2 These five interviews were transcribed as a group in September 2014. The interviews were conducted in English, spoken by the narrators as a second language. The transcripts are as close to verbatim as possible. One editorial decision in transcription was to render verbs consistently in the past tense when narrators referred to historical events. Repeated use of “and” as the first word of a sentence has been minimized. When possible, words in Khmai have been transliterated. Some Cambodian place names and proper names have been transcribed in English as simply “place name” or “proper name” where the tape is inaudible or where a translation/transliteration is not available. Introductory remarks for the transcripts The interviews share certain features in common. Much of the action described takes place in western Cambodia in Battambang province, which borders Thailand. Also, the youth interviewers asked a fairly standard group of questions. These two features provide a measure of consistency and comparability across the interviews. The interviews last about one hour each and are “snap shot” and exploratory in nature. Themes have been identified and some archetypal scenarios have been given voice, but those looking for a fuller treatment of the long wars of the region, the work camp experience, or refugee life can refer to other studies listed in the bibliography. The narrators also have something in common: they are mostly the advantaged children of relatively educated Cambodians caught up in the strife of the 1970s. This factor makes sense in two ways. Educated Cambodians –teachers, engineers, clergy, government workers—were singled out for pointed abuse under the Khmer Rouge, because the regime sought to return to the country to their idea of a simple, pre‐colonial Cambodia. Also, refugees who made it to the United States tended to be connected to families with advantages. Within those families, a favored son or precious only daughter sometimes received extra resources like schooling, skills, responsibilities, or even gold. These resources enabled individuals to negotiate opportunities for themselves or gave them confidence to engage in risk‐taking behavior. Finally, each interviewer asked their narrator about “life under the Khmer Rouge.” The phrase is a short handle on a broader time period (1968‐1991) and a varied sequence of events that includes civil war, regime change, shifting regional conflicts, and protracted refugee crises. Some of the most significant events are actually the transitions around and within the Khmer Rouge regime (’75‐‘79), yet interviewers tended to ask about living “under” it. Ironically, “under” the Khmer Rouge, conditions were oddly stable or consistent, if dire. Indeed, the experience of forced labor, with its dull routine and physical exhaustion, seems to have blurred peoples’ memory, rendering it flat as a story or event. By contrast, narrators’ memories are much more vivid during transitions, when decision making, geographical movement, or a change in living conditions (illness/health or food/hunger) burned specific scenarios and people into their minds. The telescoping of experience under the handle “Khmer Rouge” must be borne in mind by readers of the transcripts. These interviews remain a rich source of information, both for their detail and for their overall structure of meaning‐making. The structure of meaning‐making falls along a continuum. At one end –Kakrona Khem’s narrative is a good example – the narrative breaks down into fragments, underscoring the difficulty of making settled sense out of the experience. At the other end, Melanie Lim lays out her story
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz