Stari Most: The (Re)built Memorial of the Yugoslav Wars

When reading the articles for this past week and having discussions on memorials in class, I connected to a personal example of a “memorial landscape.” My mother’s side of the family is entirely Croatian; both my mother and I went to Croatia and other surrounding Balkan countries in 2012 to see some family. While the “memorial” that I will be talking about is not particularly Croatian, it encompasses a rich and complex history of the entirety of the former Yugoslav Republic.

For some concise overview, Yugoslavia was a socialist state created in southeastern Europe after World War II, and included a range of ethnically and religiously different groups including the Catholic Croats and Slovenes, the Orthodox Montenegrins, Macedonians, and Serbs, and the Muslim Bosnians. This region has had a long history of strife between these groups (that is a bit too long to detail here), but, Yugoslavia remained relatively peaceful under the leadership of its first president, Josip Broz Tito, from 1953 until 1980. Unfortunately, Tito died in 1980, which reignited buried tensions between the country’s ethnic groups. Nationalist groups in each sect rivaled for state independence from Yugoslavia, with Croats and Slovenes declaring independence in 1991. During this time, the Yugoslav army was largely controlled by the country’s Serbs, who immediately entered Croat and Slovene territory and killed thousands who desired autonomy. After a brief UN ceasefire in 1992, Muslim Bosnians next declared their independence from the state. However, Bosnia’s Serb population resisted, and declared a bloody civil war if Bosnia’s Muslim and Croat population tried to flee. Despite referendum, war began.

In this period of Serb-driven ethnic cleansing, over a million Bosnian Muslims and Croats were taken from their homes. Families were split, men and children were often killed at the hands of Serb soldiers, and women were routinely raped by the armed forces. During this time in the early 1990s, the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Muslims (who had previously been in alliance against the Bosnian Serbs) started to create tensions between one another. Tensions between the Croats and the Bosnian Muslims resulted in the Croat-Bosniak War, or a “war within a war” during the wider Yugoslavian conflict. Two cities were caught under siege during this time: Dubrovnik in Croatia and Mostar in Bosnia. Bosnians and Croatians bombed each other’s cities heavily, and it became an utter culmination of the years of tension, war, and ethnic genocide between these struggling populations. The battle between the two cities came to an alarming head when Croats, via airstrike, demolished Stari Most, a beautiful 1500s Ottoman bridge that connected the two river-divided sides of Mostar. The fall of Stari Most was both the physical and metaphorical wanton horror of the Yugoslav Wars.

All was not lost, though. During the end of the Yugoslav Wars later in the 1990s, plans were made to rebuild the historic and prestigious Stari Most bridge, both as an act to rebuild the war-torn city, but also to reconstruct the cultural memory of one of Bosnia’s most prized pieces of architecture. This “memorial landscape” became a UNESCO World Heritage Site and underwent reconstruction in 2003, 10 years after more than 60 Croatian air shells destroyed it. During its rebuilding process, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Croatia offered funds to the Bosnians for the reconstruction of the beloved bridge. By July 2004, Stari Most again stood prominently over the river Neretva and the city of Mostar.

What is Mostar like now? How has the rebuilt Stari Most contributed to the legacy of the brutal civil wars that occurred in this region 25 years ago? When I was in Mostar with my mother five years ago, one can immediately tell that it was a city riddled with grief. Even 19 years after the bombings, Mostar was still rummaged with bullet holes, crumbling ruins, and visible bombing damage. Parts of the city are still abandoned, and some of those who are still there are poor, homeless, and begging for change. I remember walking through many of the street-side bazaars to have little Bosnian children chasing after tourists for money or for food. There is a visible disparity in the livelihoods after all this time. However, most of the Bosnians who are there are friendly and welcoming, and a local tour guide my mother and I had was more than eager to discuss the brutalities his people had went through two decades prior. When walking through Mostar, Stari Most is one of the most prominent architectural pieces on the landscape. Stari Most is a pedestrian bridge, and even though it was only nine years old when I was there, the stone was so smooth from thousands of walkers that it was almost difficult to walk the arches because it was so slippery! Now, it’s interesting to see a city like Mostar cope and move on from its former identity as a war-torn hellscape. Bosnians memorialize and respect their place in their recent violent history; this is apparent through the reconstruction of Stari Most. And, while Stari Most may be nowhere near as “shocking” a memorial as the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum or the Auschwitz Memorial, the bridge serves its purpose as a daily remembrance of recent atrocities in the region’s recent history. Interestingly, Stari Most has gained views in popular culture recently with Red Bull and bridge jumping (the bridge has been used for “sport diving” for quite a while now).

Pictures:

Stari Most - Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina - taken June 2012

One of the local bridge jumpers getting ready to go - this is a common sport on this bridge, as well as a tourist phenomenon. To watch the jumper go off the side, a tourist has to pay around $5. If you're standing on the other side, like me, then it's free.

Back up on the bridge from one of his dives

Slippery steps leading up to the bridge!

The Absence of Memorials

A prime example of memorials being inherently politically, as mentioned in Tyner's article, is the complete absence of any memorial that remembers the riots that occurred in Detroit, Michigan in the summer of 1967, during the civil rights era. During this time, Detroit was still strongly affected by the racial injustice of various institutions, such as law enforcement. The riot was a culmination of years of racial inequality, but the riot itself was initially started by police raiding a bar and using excessive force on the black patrons. This resulted in one of the largest and most destructive riots in American history, that led to deaths, injuries, looting, and destruction of property. The Michigan National Guard and  US troops were ultimately sent in to de-escalate the situation, which was finally resolved five days later.

Despite these atrocities that included police brutality and arson, no memorial was ever established to remember the events that occurred or the people who lost their lives in 1967. The riots that took place in Detroit were representative of racial tensions that were occurring all across the country and they served as a symbol of the racial injustice still faced by minorities. While it's unlikely that there is one specific reason for the lack of a memorial, it's likely that many different factors play a role in its absence.

The residents of Detroit lacked a considerable amount of agency during this time that is directly related to class and race. The riots also precipitated a phenomenon known as "white flight" which refers to the vast number of white and middle class residents who left Detroit following the riot, causing the city to appear even more dilapidated and undesirable, which only exacerbated the poverty and racial inequality that existed before the riots. Detroit had long been a working class town, but many residents were living in poverty and the sudden loss of population resulted in abandoned houses and a decrease in tax revenue.

All of these factors would have made it difficult for the remaining residents of Detroit to find the time or money to construct a memorial, and the government was not going to celebrate an event that was directly caused by citizens fighting with law enforcement. This indicates that memorials are built by governments that support a certain cause or sympathize with a tragic event. The absence of a memorial is indicative of the little value that the government placed on the lives of those lost and the circumstances surrounding the events that caused them to lose their lives.

Tyner also mentions that memorials can sometimes function as a way to absolve guilt, but in Detroit's case it's unclear as to whether or not the city has even acknowledged their guilt

Memorials and History

Having read the article Memorial Landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors by Owen and Derek, I understood why the study of memorials is essential to people especially scholars. This is because memorials present clear, definite and deeper understanding of the past which is crucial to remembering historic events. As I read Tuesday’s article, I kept reminiscing some memorials in my homeland which am most familiar with. One of such is the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum, located in the central part of Accra, Ghana. It was built in memory of the first prime minister and president of Ghana, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. He led the state into its independence from the British colonial rule in 1957. To know more about him and his contribution to Ghana’s independence, visit https://www.workers.org/2009/world/nkrumah_1008/

In visualizing this Mausoleum as I read, I was able to connect to the three different metaphors presented by Owen and Derek, which demonstrated how geographers examined and made meanings of memorial landscapes; that is, through text, arena and performance. For instance, considering “text”, historical events in this setting (the Mausoleum) were interpreted through a collection of monuments, pictures, clothes, footwear’s, books which were once used by the late president whilst he was alive. These items gave meanings to his life history and more also his struggle for independence. Additionally, with regards to “arena”, this mausoleum was situated in the capital city of Ghana, which is Accra because that is where the seat of government is located. However, just as Owen & Derek identified memorials as places where social actors debate and narrate the past differently due to competitions and conflicts about what is commemorated, the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum has in similar vein attracted criticisms and conflicts over the years because it least captured memories of some individuals (victims and heroes) who helped the first president in his struggle for state’s liberation from the colonial masters. Lastly, considering “Performance”, the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum serves as a tourist site which, is mostly frequented by local Ghanaian's and foreigners. It also functions as place, where both the old and young can visit in pursuit of acquiring knowledge and understanding about the history of Ghana. Comparing this memorial place to other memorials like the Elmina Castle, Slave Market of Abonse and Larabanga (all in Ghana) which are all extensively patronized, the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum presents a good history of Ghana’s first president. 

Below is a video of the Mausoleum

Reference

Workers World. Nkrumah and Ghana’s independence struggle. Retrieved from https://www.workers.org/2009/world/nkrumah_1008/

The Concealed History of Labor Unions

This past summer, I read the book Subterranean Fire by writer and activist Sharon Smith. The book dives into the deep history of labor organizing and working class radicalism in the United States. I can remember vividly being incredibly engaged with the work, because every bit of information I was receiving was entirely new to me. The history of labor unions is not taught within the U.S. public education system. If discussed at all, strikes and instances of working class solidarity to combat exploitative work environments are described as “bloody,” “disorderly,” and “violent.” What is often left out from the discussion is that strikes and demonstrations on behalf of improved work conditions were often peaceful, until armed governmental bodies like the National Guard were called in to repress the demonstration. The history of labor unions in the United States is an ideal example of a history being concealed due to the challenge it posed to corporate dominance, a concept the United States government proves itself to support quite frequently.

The history of labor in the United States has been recognized by some like Sharon Smith. An artist named Judy Taylor produced an eleven panel mural that displays the history of labor in Maine from colonial times to the present. The panels included two strikes, child laborers, and women working in a textile mill. The mural resided in the lobby of the Labor Department of Maine beginning in 2008. Paul LePage, the governor of Maine, decided to remove the mural, despite never seeing it in person. He stated that the mural was too “one-sided,” regardless of the fact that the events depicted actually occurred in Maine and elsewhere within the United States across industries. The mural memorialized the struggle of working class citizens in Maine. One would believe that the lobby of the Labor Department would be an ideal anchor for accurately telling the story of labor in Maine. Yet, this history is concealed due to the associations unions possess with communism and mass organization. To embrace such a history would illustrate to society that such working class organization against corporations and government repression is possible and acceptable.

Residing in Athens, OH, I have become increasingly aware of the rich labor history of southeastern Ohio and the remainder of Appalachia. New Straitsville, a village approximately 25 miles from Athens, was the birthplace of the United Mine Workers Union, a union representing coal miners that is still active today with approximately 80,000 members. Throughout the 19th and 20th century, struggles for livable working conditions and higher pay have occurred in the region I have come to call home. This history is not publicized, but is certainly worth examining. Workers of the world today could learn a lesson or two from historic labor struggles. However, that’s exactly why the story of working class radicalism in the United States is not memorialized or taught.

This article discusses the mural by Taylor:

https://www.thenation.com/article/erasing-labor-history/

A more concentrated discussion of labor in the context of Appalachia:

http://appvoices.org/2013/10/09/appalachias-contested-history/

A call to action upon a shuttered union hall. Source: Appalachian Voices. 

TITUS KAPHAR: Can art amend history?

This is such an illuminating TED Talk, and I wanted to share it here with the class.

Although Titus discusses historical paintings, not monuments, I think a lot of the same principles about *whose* history we remember – by commemorating places or spaces of significance in our collective memory – can apply to our readings for this week.

Enjoy!

-bnb

Wall as a place

Wall as a place

Is difficult to think of a wall as a place. For being a “place” it has first to be a “space” and a wall is hardly a space, is usually considered a boundary, an element that establishes limits. In the case of the one that divides the Occupied Palestinian Territories from the State of Israel it is a place, a very important place indeed. The recognition of it as a place is given at the moment it receives a meaning. Depending in which side people are located, the wall can mean protection or segregation. Is difficult to divide individuals affected by the wall into the ones that live “inside” and the ones that live “outside” the wall, or using their nationalities as distinction of the side they inhabit. The wall has not divided people making a clean cut; it has separated families and communities in its attempt to include all the Israeli settlements dispersed throughout the territory and exclude the Palestinian ones. This mixed population in both sides of the wall can represent the failure of the wall in its attempt of protection, but it can also demonstrate the capacity of individuals to occupy the same space even though they are not supposed to.

It cannot be denied that other characteristic that gives the wall the category of place is the power it has over people, not only regarding mobility but also in marking and defining them; creating a “Wall Regime” (Alatout, 2009). Preventing the mobility of an individual without reason is an act of violence, and from that moment on, this individual is marked. It is also an act of segregation based in arbitrary elements that result from different social constructs, and, in which, one individual is defined as the one with power over the other. The wall not only exercises its physical power over Arab Palestinians who are not always allowed to enter the State of Israel, but it also has psychological and emotional effects. Reminding people that they have no power over their own mobility, which in some cases also includes access to more complete education or health facilities. The constant presence and surveillance of the wall and everything it implies can also change the idea Palestinians have of themselves. Defining their identity in a social construct build by external agents can represent a problem but it can also lead to resistance. In the wall itself forms of resistance can be appreciated, in the form of art or graffiti. Is a way of taking space to advocate for social justice, reinforcing that the wall is a place. A place that segregates and divides, but also a place where individuals can express themselves.

Article:

The Wall in Bethlehem That Segregates and Subjugates Palestinians, by T.M. Krishna (https://thewire.in/117028/the-wall-in-bethlehem-that-segregates-and-subjugates-palestinians/)

Music Video filmed in Palestine: Multiviral by Calle 13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjSCy1GC6Sc

Spatial Claim and Power & Free Speech on Campus

While reading the article entitled, “Spatial Justice: A frame for reclaiming our rights to be, thrive, express and connect,” by Bailey, Lobenstine, and Nagel for a few class meetings ago, the current situation of free speech on Ohio University’s campus kept bringing itself to the front of my mind. I would argue that the arrests made in February of seventy students for a peaceful sit in illustrated the university’s tendency to limit student activists right to be and become in a space, known as spatial claim, in addition to the right to thrive and express, spatial power.

Baker Center, a public building labeled as the “student center” remained open until 10 PM, yet students were forcefully taken from a space they have a right to be in prior to the closing of the building. The disregard of the rights of students to be in Baker was absolutely tied to the message they were expressing. The students demanded that Ohio University become a sanctuary campus, meaning that the university would refuse to enforce immigration laws and would install policies intended to protect immigrant students. Becoming a sanctuary campus could threaten Ohio University’s funding from the government. Any action taken by students that threatens the university’s profits is immediately repressed. The university retracted students’ spatial claim and spatial power on February 1st.

However, the repression of the right to thrive and express, intimately tied to the concept of free speech, is not an isolated incident on Ohio University’s campus, and certainly not an isolated incident on campuses across the United States. The article entitled, “Who’s behind the free speech crisis on campus?” by Dorian Bon illustrates the tendency of universities to shut down student gatherings and individual political actions, then follow up with distributing academic and legal ramifications to those involved. While historically, leftist gatherings are repressed more frequently, the current crisis of limitations on free speech also extends to those with conservative messages. The article mentions a student at Hamline University who was suspended for writing a statement in support of open carry gun policy on campus.

Ohio University just put into effect a policy that details where students have “freedom of expression” on campus, banning public protest in any university building. While the title of the policy uses the word freedom, it enacts anything but. The university is effectively dictating where students’ constitutional right to free speech can be utilized. Students’ spatial claim to spaces and places within the university they call home as well as the power they have a right to possess in said spaces is being curtailed by the university in an authoritarian manner.

The question becomes, what can concerned students, faculty, staff and citizens of varying political beliefs do to challenge this gross injustice on Ohio University’s campus? According to Tyler Barton and Ryan Powers, Athens residents, in their article on the squashing of dissent on campus, “The fight for free speech at OU must therefore include as many people as possible in order to maximize our effectiveness. Since the policy aims to isolate progressive forces from potential supporters, defeating the policy will require principled unity on the basis of claiming, defending and expanding our right to free speech."

We must mobilize in mass and show the university and others interested in limiting expression that we will not stand for it. Students have the right to be, become, thrive and express on campus. We cannot be complacent in the face of such blatant disregard of student rights.

Here are the links to the articles I mentioned. I highly recommend them. :-)
https://socialistworker.org/2017/04/12/whos-behind-the-free-speech-crisis-on-campus
https://socialistworker.org/2017/09/19/we-wont-let-them-silence-us-at-ohio-university

"Chicago Seven" from www.history.com

Clashing Identities: Gay Communities and Symbolic Neighborhood Transformations

In the optional reading for this week, "West Hollywood as symbol: the significance of place in the construction of a gay identity," the author, Benjamin Forest, delves into a discussion centered on the role that place has on creating a symbolic identity of the people who live there. In particular, Forest highlights the role that LGBTQ+ media had on the incorporation of West Hollywood as a thriving gay city based off of the media's presentation of West Hollywood as having an idealized image (which included notions of creativity, aesthetic sensibility, entertainment, progressiveness, responsibility, maturity, and centrality).

When reading through this article, I was immediately connecting the themes of identity construction and inequitable development. While Forest was mainly focused on the concept of identity and sexuality in his article, I would like to expand his article to also discuss the implications of creating new identities in certain places as they relate to class struggle and misrepresentation.

I would like to use the ideas in Rosalyn Deutsche and Cara Gendel Ryan's article "The Fine Art of Gentrification" to combat those expressed in Forest's article (you may need to log into JStore with your OU login to view this article). In their article, Deutsche and Ryan argue against the idea of artistic gentrification - stating that when creative class (i.e. young, socially liberal, LGBTQ+) individuals move into an area to create a new identity and sense of place, they inevitably gentrify and displace older working class communities. I am not saying that this is exactly what occurred in West Hollywood, but the concept speaks to the wider level of the so-called "creative class" moving in and "revamping" their new neighborhoods with new identities and ideals. Deutsche and Ryan argue that the lifestyle ideals of "liberation" and "renewal" perpetrated by these gentrifiers actually creates this strategic urban arena wherein gentrifiers' (and gays) enthusiasm about moving into a new locale actually ignores the hard social realities of the environment that surrounds them. What makes this concept even more interesting is that it creates this dynamic paradox - creative class gentrifiers usually express socially- and environmentally-liberal views, but their action of moving into impoverished or inequitable neighborhoods is a complete contradiction of their beliefs (I believe this has been explored from an environmental justice framework in the case of Portland, Oregon). In short, if and when creative class/LGBTQ+ people move into new places to create new symbolic identities, they may be misrepresenting struggling neighborhoods as enlightened, idealized spaces. This casts a shadow on the struggles of the poor minorities, exacerbating a neighborhood's strategy of impoverishment for those in the lower class.

I believe that this connection between new identities and old places subtly connects the larger social themes of sexuality and class, and in general speaks to the volume of the immensity of interconnectedness between all social categories. While this is what presents itself in reality, it can become a bit dismal when you realize that it seems like no one can truly be "themselves" without harming the identity and wellbeing of someone else. While I am definitely someone who is incredibly pro-LGBTQ+ and also concerned about the livelihoods of the impoverished, it is tough to pick your battles. Who deserves to express themselves in this space? Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and trans people? Who does not? The poor and impoverished? If one group has the right to "be," then how does this affect the others in the place? It's a murky subject! *Also, I understand that there are definitely LGBTQ+ people who do not have the privilege of "being themselves" due to family, institutional, or location-based structures - the LGBTQ+ group in this discussion is more focused on those who are white and affluent, and live in larger progressive cities such as those on the east and west coasts. 

If you are interested in seeing this concept mapped spatially, I suggest going here to view creative class concentrations within the States. You can definitely tell by the map that these young and progressive individuals are moving in large numbers to cities such as San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Boston, New York City, and Washington DC. What does this mean for the poor in these cities?

Also, if you are a Shameless fan like myself, then you will appreciate this clip from season five where Frank explains gentrification in the south side of Chicago to others (in the completely "Frank" type of way). For those who aren't familiar with the show, it centers on an impoverished, rather broken family in Chicago whose neighborhood has gradually been gentrified over the course of the show's seasons.

Cheers!

Racial Geography as a Social Construct and the Perpetuation of Violence

I recently watched a documentary about street gangs on Netflix that delved into the very extreme side of racial, economic, cultural, and social geography located in America, and how it came to become the environment that it is today.

It's a really great representation of Mitchell's reading on the cultural geographies of race and race as a never-ending geographical project, transforming space and creating rules and how those rules structure our lives. It's also very focused on suburban fear, fear of each other of the same race, fear of police, and the wariness of outsiders.


*Graphic Violence and Explicit Language*
Crips and Bloods: Made in America Doc. released 2008

The two rival gangs have separated themselves into boxes/ sects, their individual territories where the rules mean life or death. Being in the wrong neighborhood can cost you your life, and it all comes down to where you're from.

It started with gentrification. Surrounding all this gang territory is exceptional wealth. This area of LA is 30 miles from Disneyland, 20 miles from Malibu, and 6 miles from Beverly Hills.

There's one man in this video who's reasoning seems silly on the surface. That the reason he's so upset about not being able to visit other projects due to gang rivalries, is because he can't flirt or spend time with other "young neighborhood hotties". When really this is another example of the denial of freedom, to not be able to just BE. He's not free to walk down any street he chooses for whatever reason he chooses because it could put his life or others' lives in danger.

geography of gang territories (crips- blue. bloods- red) 

What I really liked about this documentary was that they didn't talk about gangs until maybe halfway into the movie. It featured individuals who had grown up there, living their everyday with this racial oppression constantly pushing them down and controlling their everyday actions. Then, only after the black community was fed up with their treatment did the riots start. The African American community was pushed into acting the way they did because of their mistreatment and the failure for the surrounding white and police community to accept African American rights as equal to their own.   It was from there that the Crips and Bloods were born.

Kumasi, a former Slauson gang member (gang/ club pre-dating the crips and bloods) now activist, educator and community leader working to forge peace, tells pieces of his story about how he was denied his right to BE and how the geography of control surrounded and effected him everyday. 

Kumasi 

The trailer for this documentary also shares the economic impact of the poverty of this area has on the social identity of the people residing within it. There is no hope, there is no future, but if you're in a gang or connected to one you can wield some power. No matter how dangerous being in a gang might seem, not being in one can still make you a target. 

The geography of these South LA neighborhoods is an example of how the social construction of geography that went into building these neighborhoods like redlining, subsidized housing, lack of resources, racism, the white curtain, and altogether cultural differences can slowly turn a society into a place of hopelessness, poverty, and violence. 

I know this is a very extreme example, but all the parts are there. Mitchell's cultural geography of race and the geographic construction of racism and the effects it has on a society. And Shabazz's geography of wealth, violence, control, racial mobility, and the system of resistance from white culture that came up to meet the civil rights movement. Race should not define how communities are organized or how they're treated, though it's obvious this is not often the case. 

Crips and Bloods: Made in America Trailer 2008

Privildge and why do we deny it?

White Privilege is, as Peggy McIntosh, put it best, “White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions.” Of course, white people don’t always ask to be put at an advantage, but in a western society they automatically are at birth. Being biracial, I have had a very unique relationship with white privilege. I can recall when I started hanging out with more people who were “fully black” they would always make comments about how I have white privilege because my mom is white. I would be angry and confused because, to white people, I’m just a black girl. It doesn’t matter if my mom is white because not everyone knows that. Finally, I asked my mom if she thinks I benefit from white privilege and her answer was, “I wouldn’t have my job if I was a person of color. Even if I was person of color with a master’s degree and more qualified I wouldn’t have my job because my boss has very obvious prejudices. You wouldn’t be in college, have a king size bed, a laptop, brand new car or anything if I didn’t have my job.”

I have been subjected to a lot of racism and prejudices because of my skin color, however, I now recognize that unlike some of my black and brown peers I have been able to use my mom’s white privilege to my advantage. The readings this week got me thinking about how people tend to deny their privilege, no matter the sector (race, sex, gender etc.). So, my question is, if I, a brown girl, can admit to how I have been put at an advantage because of my mom’s white privilege, why is it so hard for other people (races, sexes, etc.) that are in power or at an advantage to admit their privilege? I found an article that explains why the author believes people deny their white privilege. “Such ignorance becomes a tool of racial domination. By denying the unfairness, white folk never have to confront it” I think this quote makes a lot of sense in summing up one of the reasons people won’t acknowledge their privilege, they just simply don’t want to face the problem because it is not their problem. https://theundefeated.com/features/why-do-so-many-white-people-deny-the-existence-of-white-privilege/

Even though this conversation has focused mostly on white privilege, it can be translated to any person who is at an advantage. Cisgender, straight people are at an advantage compared to their trans or gay counterparts. Men are in a position of power over women no matter what the skin color. As long as people with power and privilege deny it and refuse to use their position to speak in favor of the oppressed I think it will be very difficult for the oppressed groups’ cries to be heard and their problems to be taken seriously, let alone solved.