Under what conditions is victimization from political violence associated with higher levels of political engagement? A contradiction exists within the literature on the effects of political violence: for some, exposure to violence precipitates deeper engagement. Victimized individuals are more active in their communities, interact more with government officials, protest more, etc. For others, violence discourages engagement along those same dimensions. Victims withdraw from politics, disengaging with political institutions. I reconcile these disparate trends by attending to an often overlooked and understudied facet of political violence: the materialization of national conflict at the local level. When a community experiences violence perpetrated by outside forces, this shared victimization experience is galvanizing. In contrast to this intergroup nature of conflict, intracommunal violence – perpetrated by and against members of one’s community – invites division and enmity. Intimate violence is linked to prewar political practices and dissuades further engagement. To test these arguments, I leverage an original survey, archival material, and interview data in the infrequently studied case of Cameroon. From 1956 to 1971, the Union des populations du Cameroun (UPC) fought a war against combined French and Cameroonian state forces. The movement was defeated and in the wake of conflict, the authoritarian Ahidjo regime prevented open discourse on topics concerning the rebellion. UPC adherents were reframed as terrorists and anyone publicly expressing sympathy for the movement risked imprisonment. With limited political liberalization undertaken by the current Biya regime, there are new spaces for revisiting the history of the UPC, the liberation struggle, and the war. I find that victimization in general is associated with higher levels of political engagement, a deeper desire to engage in politics if one had more opportunities, more intense political attitudes, and higher rates of political socialization. However, once I disaggregate victimization by the nature of local conflict – intergroup or intracommunal – it becomes obvious that the collective trends are driven by individuals exposed to intergroup violence. The relationship between intracommunal violence and outcomes is more complicated, sometimes reversing and sometimes disappearing. I also find that families from intergroup conflict sites socialize descendants to politics and political history more frequently than those from intracommunal conflict sites.