In this article, we try to answer the question of how and why the stories of the victims of attacks by the guerrilla movements in the 1970s in Argentina are currently silenced in the public sphere. We analyse how this collective denial is negotiated in human rights discourse. In particular, we show how strategic and essentialist silences as well as denial (literal, interpretative, implicatory) feature in political debates about human rights and political violence.

After catastrophic events, memorialisation is part of coming to terms with the past and rebuilding the future. It is also part of the social construction of the past – a struggle between conflicting representations of past events by different groups in society, with different memories, interests and degrees of power to influence which version of history is eventually recognized as correct and which is denied. In Western Europe, we tend to study such processes in parts of the world far removed from our own, forgetting that the major genocide of the 20th century, took place in our own cities, and that a process of memorialisation was ongoing there for many years after the war. The Jewish quarter in the centre of Amsterdam has many monuments, buildings and museums connected to the history of the Jews of Amsterdam, the majority of whom died in the death camps of the Shoa. The memory landscape of the Jewish quarter is dynamic, a reflection of a culture of remembrance and denial concerning the Second World War, in which events and people are remembered, but others forgotten. What can the urban landscape of Amsterdam tell us about this culture and its relationship to social and political events during and after the war? What/who are remembered and what/who forgotten, by whom, and why? How has that changed over time?

In the introductory article of this special issue on the language of denial, some relevant concepts in relation to denial, speech act and discourse theory are explored. Stanley Cohen’s distinction between literal, interpretative and implicatory denial is illuminated, as well as the contribution of various scholars on the performative function of language. At the end of the article the relevance of these concepts for (cultural) criminology is explained.