.
What Are We Preserving, and What
Are We Creating?
This brings me to another issue that requires
transparency.
This makes the question of its relationship with
the ensemble in which it is located even more important. If a new active
cultural centre is being created next to a historic institution that itself
originated as an active centre of culture, education, and civic engagement,
should we not first ask whether we have revitalised what history has already
left us?
Likewise, the current works and interventions being
carried out in the immediate vicinity of the Ethnographic Museum and the former
“Labëria” Club require full public information regarding their nature and
function.
If any element of the project is intended to
reconstruct or evoke a historic synagogue, on what documentary, cartographic,
or archaeological evidence are its location and form based? If, instead, it is
a new architectural or museological element, that too should be stated clearly.
There is a fundamental distinction between the
restoration of a historic structure, reconstruction based on documented
evidence, and the creation of a new element intended to symbolise or interpret
a history.
All may be legitimate museological choices. But
they are not the same thing.
What we build today may itself become a reference
tomorrow for how future generations read the past. We therefore bear
responsibility not only for what we preserve, but also for what we create today
as memory for tomorrow.
Civic Debate Deserves to Be
Heard, Not Labelled
I see the civic reaction surrounding this project,
first and foremost, as an exercise of the public’s right to be informed, to
express its views, and to be heard on matters affecting the city and its
heritage.
In this sense, I support it as a legitimate civic
act, without claiming to share every individual opinion or argument expressed
within it.
For precisely this reason, I do not believe that
concerns or objections regarding a project should, as a whole, be interpreted
as antisemitism or as incitement to interethnic conflict. Antisemitism is a
serious matter, and every concrete manifestation of it should be treated as
such.
But it is precisely the seriousness of the term
that requires it not to be applied indiscriminately to questions concerning a
project, its location, an architectural intervention, or a museological
concept.
The history of relations between Albanians and Jews
— of hospitality, coexistence and, particularly, protection in the most
difficult moments — gives us ample reason to conduct this debate calmly and
with mutual respect.
This history should not be used to close today’s
debate. It should give us the confidence to engage in it.
Respect for Jewish history and care for Vlora’s
historical heritage are not mutually exclusive positions.
An Invitation to Transparency,
Reflection, and Reconsideration
Decisions have been made and the works have begun. But
this does not make reflection too late, nor reconsideration impossible. We
are dealing with a heritage that does not belong only to the present.
I therefore propose the publication and clear
presentation of the complete project — architectural, structural, and
museological — as well as a public hearing in which historians, architects,
museologists, heritage specialists, organisations, and citizens can be heard.
Such a process would not weaken decision-making. On
the contrary, it would make it better informed.
Perhaps full information would clarify some of the
concerns.
Perhaps some would prove unfounded.
Perhaps others would identify elements that need to
be corrected.
And perhaps the reconsideration itself would show
that another solution could better serve all the values we seek to protect.
That is precisely what dialogue is for.
I am not proposing that we remove one history in
order to preserve another. I am proposing that we seek a solution that
allows us to preserve and enrich as much as possible of what we already have.
Let us preserve the Sharraj House and the integrity
of the historic ensemble.
Let us preserve and revitalise the
Ethnographic Museum and the “Labëria” Club, restoring to the latter its active
cultural, educational, and civic role.
Let us document with dignity the Jewish presence
and the history of Albanian-Jewish relations.
Let us revitalise the Street of the Jews and the
authentic places connected with this memory.
Let us connect these places through an itinerary
that extends history across the city rather than artificially concentrating it
at a single point.
Let us distinguish clearly between what is historic
heritage and what we create today in order to interpret it.
And let us not place the histories of Vlora in
competition with one another.
The part should enrich the whole, not replace or
overshadow it.
Vlora does not need to choose between its memories.
It needs to recognise them, preserve them, and place them in the proper
relationship with one another. Because heritage has not been given to us so
that we may choose which parts of it to preserve. It has been entrusted to us
so that we may pass it on.
Let us preserve it. Let us bring it back to life.
And let us enrich it without losing what we already have. With
respect and confidence,
Luiza Hoxhaj
Citizen of Vlora
No comments:
Post a Comment