Oral
Assignments :
Lisa-
Letter to the student
Cory-
Time Magazine
Jose-
Language of Silence
Today's
class began with a review of class material and objectives,
which are
outlined in the syllabus. Our grades will be determined by class
participation, oral and group reports, the mid term exam, and
a final semester project, which can either be a written paper of 8-10
pages, or a project using other kinds of media, such as film.
Each class a scribe will be assigned to write “minutes” on the period's
lectures and discussions. Professor Mayer described to
us today the phenomenon of “L'Esprit de l'escalier,” which refers to
the situation after intense discussion or debate when the coin drops
and you know exactly what you wanted to say.
Professor
Mayer turned the attention to the articles assigned
for the next class. He stressed the importance
of finding information on the author in order to
know the perspective from which the author
is writing.
The
discussion then went on to the contrast between recent
years, in which there has been an explosion of writing
and research on the Holocaust,
and the time right after the war, through the
fifties and into the sixties, when very little attention
was paid to the Holocaust. During
the latter time there was a virtual silence. How does one explain
the current outburst of museums, testimonies of survivors, memorials,
films, books, etc ? Films mentioned were “Life is Beautiful,
“Schindler's List,” and “The Pianist” by Polansky. Polansky's
image had previously always been that of a POLISH filmmaker, and it
was seldom mentioned that he is Jewish. With the release of “The
Pianist,” we realize that this film is Polansky's story.
Professor
Mayer went to the board and recorded suggestions
the class made for reasons behind the silence during
the period following the
war. What we came up with was fear,
taboo, mistakes, lack of understanding-connected
to ignorance, shame, pain and trauma, looking
towards a happy future and getting on (the
desire to put the holocaust
behind) denial (of the offenders) apathy, and prejudice.
Peter
Novick's explanation for the silence is that the
Cold War played a significant role. There were strong tensions between U.S. and
Russia relations due to the arms race, competition for super power status,
and the U.S. fight against communism. The
U.S. and the Nazi's had the opposition to communism
in common.
Martin
Niemoeller was a pastor in the confessing church
(a more liberal Lutheran
church) ßand was responsible for the following saying: First
they came for the communist, and I wasn't a communist, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the socialists, and I wasn't a socialist,
so I said nothing.” He continues with trade unionists and Jews,
then finishes with: then they came for me and there was no one let to
say anything. “ Niemoeller was imprisoned for the duration
of the war years and managed to survive. Afterwards he went on
tour throughout the United States. His famous saying was in response
to the question, “how could this have happened?”
It
is interesting to note how Niemoeller's saying has
been changed over the years and in different places. For
example, the Boston Memorial has the saying inscribed
onto its wall, but it begins with Catholics
instead of communists, and other groups are
added in, such as gypsies, protestants, and homosexuals.
Such
figures that were threatening to Hitler and the Nazis
were quickly disposed of, for Hitler found to imprison
his political opposition. The first camp, Dachau, was constructed in 1933, and was a place
for political prisoners. Very few prisoners there were Jewish.
Niemoeller uses this information to historisize.
There was a sequence; Jews were not targeted as opposition.
In fact, in Germany, there was a symbiosis, a closeness, of Jews and
the rest of society. They were very well integrated. Jews
in Eastern Europe, on the other hand, were
less integrated and lived
in ghetto areas.
The
class then took a look at the 1935 Nuremberg Laws
found by the army of Patten. These laws broke the symbiosis of the Jews, kept Jews
from feeling German, forced the Jews to expose themselves, and prohibited
intimate relations with Jews and German non-Jews. The study of
such a document is a step of historisation, the effort historians make
to suppress contemporary perspective of looking back and try to recreate
the situation. Such documents are important for this process.
We
finished the class with a brief discussion of what
we would like to see in this class, what we would
like to have happen. Much
was spoken of Nazi German perspective, as well as Neo Nazi perspective.
A key theme expressed in response was denial
of the holocaust, prominent in the Neo Nazi/Skin Head
population in the U.S.,. and illegal
in Germany and France today.
January
30, 2004
Minutes
Sarah
Bailey
In
our class on Friday, we began by reviewing the minutes
from Wednesday's class.
We
then continued by discussing quotes that people found
on the internet that paralleled the form of the Niemoeller
quote that was read to us
on Wednesday. Gilbert began with a quote he found that was by
Allero Rogers. It talked about computers and hackers.
The class then discussed this version, saying it “trivializes” the original
quote, but is still amusing. Professor
Mayer felt that this version made a mockery
of the historical event, and found it to be
offensive.
One
student said that they saw the quote referred to
as a “poem” and
we discussed how this was not the case because of the context it was
spoken in and the actual form. The sequence
of the poem lists the targets to remove opposition
in the order of the racial laws that
were put into place in 1935.
More
students contributed to discussion with quotes they
found.
One was about Al-queda terrorists, one was about the amendments,
having to do with freedom of speech, one about the outsiders of society,
and one attacking conservatives. It
was discussed that all of these quotes have
agendas and a person should not be indifferent
to
situations.
Professor
Mayer then had us take time to write about the main
points of the readings we did for homework, and any
questions we may have had. The readings were:
Ernestine Schlant, Introduction to her book: The
Language of Silence, Peter Demetz, On Auschwitz and
on Writing in
German: a Letter to a Student, and a Time Magazine
article on Ernestine Schlant.
Discussion began by a student asking why a play write after the Holocaust
may write about a Jew in a negative way. Professor Mayer answered
that the play was later cut off, because people were offended by the
content of the play. Another student asked why Paul Ceylan is
considered a “peer poet”. It was answered that he is a major
poet, and that he had first hand experience in the Holocaust because
his family was killed and he was in hiding. After the war he
went to Vienna and Paris – he didn't live in Germany but continued
to write in German and it was translated to other languages.
We then talked about how Theodore Adorno felt it was barbaric to write
poetry and fiction about the Holocaust. He also felt that art
demeans the Holocaust, poorly representing what happened. We
were asked if we “enjoy” this stuff, learning about the Holocaust history,
and why? We discussed that we can learn
from the literature that Adorno is condemning.
Another student asked what parts of the German language was Demetz's
letter saying to get rid of. It was answered that German
was corrupted by the Nazis, so some people don't want to speak it.
The language has been damaged. Professor Mayer
then went over some controversial words and their meanings.
Corey then gave his oral report on the Time article. Bill Bradley
was running for president, and his wife had lived in Germany so she
was afraid this would negatively affect her husband's campaign.
To ease her fears she talks to survivors of the Holocaust, and searches
for answers to her questions. In the end, she comes to terms
with the fact that she will not know the answers. People find
it difficult to believe that Germans didn't know what was happening,
but as it is stated in an Arthur Miller play, “After the Fall”, “We
didn't know what happened there, but now it
is hard to know how we didn't
know.”
Jose talked about the “Language of Speech” article. It talked
of how silence can be a form of speech. The article is mainly
concerned with literature of and about silence, and how Germans see
the Holocaust, and have an inability to mourn. The author speaks
about Switzerland's role in the Nazi regime, and how writers will talk
extensively on the Nazi past. Professor
Mayer went over different country's positions
during the war, going as follows:
Swiss:
Neutral during the war
Austria: Regarded it as a “German Problem” after the
Annexation of Austria, they claimed to be victimized,
but it was not a hostile takeover.
West
German: Took Holocaust as self identity
East
Germany: Was under Russian Rule, and liberated by
the Nazis
Hitler
was supported by the industry, and this helped him
come to power.
The first chancellor of West Germany was Conrad Adeneller who began
to make reparations for the Holocaust, but was initially rejected, but
later was accepted. Prof. Mayer told us that the “Zero Hour”
was the collapse of society and values in West Germany. They
had an inability to mourn, feeling guilt, denial, and apathy.
In 1961 Adolf Heichman was driven to Jerusalem, and things began to
change, bringing consciousness and awareness. In
1963, there were Auschwitz trials in Frankfurt
that also brought awareness.
Lisa went over the Letter to the Student. A student had come
in and asked the professor Demetz about why he didn't teach his class
in German. He wrote a lengthy letter in response. He said
he can't vocalize what the stories meant. There are narratives
that try to approach it, but there are few. He feels plays and
literature are uncharacteristic of what happened because of what's left
out. They aren't avoiding it though. It
is discussed that there are four different
identities from the four countries we went
over earlier, and event though Germany is now
one country, there are still distinct differences
in the two sides.
At the end of class we began a film called Jeckes – which means
jackets in Yiddish, referring to German Jews who always wore black jackets.
It is a documentary on the Jews who fled to Israel and questions
whether or not they still feel German. We
will be continuing the movie during this week's
class.
The
people going over readings for this Wednesday's class are:
Kelly – Michael
Sturmer
Emily – Ernst
Nolte
Jessica – Christian
Meier
Amelia – Jurgen
Habermas
Minutes
from February 2, 2004
Yosef
Becher
Professor
Mayer
Representation
of the Holocaust
The theme of the class today was to discuss the original historians
debates over the representation of the holocaust. One of the
main terms that will be crucial throughout the course was learned: Historization,
the ability to learn the way of thinking of people during a time period.
After this the professor handed out a useful
chronology of the Nazi persecution and Hitler's regime.
The class continued to discuss historians and their attention to three
main groups when analyzing the Holocaust: Bystanders, persecutors, and
the persecuted. From here the class discussed the process of
people trying to forget, or suppress the Holocaust, and the value of
this process to people. Some key thoughts were the question,
Can acts of imagination to suppress our thoughts of the past, distort,
the thoughts of the past? Also, the phrase “Tout comprendne,
C'est tout pardoner,” from Madame de Stail was learned, meaning- to
understand is to pardon. The poem by Fuhrer Bunker was read and sung
aloud. The phrase “cogitative dissonance” was learned, as a mutual
feeling from the poem was, uneasiness. The
class went on to analyze the assigned readings
for class.
Michael
Strumer- Historians Debate
In this reading Strumer discusses two reasons to look back, to renew,
and to find assurance. The ability to do this affects politics,
and the fact that its important not to forget the past, and to understand
ones past is to give ones self identity. The
author discusses how people viewed themselves
after the war- Austrians- first victims
since first annexed, Swiss- neutral, West Germans-
took responsibility- 0 hour, everything wiped
away.
Ernst
Nolte- Chief Historians Debate
In Nolte's writings one of her key points is that Hitler's actions are
justified. The reason she gives for this is because of the Armenian
Massacre and the Asiatic deed which Nolte claims Hitler was afraid of
happening to him. She also thinks that the Germans wont learn
and come to terms with the Holocaust, so they can never fully put it
away. Nolte wants the Holocaust to pass because it diverts attention
away from present situations. A last
important note in Nolte's writing is her reference
to the rat cage.
Meier
In Meier's writing he continues to discuss the Holocaust and the representation
in today's world. He said that West Germs took responsibility,
and that people have problems have accepting the past, and that people
need to determine who was responsible to move on. He asked, who was
responsible, who to include, just the parents? He then laid ground
fro Germans to take ownership and not to condemn the holocaust, similarly
they should not forget the past, but rather comprehend it. He
claims that when one looks back at history to look at it as a whole
not just an incident. He also mentioned
that what the Nazi's did to try and create
singularity and 1 dominant government, in turn
dragged everyone into history.
Habermas
What Habermas does in his writing is critique the other historians.
He calls Strumer and functionalist and disagrees with him.
Nolte he claims is a visionary and disagrees with him, similarly Habermas
disagrees with Hilgrueber. Habermas
ends his writing with saying that one can look
at history as something to be repaired.
The
class ended by watching Yekes again, but before that
Professor Mayer talked about apologetic tendencies,
and that all of the historians historicizing
leads to apologetic tendencies.
February
6, 2004
Minutes
Marissa
Block
Professor Mayer starts the class off by telling us about a website that
talks about projects being done in German schools. The website
describes research projects in all parts of Germany over the past 10-15
years. The website is called “Learning from History – The
Nazi Era and the Holocaust in German Education” and
the address to it is www.holocaust-education.de
We are next split into our study groups and assigned different sections
of the Ernestine Schlant reading, “Speeches and Controversies” to
sum up and discuss with the rest of the class.
Group One talks about the section entitled “Bitburg”. This reading
describes how in 1985, the 40 th anniversary of the end of the war,
President Reagan comes to speak. Reagan believes strongly that
all German soldiers were NOT Nazis, and there was reason to mourn their
deaths. At this time there is a dispute between Chancellor Kohl
and Weizsacker. The question at hand is: “Should the Holocaust
be seen as a unique time in German history?” Kohl argues that
the Holocaust was not a unique event, and should be “normalized”.
He says that German's should be proud of their German traditions and
have national pride. He does NOT believe that German history
began with “zero-hour”. He believes that the time of his birth
exonerated him from being a Nazi. Weizsacker
argues that all generations must accept the
past and NOT forget it.
Group Two talks about the section entitled “Literary Disputes”.
This reading focuses on two literary disputes between Gross and Boll.
Grass believes that Germans need to have acceptance and recognition
of the Holocaust. Boll, on the other hand, thinks that Germans
should stop dwelling on the Holocaust, and learn to pass over it and
move on. Grass also talks about how the Germans WERE NOT liberated
after the end of the Nazi regime. Germans lost part of their
identity because of the war. He believes that Germans were never
fully punished for their crimes. The reading also discusses Fassbinder's
play, “Garbage, The City, and Death”, which includes a lot of anti-semetic
language. This play is used to prove that there is STILL a language
of silence and taboo around the Holocaust. The relations with
the Jews are still not “normalized”…the reminders of the genocide are
constantly around us. German authors are reluctant to put Jews
as characters in their novels. They are afraid they can't imagine
the experience accurately, and they won't represent life in the “correct”
way. Therefore this SILENCE is motivated by reverence and restraint.
Language has been damaged in a sense – certain
words will also be associated with Nazism.
Group Three talks about the section entitled “Historikerstreit” –
also known as the Historians Debate. The question at hand is:
“Can we normalize the Holocaust?”. Nolte and Hillgruber
both argue different sides of the argument, but fail to recognize the
VICTIMS of the Holocaust. A lot of Nolte's thoughts were controversial.
He was attempting to find out what motivated Hitler, and many
people thought he was “ludicrous” for his ideas.
Group Four talks about the section entitled “The Jenninger Affair”.
This reading talks about Phillip Jenninger, the president of
the Western German Bundestag. While speaking at an event in commemoration
of Kristallnacht, Jenninger uses Nazi vocabulary throughout a very powerful
speech. The public was outraged by Jenninger's speech, and he
was soon asked to resign. The speech was meant to try to accept
what happened in the past. Instead, it re-opened the past and
made the situation extremely uncomfortable. Jenninger had used
Nazi language to make the point more vivid. He hoped that the
audience would accept the past and are now coming to terms with it.
His intention was to condemn language by imitating the Nazis…unfortunately
this backfired on him. This section
shows how powerful the use of language can
be.
At
the end of the class, the Maier reading was brought
up. We discussed
how the state of Israel was really created around the events of the
Holocaust. In Jewish life, the Holocaust has served as forming
the “Jewish Identity”. Professor Mayer informs us how early Zionists
did not think that a Jewish state was “peaceable”. They
wants to live in peace with the Palestinians,
and opposed the creation of
a Jewish state.
February
11 th
Minutes
Nicholas
Coleman
Class
started with an introduction that asked the students to think about
the fact that we have to compare and contrast the holocaust to other
major genocides. Whenever you deal with the holocaust the issue of historization
is at work. You can look at other major genocides such as Rwanda in
1994, Bosnian Muslims, and the genocides in South Africa and South America
to look for answers in what may have cause the holocaust.
We
then began to talk about the book that professor wrote,
and the issue of getting the word Nazi in the title.
By getting that single word in the title the publisher
explained it would boost
sales, even though that's was not what the
author had in mind. We were reminded as a class that
as we read books on the holocaust we must always
be wary of who the author is.
Daniel
Goldhagen Video :
We
were then presented with a video of Prof. Daniel
Goldhagen giving a lecture at Skidmore on the 60
th anniversary of Kristallnacht. Prof.
Goldhagen spoke on his book on the holocaust
and believes that it is important to look not just
as the sheer horror of the events, but rather
the importance of focusing in on the people
involved. The human element, he explained, is critical.
He explained that there are fundamental questions
that need to be answered before we can fully understand
the holocaust.
Who gave the orders? When the order was given,
why was it carried out? What is it about Germany
at that time that allowed for some many to
people to be murdered? Without knowing a great
deal about the perpetrators, we cannot fully understand
why the holocaust happened.
He
began by mentioning that there are 2 fundamental
facts that are missing, and that was the number of
people involved. It is known that the people
working at camps that exterminated the Jews
was 330,000, and if you go beyond the people dimply
killing the Jews, the foreman, guards, high
officers, secretaries, the number get much
larger. His safe estimate was 100,000 people.
Secondly,
it is unknown how many camps there work, however
now we estimate roughly 10,000 camps, each of which
had to be maintained, and it becomes
even clearer the magnitude of the people we
involved. We now must ask ourselves, how is it that
so many people can be involved in the mass
murder of the Jews.
He
explains that Germans, by nature, have always been
anti-Semitic, and nazi's gave them orders to do as
many of them would have already
liked. It was not ordinary men that killed
the Jews, but rather, ordinary Germans.
Ordinary
Men
Following
the Goldhagen video we looked at an opposing view,
that of Christopher Browning. Browning, a functionalist,
looked at the same
group of German officers the Goldhagen did,
and came up with a totally opposite conclusion. In
his book, Ordinary Men , he looked
at a police group made up of average 30 year old German men. They are
not pro-Nazi however are sent into Poland as part of a police unit to
exterminate the Jews. The General, tearing as he gave his orders, tells
his men to go through a town, separate the men and women, and bring
them to be killed. He allows for any officers who do not feel comfortable
doing the killing to step forward and they will not have to, but only
10 do.
He
raises the question of how is it that people not
previously affiliated or fans of the Nazi regime
could carry our orders and become responsible
for the deaths of over 80,000 people. Browning
suggests that in war time, and extenuating circumstances,
people do as they are told, especially
in a group of so many people. In the case of
the officers in the police group he looked at there
is an underlying mentality of if I don't do
it, the person next to me will have to do more.
Internationalist
vs. Functionalist
We
then discussed the intentions of the Nazi's comparing a Internationalist
view point and a functionalist view point. Functionalists argue that
when the Nazi's came to power they did not have the intentions of exterminating
the Jews; rather they sought to expel them all from Germany. As they
began to take over countries with more and more Jews they did not know
what to do with them, so they exterminated them. As the expanded, more
and more Jews became a part of New Germany and the Nazi's subsequently
landed upon the Holocaust.
The
Internationalist view point argues rather that the Nazi's have full
intentions of exterminating the Jews as the first came into power.
This
class made it clear that while there is much opinion
on the reasons for the Holocaust happening however
there is still no answer, and it
is still open to debate.
February
18, 2004
Minutes
Stuart
Drahota
The
class began with Professor Mayer collecting the short essay assignment.
The objective of the assignment was to write a 2 page response to a
project from the website; www.holocaust-education.de
. These projects vary in media and are presented by a variety of
different age groups. Professor Mayer then opened up the class for individuals
to share what projects they had reported on. The first person to share
spoke about the euthanasia at the Bernberg camp. The project was called
Mass Murder or the Aged and Infirm , which discussed how the
mentally and physically handicapped were murdered through gassing, drugs,
and starvation. They also noted that the families were told to donate
the bodies of their relatives to the Nazi party and if they didn't the
bodies were cremated anyway. They were not allowed to collect the ashes
of their loved ones. The next project to be shared was called History
of a Hairdresser . This discussed how stereotypes in the media
helped the Nazi cause significantly. Such things as hair dies and shampoos
that would turn a person's hair blond were among the most prevalent.
The last project to be discusses was Dig Where You are Standing
. This project consisted of a group of students who conducted a
survey in there hometown of Malchow, which had once been home to a camp.
The results of the survey were amazing, 75% of the students were unaware
that there had been a camp in their town.
Professor
Mayer then introduced the topic of the day which
was in regards to the comparison of the Armenian
Genocide in Turkey during World War
I and the Holocaust. Professor Mayer asked
the class if anyone knew when the word genocide
had come into the English language. He first
informed the class that prior to World War
II it was not a word. He then asked the class what
other words could it have been based on. Some
of the answers included: patricide, infanticide and homicide.
Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide: included cultural, social,
economic, and political destruction of groups as
genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are
not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various
social categories.
The
class then began watching lecture that Steven Kats
gave at Skidmore College called the Slave Trade and the Holocaust .
The lecture began by introducing Dr. Kats and telling
of his many accomplishments.
He has taught at Boston University, Dartmouth
College, Yale, UCSB, Cornell as well as many others.
He has written 7 books and more than 60 articles
for scholarly publication. Dr. Kats was then
introduced and began to discuss the term Genocide.
He described it as an intentional murder
of a group. He expressed anger and took it
very personal when individuals used words like fatocide,
which made a mockery of the term genocide.
Dr. Kats expressed that genocide should not
be measured in numbers, he notes that upwards of
6 million Jews were killed during the holocaust,
however he notes that Stalin killed 30 million
and that the African slave trade killed over 66 million
individuals. Dr. Kats also notes
that a percentage also doesn't justify the
holocaust. 75% of Jews in Europe were killed which
accounts for 40% of the Jews in the world.
If one were to compare that to the demolition
of Native Americans however, 96% were killed in a
span of 100 years. Dr Kats then presents the question; “what is distinctive about the holocaust?” He presents the notion that
in most other cases of mass murder, what causes violence also limits
violence. There are guidelines or “slaughter bench” marks in which the
killing is limited. The holocaust however did not have a limit; it was
the complete extermination of all Jews. Dr.
Kats then speaks of African slavery in America.
He tells of how the destruction of the
Native Americans created a need for an able
bodied labor force. Although hundreds of thousands
died, eventually the trade was improved and
incentives
were given for live slaves that successfully
made the journey west. They also encouraged
breeding and by the time the Emancipation Proclamation
was passed, the number of African slaves had
increased ten folds to
more than 4 million. Dr. Kats then brings up
the Armenian case in Turkey. Armenians were
a successful minority in Turkey with a population
of
over 1.5 million. The Armenians wanted their
own state and the leftover Ottoman Empire did
not want them to succeed. With the outbreak
of World
War I, all able Armenian men were drafted for
the Turkish army. The Turkish government also
suppressed the Armenians by forcing 250,000
to convert to Islam. The 250,000 Armenians
living in Constantinople
were for the majority untouched as well. Dr.
Kats suggests that this was not genocide, simply
a way of controlling the minority in the country.
It was simply a way to downplay Armenian nationalism
and was not genocide.
The
class then watched Professor Vahakn Dadrian's lecture
entitled The Armenian Genocide Revisited: Comparative
Perspectives on Genocide. (One
may note due to the quality of the sound and
the heavy accent of Dr. Dadrian, it was difficult
to understand much of the lecture.) Dr. Dadrian
begins by telling of two types of science,
descriptive and political. He notes that comparative
studies are essential if a person or society
wishes to understand, predict and prevent events
in the future. Dr. Dadrian begins speaking about
the Armenian case and how it was the first
genocide. He claims the connection between
the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust is simile.
The perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide were
never punished and therefore Hitler and the
Nazi party saw this as a no consequence way of getting
rid of the Jews. Dr. Dadrian notes that
unlike the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide
has yet to be acknowledged as genocide. Many individuals
argued that the Armenian conflict was
mutually hostile and therefore could not be
genocide. He notes how all able men 20-45 were drafted
during the beginning of the war and wonders
how women, children and old men could be hostile
and organize civil war. Dr. Dadrian notes a few elements
that are essential to find the
truth in the matter. One has to be selective
with the evidence that one uses. One cannot use the
information from the prisoners; this information
would be too biased and exaggerated. One can
also not use camp information from opposing countries
due to similar circumstances. The only real
evidence that can be used is the evidence from
axis power countries. Germany and Austria had compiled
top secret information regarding the
Turkish camps. This information is non-biased
and tells the truth the best of all possible documents.
This is apparent by the German and Austrian anger
and resentment of the killing of a minority, especially
a Christian
minority. The tape was then stopped due to a lack of
viewing time.
Professor
Mayer then brought the class together for a discussion
on the two lectures. The class then did a recap of
what the two lectures
had discussed. Historians debate called the
Armenian Genocide an Asiatic Deed, an effort to explain
motivation for Hitler and the Nazis to conduct
their extermination. Then Professor Mayer compared
it to the Bolsheviks in Russia and how the minority
caused severe problems. Professor Mayer
notes that Dadrian wanted to compare the Holocaust
and The Armenian Genocide where Kats argues that
one cannot compare suffering. Dadrian
also argues that Hitler felt he could get away
with genocide just like turkey did. Dadrian also
did not agree with single case studies and
that comparison was absolutely essential.
Professor
Mayer concluded by telling the class to go over their
notes for the next class and that this topic would
be discussed more on Friday.
February
20, 2004
Minutes
Annie
Gayner
Professor
Mayer opened class by addressing what is implied by the
title of David
Stannard's essay “Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics
of Genocidal Scholarship.”
He asked what conclusions one can draw independent
from his or her
knowledge of the contents of the article. To
most, the title suggests that
the claim to the Holocaust's singularity discounts and even denies the suffering
of those involved in other genocides. Stannard's
title makes it clear
that he is a proponent of comparability when it comes to the discussion
of
genocide.
Next,
Professor Mayer took a few minutes to introduce the
study group
assignments
for next week's reading. These reports
will be based on chapters
from
the book The Texture of Memory by James E.
Young. The group reading
assignments
and presentation dates are as follows:
Group
1: Germany: The Ambiguity of Memory (Feb. 25)
Group
2: Poland: The Ruins of Memory (Feb. 25)
Group
3: Israel: Holocaust, Heroism, and National Redemption (Feb. 27)
Group
4: America: Memory and the Politics of Identity (Feb. 27)
These
group reports should provide the class with a summary of the main points
in
the readings and generate discussion through thoughtful and provocative
questions. Effective
presentations should also include some type of visual
representation
such as handouts or websites to make the readings more “vivid.”
Internet connection
will be available on the days of the presentations.
Professor
Mayer reintroduced the concept of genocide as a neologism
or new word added to the English language for the
purpose of explaining
a new
phenomenon. The word
genocide was coined in 1946 by a Polish-Jew named
Raphail
Lempkin. The meaning of the word was
debated at a UN conference and finally ecumenically
defined as any attempt to destroy in whole
or in part a
national
racial or ethnic group based on its identity
as such. Lempkin
supported
the inclusion of violence perpetrated by the Soviet Union on
Ukrainians
and Russia on the Lithuanians under the classification of genocide.
This resonated with
anti-Communist nations as the Cold War had recently
begun
to
overtake to globe. Furthermore, the
definition referred not only to
violence
committed against the Jews in the Holocaust, but also that committed
against
Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners,
Communists, and criminals.
In
1948, The UN general assembly accepted the UN conference definition
of
genocide. However,
this decision met opposition from the United States
who
did
not approve of the inclusion of many groups under the label of genocide.(conservative
senators in congress opposed the UN resolution RM)
Our
discussion next turned to the definition of the Holocaust
itself.
“Holocaust”
is actually a very old word that literally translates to “burnt
offering.”
In general, the word describes mass destruction
or violence and
evokes
the image of a very destructive fire. It
was first applied to Jewish
suffering
during World War II in the late Fifties and early Sixties when
people
finally began breaking the silence that followed
the war. A main
point
of
our discussion was to prove that the history of words is important because
their
meaning constantly changes over time.
For
the next portion of class, we turned our attention
to the Stannard's
essay. Professor Mayer
asked us to write a short essay in which we analyzed
David
Stannard's strategy in arguing against the
uniqueness of the Holocaust.
Afterwards
we convened with our study groups to discuss Stannard's approach
and
then presented our findings to the class. The
first group identified
Stannard's
arguments for what constitutes uniqueness. In
his essay he
concentrated
on quantities and proportions, disease and starvation as a factor
in
mass death, and the role of intentions. It
is interesting to note that
while
Stannard uses numbers to a great extent in proving his argument, the
historian
Stephen Katz blatantly rejects their significance. The
difference
between
these two scholars is the Stannard believes in the comparability of
the
Holocaust while Katz strongly defends its uniqueness.
For
a large portion of his essay, Stannard points to the injustices committed
by
Americans against indigenous populations. In
one convincing and slightly
manipulating
section of his essay he utilizes a section from his book The
American
Holocaust, which details the suffering of the Native Americans at the
hands
of white oppressors. He takes a particularly
graphic passage and
replaces
the word Indian with Jew. The intended
effect is to make one realize
that
racism and ignorance have prevented us from seeing the true injustice
perpetrated
on American Indians, injustice that has the right to be considered
genocide. One of the
reasons why Indian suffering has so long been discounted
is
because of American's manifold justifications for the destruction of
native
populations. For example,
manifest destiny, or the belief in America's
God-supported
purpose to expand across the continent, was a part of an
American
ideology that kept us from recognizing the crime of Indian
extermination. Even
to this day, there is no emphasis on the remembrance
of
Native
American suffering. The effect of our
forgetfulness in regard to
Indian
culture and history is the outstanding poverty levels on Indian
reservations
and the shameful rise in Native American owned
casinos. Perhaps
the
main reason for our indifference is that we
won against the Indians. We
do
not feel sorry for our actions because there is no one to make us apologize
or
feel guilty as there was for the Germans after
World War II.
As
a class we determined that Stannard's final resolution is that the
Holocaust
must be compared. While the Holocaust
is unique, we cannot exclude
other
groups from the uniqueness claim. Insisting
of the singularity of the
Holocaust
under the context of genocide can only lead to forgetfulness and the
repetition
of the same horrific crimes against humanity. In
drawing these
conclusions,
Stannard historicizes. He plays the part of
a functionalist
historian
in insisting that each genocide is unique.
Feb
27 04
Ross
Gundry
Minutes:
2-27-04
Today
in class we finished the presentation from group
two on Poland: The
Ruins
of Memory. Following that presentation, we moved through two presenters
from
the Israel group.
Group
two began discussing the Carmelite Covenant at Auschwitz.
In 1984 the
Carmelite
Sisterhood moved into a building that was outside the fence at
Auschwitz,
a site that was chosen by Priest Maxamilien Kolbe. Oddly enough,
priest
Kolbe was an anti-Semite who exchanged himself with a Polish prisoner
and
ended up dying within a death camp. In addition controversy accompanied
the
Covenant, for the Jews did not approve of having this established outside
Auschwitz,
and for a while could not get the Covenant moved. It wasn't until
1989
that the Vatican stepped in and helped get the Covenant relocated. The
Covenant
issue sparked but another problem and that was whether Auschwitz
should
be strictly a Jewish memorial.
The
next topic that was presented was the Coda: The changing
of the memorial
guard.
In 1989 Prime Minister Mazowieki proposed the reconstruction of the
Auschwitz-Birkenau
memorial. In 1990, 9 countries met to discuss this topic,
which
included the following debates: Although 90 percent of the deaths at
Auschwitz
were Jewish deaths, so many Jews left that there were no Jews to
uphold
the Jewish remembrance at Auschwitz. Thus, the memorial was deemed a
memorial
to both the Polish and the Jews.
Following
the Coda, was the discussion of the Warsaw Ghetto
uprising. The
Warsaw
Ghetto was seen as a transit center for Jews who were on their way to
the
death camp at Treblinka. Eventually Warsaw became overpopulated and
people
were
dying due to disease and famine. Within the Ghetto there were different
factions
of Jews, similar to gangs, and the first step towards revolt was to
unite
all of the Jews. On January 18, 1943, the first full blown street battle
began,
and these lasted for 6 months until all of the Jews were killed and
the
Ghetto
was destroyed.
Eventually
talk a monument for the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was
discussed. It
was
Nathan Rappaport who designed this memorial, which was constructed in
1948
and
was the first memorial of the Holocaust. The images on the memorial
of the
memorial
show strength, heroism, emergence, and ideal human form. There are
two
sides to this monument, which portray tension and two different views;
that
of the martyrs and the heroes. The artwork upon the monument shows this
through
one side having people emerging, and the other having people being
absorbed.
The style of art work was classified as socialist realist, which
resembled
the artwork from the Nazi reign. This piece was the first icon of
Jewish
suffering that gained a mass audience. Everyone that observes the
monument
finds their own meaning or interpretation. Although the monument was
originally
a Jewish monument, it is no longer recognized as distinctly Jewish,
for
so few Jews live in Poland to uphold an adequate representation. The
Poles
on
the other hand resent the monument because they are not represented
and in
addition,
there is no purely Polish monument. Monuments were proposed for the
Poles,
but nothing ever came of it.
Group
2 finished their presentation with talking about
the Solidarity Trade
Union
and the monument today. The Solidarity Trade Union was the loudest group
in
regards to protesting the absence of a purely polish monument, and their
leader
Walsea declared the Ghetto monument as a symbol of Polish resistance,
incorporating
the Jews in Polish national history. Today, as sad as it may
seem,
the monument is used for political purposes for weight and
justification.
The PLO is a perfect example of a group that abuses the
presence
of the Warsaw Ghetto monument. Yet, many political leaders still come
to
visit the monument, and in addition, a replica of the monument was built
at
Yad
Vashem.
Websites:
www.auschwitz-museum.oswlecim.pl/htm/eng/start/index.php
www.majdanek.pl/enl.
Group
3: Group 3 only got through the overview of the presentation
and the
first
half of chapter 8.
The
entire section discusses Israel's memory of the Holocaust,
mentioning
that
Israel is the only true memorial because it is not only a place of
remembrance,
but a place of Jewish refuge. Young discussed correlation between
remembrance
and the observation of rituals of faith within the Jewish
religion.
The Jewish calendar is a reflection of this, for their calendar
(according
to the Ultra-Orthodox) begins with the destruction of the Temple.
Their
calendar is centered around Jewish hardship, showing that memory of
the
past
is in fact a practice of Jewish faith. The memory of the past is
something
that unites them as a nation today.
When
looking at the Holocaust there is a split between
remembering and
forgetting.
As a need to forget, the Holocaust represented the Diaspora, an
awful
time for Jews in history, a period of time that needs to be forgotten.
On
the other hand, remembering the Holocaust is part of the Zionist movement
and
is something that unites the Jews of today and the martyrs of the past.
Forgetting
may be contradictory to the Zionist dictum.
Moving
towards the establishment of Israel, remembering
the Holocaust played
an
intricate role. Originally, the states population was half survivors
of the
Shoah,
thus remembering is something that was implied. Israel is an example
of
fighting
and self-preservation, and overcoming the Holocaust is an excellent
example
of this. The notion of Heroism became known as the Jews moved through
history;
triumph over the past and refusing to submit to the conditions of the
Nazi
era. Today, there is a link between the martyrs and the current Jews
of
Israel,
a unity perhaps.
Lastly,
Group 3's introduction discussed the difference between
the memorials
in
Europe and the memorials in Israel. In Europe, their memorials focused
on
annihilation
of the Jews, and neglected the existence of Jewish life before
the
Holocaust. Israel's memorials make a point portray Zionist ideology
and
represent
Jewish life before the Holocaust (a full account of Jewish history).
Group
3 then moved into the discussion of individual memorials
and
significant
dedications in Israel regarding the Holocaust. The first topic was
the
significance of tree planting in Israel. It is regarded as a metaphor
for
the
people's return to Israel and their new life; free from exile. The digging
of
the trees represented digging onto one's soul and planting was a spiritual
uniting
of people to their new land. Because of this, on Israel's Independence
Day
there is always a ceremonial tree planting. As a tribute to this metaphor,
in
1954 B'nai B'rith dedicated the Martyrs Forest in the Judean Hills outside
Jerusalem.
Originally, half a million trees were planted to represent the 6
million
Jews who died in the Holocaust.
Moving
to the next memorial is Nathan Rappaport's Scroll
of Fire. Built in
1971,
it was constructed in effort to remember the Jews both in and out of
Israel.
There were two scrolls that were built; one represented the Heroes and
the
martyrs of the Holocaust, and the other represented the reunified
Jerusalem
and Israel. Between these two scrolls, two important Jewish memories
are
preserved. The dedication of the scrolls reads: “In
memory of the martyred
6
million and in relevant celebrations of Israel's rebirth. They are silent,
heavy
and everlasting.”
The
next memorial(s) that was discussed are the museums
that numerous
Kibbutzim
began to erect. The Kibbutzim were little farming communities that
farmed
in subsistence for themselves. This is also one example of how the
Jewish
tradition was preserved throughout the Holocaust. To the members of
the
many
Kibbutzim, they saw the Holocaust not as the end of Jewish life, but
the
end
of Jewish life in exile. They used these
many memorials to remember the
past
and celebrate the future with images of life and strength, moving away
from
the focus of death.
One
of the earliest memorials the was created to commemorate
the Holocaust
was
built in 1947, known as the Children of Exile “Temple.” It
was a place
where
people of the land could commune with pieces
of art in this “temple
of
the
idea” to share and interpret different artistic
representations. In the
corner
spaces, he describes one's thoughts are gathered inwards, thoughts that
are
inspired by the signs and symbols around the temple that constantly
remind
visitors
of the pain and suffering. These same images are also meant to
encourage
thought within the viewer; a place of quiet contemplation.
March
3, 2003
Minutes – Professor
Katie Hauser's Lecture
Kelly
Kimball
Professor
Hauser's lectured focused mainly on works by Anselm Kiefer and Hans
Haacke. She also briefly
talked about pieces done by Zbignew Libera and David
Levinthal. Two questions
that she had us consider before she began her
presentation
were “what is the affect of a visual representation?” and “is
it
appropriate
to be ironic or ambiguous about the Holocaust?” We
also discussed
the
Nazi's ability to use visual propaganda very affectively. They used
these
visual
aspects to emphasize their presence within countries.
Anselm
Kiefer: Kiefer was a notorious German
artist whose works deal with the
Holocaust.
He is known for his big landscapes and how he taps into visual
German
traditions.
“Occupations” (1969): “Occupations” are a series of
photographs of himself
displaying
the hail Hitler sign which is technically illegal in Germany. Yet
these
photos of himself were not actually taken in Germany. Many felt that
it
seemed
like poor taste to bring back the gesture and wondered if he was
performing
the gesture faithfully and if he meant anything by doing it. These
photos
could be seen as ironic or satirical since he is standing alone,
saluting
towards no one. When Hitler was in power the salute was a mass
gesture,
done in a huge crowd, yet in Kiefer's photos he is the only one. It
is
also ironic because Kiefer appears to be disheveled, dwarfed, and un-kept
which
is in complete contrast to the members of the Nazi group. Even with
the
ironic
aspect to the photos, many Germans felt that this was treading too
close
to something that they were trying to forget about, something they found
so
awful. When these photos were printed in a German journal, they were
met
with
a lot of controversy.
“Your Golden Hair Margarete” (1981) and “Nuremburg” (1982):
These two pieces
of
work are the two that Kiefer is really famous for. Both are paintings
done
on
top of photographs that he took. Each consists of some form of a landscape
with
the horizon high up so that the actual land fills most of the piece.
There
is nothing violent about these landscapes. “Your
Golden Hair Margarete”
refers
to a poem, Death Fugue written by Paul Celan. The lines
are “your
golden
hair Margarete, your ashen hair Shulamite.” Attached
to this piece of
art
are pieces of real straw that symbolize the
golden hair of Margarete.
Near
the straw are two dark streaks which represent the Shulamite, the victim
who
was charred and burned. Germans found this piece of art offensive because
it
reminded them of the German ideology that Hitler drew upon. The German
ideology
was “blood and soil”, that the Germans were
rooted in Germany while
the
Jews were labeled “the wandering Jews” since
they did not have a homeland
or
a history. Hitler draws upon this ideology during his time in power.
The
piece “Nuremburg” also drew
lots of controversy due to the fact that Nuremburg
was
the staging ground for Hitler. It is where he brought many people together
for
speeches or marches. It is also the place of the Nuremburg trials and
the
cultural
center of German history, being the home of
Albert Durer. When
looking
at Kiefer's piece Germans are burdened with the associations of a
place
where Hitler rallied people, a place that was targeted by the Allied
soldiers
and a place where the Nuremburg Laws were installed in 1935.In the
piece,
it is shown as a desolate place, not the high place it was during the
Nazi
era.
One
can not help but remember all of the past history when they are faced
with
Kiefer's “Nuremburg”.
“Shulamite” (1983): This piece of work gives the viewer
the suggestion of a
brick
over with flames and charred blackness. It
makes the viewer feel small
and
in danger. There are seven flames in the back that represent the seven
flames
of the Menorah, which in turn represents rebirth of the Jewish people.
These
flames symbolize the Jews' ability to persist in the face of
extermination.
Yet the layout of this piece of work clearly resembles the
“Berlin
Hall of Soldiers” which is a fascist structure created
in 1939 to
celebrate
the dead German soldiers of the war. This fascist architecture is
used
as a basis of Kiefer's painting. How can this piece glorify and link
German
soldiers to the Jews? Americans approved of this piece of art but did
not
have the same knee-jerk response to the historical aspect of the work
that
German
citizens did.
Hans
Haacke: Haacke was a German artist who focused on conceptual art which
is
the
articulation of an idea. Conceptual art deals more with idea then with
an
actual
thing, the idea is important part of the piece of art.
“And You Were Victorious After All” (1988): Austria
held a festival in 1988
with
the theme “Guilt and Innocence of Art”. At this festival,
Haacke
duplicated
a monument that was erected to celebrate the invasion of Austria by
the
Germans during the war. When Hitler took over Austria he was met with
warm
feelings
and little resistance. Hitler redecorated a column which had a statue
of
Mary on top of it. He covered the column with red fabric and printed
on it
the
Nazi symbol and the phrase “and you were victorious after all”.
This
phrase
is one that Hitler used in reference to the inner dispute in the Nazi
group.
Haacke duplicated this structure almost perfectly but added a base
which
contained the number of people who were killed in Austria along with
what
ethnic group they were from. Haacke also erected placards near the statue
that
had reproductions of documents such as newspapers from the time of the
invasion.
Each of these documents is placed inside of a Swastika. These
documents
are to help prevent the denial of the welcoming and close
association
with Hitler by the Austrians. It reminds people of their
complicity
towards the Nazis. These posters and stature generated a strong
response.
The posters were torn down and the monument was firebombed. The
firebombing
to the monument generated a communal response and it became a
place
where people could come together and discuss their history.
Zbignew
Libera:
“Lego Concentration Camp” (1996): This set of six boxes
used something
playful
and fun to memorialize something that was awful and extremely sad.
Many
felt that this was vastly inappropriate. With the Legos, one is in a
sense
rebuilding the camps. If someone builds it then its as though they have
the
intention of using it and they would feel pride for having built something
so
well. This toy allows us to feel the appeal of the Nazi party in the
fleeting
interest in a toy. It helps to put one in the position of the
perpetrator
and allows one to see how easily it is to get caught up in
something,
even something as horrible as the Holocaust.
David
Levinthal: Levinthal found some old toys that were put out by the Nazi
party
during the war. He uses these toys to stage scenes that were familiar
from
photographs from the Nazi period. Each of these photographs is somewhat
blurry.
These photos help to show how many only know history through
photographs
and also helps to dislodge history through photos.
March
24, 2004
Minutes
Lindsey
Smith
Today,
Mary Beth O'Brien, a professor of German and Director of the International
Affairs Program presented the topic of Nazi cinema. Her book, Nazi
Cinema as Enchantment: The Politics of Enchantment in the Third Reich
was recently published after she spent years researching the subject.
In her presentation, she discussed how Nazis seduced the public with
propaganda.
First,
Mary Beth O'Brien discussed the “divided consciousness” of
Nazi control in Germany. In order to have control,
Nazis used terror tactics as well
as seduction. Concentration camps, labor camps,
and the Gestapo were just a few ways in which terror
was instilled upon the public. To seduce
the public, Nazis provided a better standard
of living, security, and national pride. A form of
seduction that was used was the combination
of entertainment and propaganda in movies.
A modern example of this is Mel Gibson's movie Passion .
Professor
O'Brien next mentioned the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda,
a German government cabinet that controlled media. In order to have
a job in the film industry, Germans had to apply to the Chamber of Culture
and meet their requirements. For example, Jewish men and women could
not act or take part in the making of a movie. Also, German government
censored all movies before they were produced. The main reason for this
was to save money, so movies wouldn't have to be censored after production.
In Nazi Germany, filmmakers were very willing to make Nazi films because
they did not have to pay taxes on political cinema supporting Nazi ideals.
The
Führer Principle was discussed next. In Nazi films,
certain camera angles were used to make Hitler appear
powerful. In these movies, his body
dominates the screen and he has a firm grip
on his belt, symbolizing a firm grip on Germany.
Also, he is looking straight ahead, as if looking
into the future.
The
1935 documentary Triumph of the Will was shown. The class
discussed the fact that when seeing a documentary, people expect to
see true reality. This documentary, however, had a bias in favor of
Hitler. The opening shot of the film depicts Hitler's view as his plane
is descending upon Nuremberg. As Hitler gets off the plane, he is welcomed
by what seems to be a crowd of thousands. In reality, there are less
than one hundred people in the crowd. Several women in the crowd are
shown, making Hitler appear to be a father figure.
Professor
O'Brien listed some anti-Semitic propaganda in the form of film. This
included Robert and Bertram (1939), The Eternal Jew
(1940), and The Rothschilds (1940). Also listed was Jud
Süß (1940) a German historical film about a conniving Jewish Minister
of Finance who rapes a young Aryan woman. All actors in the movie, even
those playing Jews, were not Jewish, since Jews were not allowed to
act. The movie presents the idea that Jews have always been bad, deceitful
people. It also portrayed Jewish women as indecent. In the movie, when
the Jew is killed, order is reestablished. During the war, guards in
concentration camps were required to watch Jud
Süß . After
the film was shown to the public in cinemas, riots broke out as anti-Semitics
unleashed violence against Jews.
Before
the end of class, Mary Beth O'Brien showed a second clip from Triumph
of the Will . In this clip, Nazi soldiers are portrayed as a big,
happy family as they are shaving and bathing. The film also includes
the idea that uniformity is a fun, positive thing. This clip is also
important because we were able to see how this form of propaganda appealed
to Germans in the 1930s and 40s. People watching Triumph would
have wanted to become a Nazi soldier because it provided a job in rough
economic times.
Lisa
Mason
Professor
R. Mayer
Minutes
for: 3/26/04
To
start the class on 3/26, our study groups were assigned
different movies
to
analyze. Study group 1 is assigned “The
Great Dictator, 1942, by Charlie
Chaplin. Study group 2 is assigned “The Pianist”, by Roman Polanski. Study
group
3 is assigned “Paragraph 175”, and Study group 4 is assigned “Jacob
the
Liar”.
We were also made aware that our final project
can be either an oral
presentation
or an 8-10 page paper, and we can work in groups if we would like
to. Each student will
tell their classmates what they plan to study, and
our
class
will make suggestions to help further their
project. In addition,
two
individuals
will be visiting our class. Bill Shurtman
left for Shanghai,
where
there was a large community of Jewish people. Christina
Shurtman felt
she
was 1ž2 Arian because her father fled German,
while her mother chose to stay
during
the Nazi period. The class will have
arranged questions for them by
looking
at the CR pages
203 – 238 in preparation for the class. Before
we started our class
discussion
on the play we were supposed to read, we had a short in-class
written
assignment that dealt with what each student
perceived as being
the
most
noted concept of the play. We wrote
for about five minutes and then
transitioned
into our discussion on “I Will Bear Witness”
(1942-1945).
Different
students told the class what they felt was more significant
about
the
play. The first response was that there
was finally a piece of literature
that
showed actual victims, not just clumping the
Jewish community as one.
The
author was able to convey his meaning of the Holocaust through his
journals. Instead
of looking at a general meaning of a Jew during the
Nazi
period,
the play provided an example of a real life figure that could tell
about
actual feelings and events. It was also
noted that the author was able
to
show his feelings by making this play and writing
journals. One
student
said
that keeping journals and writing the play was symbolic because it felt
like
this was what he was living for and how he had to create opportunities
for
himself. He almost felt the need to
teach others about his struggles of
being
Jewish. A different student focused
on how his wife had lived generally
a
worse life than she could have because of her
husband being Jewish.
Similarly,
the author lived a better life because he was kept alive many times
because
his wife was a German lady. Finally,
Professor Mayer announced that
more
than 2,000 Jews went underground, meaning they used false names and
papers
in order to survive). There must have
been networks of people working
for
the Jewish population for this to have happened. This
shows that although
there
were many people and guards during the Holocaust, there were also German
followers
that feared their lives. In turn, they
helped the Jews when they
could
and did not punish them as harshly as a different German citizen might.
The
last 45 minutes of class were spent by watching a
movie that showed how
visual
art was portrayed throughout the Nazi period. This
movie was an
introduction
to how the Nazi's put together an “Art History” production
of
degenerate
art. This show of degenerate art was
the most popular and powerful
show
of art. It discussed how Nazi art should
be viewed and what things
should
not be emphasized in the art of the Nazi period. We
went back and
focused
on the previous discussed artist, Anselm Kiefer, and remembered that
his
paintings were dominated by the aesthetic intensity of large, overwhelming
figures. In 1937,
Germany held an art show in which Hitler had gathered
together
numerous pieces of art that he despised. Many
people gathered around
this
art and laughed and ridiculed the pieces them mainly because Hitler
said
they
were wrong and degenerate. The rooms
were small and the art was laid out
either
upside down or crooked. Most of the
art also had graffiti plastered on
it. People burned
books, paintings, and other objects in fear of the
German
police
finding them and taking the owners to concentration camps for not
agreeing
with Hitler's idea of art. One large
factor that was given to us in
the
movie was that Hitler was rejected at art schools because he insisted
on
representing
the world the “way it really is”, in his eyes. In
contrast,
modernism
paints the world as it is “underneath” and
when the Great Depression
started,
Hitler came to power and this is when Germany
fell. Hitler promised
a “rebirth”, and this appealed to one artist. This
artist loved the idea of
religious
paintings, and in turn, he would create a new Germany.
Initially,
Hitler was held in prison for trying to overthrow
the German
democracy. He focused
on people who he called degenerates (Jews, political
leaders,
and anyone who opposed his idea of how world
should be). Physical
appearance
and what they did that was outside of the norm of accepted actions
and
beliefs made them degenerate. The Great
Depression broke the Democracy of
Germany. People soon
felt betrayal by Jews because they were infecting
the
blood
of the human race.
When
Hitler's museum opened, it was coined a celebration
of Arian ideals.
The
figures and art portrayed men as being clean cut, muscular, and many
of
them
holding swords ready for war and those who
felt differently than Hitler.
The
museum had wide ceilings, marble floors, just the opposite of the Museum
Hitler
first showed of all the art that went against
his values and beliefs.
Similarly,
there were enormous numbers of nude people,
generally women. His
notion
of this art portrayed dying as a victory. What
essentially made Hitler
so
powerful was that he used “other” art as degenerate,
and forced others to
believe
in the culture and values of his Germany and if you don't, you will
be
shown
as a distorted concept through art.
Minutes:
3/31/04
Today
in class we briefly discussed the reading from Bill Schurtman. During
the
discussion we addressed certain facts about him that were of importance.
We
began by mentioning the fact that Bill Schurtman does not consider himself
a
survivor because he escaped to Shanghai before he experienced any extreme
persecution.
This brought up the question of what a survivor really is. Does
is
have to be a Jew who experienced the Holocaust, or is it a Jew from
the
time
period who narrowly escaped the camps? This question will always be
up
for
interpretation. Following this, we discussed how his essay was more
of a
scholarly
work, rather than a personal account; he attempts to make an
objective
piece, but often mixes in his feelings. In addition, we find that he
is
reluctant to rely on his memory to recall the events and the feelings
during
this time, and instead researched his parents and their friends, to
quote
from an older audience. Lastly, as a class we questioned how reliable
a
survivor
testimony really is.
We
then briefly broke into our groups to discuss interview questions for
next
class.
Some potential questions were as follows: What do you find to be a more
accurate
account of the events of the holocaust: a survivor testimony or an
objective
essay? What are your feelings about The Pianist and other films like
Schindler's
List? What stands out the most from your childhood? What part of
the
essay was hardest to write about?
We
finished up the class with a movie, Port of Last Resort. The film discussed
Shanghai
as a last solution to escape the persecution of the Third Reich.
There
were 20,000 Jews who emigrated to Shanghai, and the movie interviewed
a few people of their personal accounts. The movie began with a hopeless
tone,
but
as the film progressed it became a lot more hopeful and uplifting.
Minutes: 4/2/04
Today in class, we spilt up into two groups and each
group either interviewed
Bill or Christina Schurtman. This Minutes will only
cover Christina’s
interview, because that is the room that I was assigned
to.
Christina began the interview with a personal history, and
then we were
allowed to ask and questions that we may have had. Her history
went as
follows:
She is discussing what it was like to grow up half Jewish and
half Aryan
during the rule of Hitler. She dedicated the entire interview
to her Aunt.
Christina was born in Munich in 1927, and during that time
period there was
what she referred to as a short-lived communist government.
She then began to
tell us how Hitler bluffed his way into a government meeting,
and then was
arrested and put in prison. During that time period he wrote
Mein Kampf. Her
father was Jewish, but he never practiced Judaism; he had her
baptized. Her
father was a representative for a textile company, and that
is how he made his
living. Her mother on the other hand was a housewife. Her mother’s
mother also
lived with them, and they wall went to church on Sundays, except
for her
father. She then began discussing how Hitler gave Germany much
prosperity, but
they also thought that he was a bit out of his mind. As a population,
that
thought that his craziness would fade, but all of the prosperity
that he
brought would remain. Because of the Nuremburg Laws, her father
lost his job
and became a commercial photographer. Christina herself was
too young to be
informed of the events that were taking place, and thus grew
up completely
oblivious to the situation and all of the prejudice. Lucky
for her, she never
encountered any bad experiences as a half-Jew. One reason for
this may be that
she went to a catholic school, and never really identified
with Judaism. She
then moved into the disappearing of her Father during “Crystal
Night:” He took
a motor bike and headed for the Swiss border, but he was denied
and was forced
to seek refuge elsewhere. While all of this was going on, she
found her mother
burning all of their old photographs, in effort to destroy
all evidence of
their Jewish heritage during the Nazi raids. In order to get
to the United
States, everyone was given a quota number and was expected
to wait until their
number was called; their family did not feel that they could
wait that long.
In response to this, her father wrote to every person in America
that shared a
last name with them, hoping to find someone who would sponsor
them. No one
ever wrote back. Conversely, he received an affidavit from
their piano
teacher’s friend in Massachusetts, and her father left
in August of 1939. Her
mother was then left with three children and the grandmother,
and they all
moved into a tiny apartment. They communicated with their father
through an
American soldier that was an acquaintance and were able to
send letters and
small packages back and forth. They left for America in 1946,
and when they
got there, there was never any talk about their relatives who
had died. They
tried to begin a life of normalcy after being away from her
father for seven
and a half years.
Then we begin a short question and answer section:
• Have you become closer to Judaism because
of your experiences?
She married a Jewish man and feels much closer to
the Jewish community. Her
children were very much exposed to the Jewish religion.
• What was you life like after you had reunited
with your father?
She could never talk about Germany with her father,
but her mother and her
sisters still felt connected to it. The adjustment
was very difficult and her
father and she handled it very differently. She said
that she feels no
resentment towards Germany: she stays connected through
the language and will
always love the countryside.
• What was it like the first time you went back?
She felt that the German society was too rigid to
live their again, and
decided to stay in the states. There was a feeling
of nostalgia.
• Do you have any guilt for having such an easy
childhood?
No, she did not. All through her choldhho she identified
with Catholicism and
did not look at things in a Jewish light.
• How were you affected by Nazi propaganda and
did it upset you?
She did not feel as a Jew, but also did not take the
time to pay attention to
any of it. She was in fact upset by the S.S. soldiers
who walked around.
Class ended. The interview was very powerful and informative;
the viewpoint
was extremely interesting and memorable.
Sarah Bailey
Professor Mayer
Representations of the Holocaust
Class minutes – Wednesday, April 7, 2004
On Wednesday, we began our class by talking about
the study group films. Professor Mayer said that he
was going to change the study group presentations to
the 21st and 23rd of April.
We then began to talk about the Shertman’s visits. Ross
began by talking about what Christina had said. He gave a synopsis
about her life. He talked about how she grew up without a Jewish
culture. Her father left on crystal night, and later went to
America, staying in minor contact with the family. Christina
said that because of her young age, she was pretty much oblivious
to everything that was going on. She says that now that this
has happened to her, she feels closer to Judaism. She said
that she is unable to talk about Germany with her father, but
the rest of her family is still connected to Germany. She talked
about how she wasn’t affected by Nazi Propaganda. She
answered questions insightfully, talking about work camps,
how people would leave and not come back, but they expected
that. She talked about how she saw herself as a German. She
said that for the most part, she wasn’t affected because
of her young age, but later on, her father took her aside when
she was in her teens, and told her about what happened.
Amelia told us about the discussion with Bill. He gave an overview
of his life. He talked about how he suddenly left, because
his father went to a camp for a short time and came back, saying
that they needed to leave immediately. He talked about the
history of Shanghai, and stories about school. He knew a fair
amount about the events taking place because Russian Jews had
radios to listen to. He said that he knew about other things
like ballet, because it was a highly educated ghetto. He, like
Christina, is not very religious now, and is now an international
lawyer. He gave interesting anecdotes, such as how his house
was bombed because of a radio, and later they met the bomber.
He said that he didn’t really feel the suffering of the
situation, and that Asians were horrified by the extermination.
We then talked about the background to a movie called “Night
and Fog” that we were going to watch. It was an important
film, filmed in 1955 by Alain Fenais. It is an abstract film,
using images and narration. The color segments of it are filming
at Auschwitz in 1955, and the black and white is newsreel and
archival footage, to show the present and past. There is a
tension between these two methods of filming. The title “night
and fog” refers to undercover action, with resistors.
It is surprising, because this movie only uses the word “Jewish” once,
and it is in passing, and is not even translated. It was meant
to be a condemnation of Nazism and France’s war for Algerian
independence. There is an image track, commentary, and music,
and each have equal weight in the meaning of the film. The
music is a form of commentary.
Professor Mayer then began the film. First it showed Auschwitz,
and then Professor stopped the movie, and we talked about the
imagery of the first scene. It is of a field, and then there
is barbed wire. It is about the past intruding on the present.
The movie is started back up, and it shows a flashback to Hitler
and crowds, then the architecture of camps. It shows people
getting deported and put in train cars, then flashes back to
the present. Then it goes to the past and talks about how they
are shaved and get tattoos and specific clothing, and flashes
to the present, showing beds, and talking about treatment.
It continues to flash between the past and present. It talks
about them working, and being obsessed with food, but getting
very little. It shows the snow, and latrines. It talks about
the people’s desperation to leave, and how in the hospitals
they were treated horribly. The movie talked about the politics
behind the camps, about how they start looking at plans for
extermination, how it would look like an ordinary shower, but
would kill en masse with gas, and then they would dispose of
the bodies with ovens, which were shown all in a row. The people
would take everything – hair, jewelry, shoes, and more.
Hair was seed for making cloth, and bodies were used for soap,
skin for paper. It then talks about how the other countries
coming in, seeing the disaster, and trying to figure out what
to do with the bodies. Scenes of bulldozing bodies are shown.
No one claimed responsibility for what happened.
When the movie ended, there was an overwhelming silence in
the room. Professor Mayer asked “why was this so hard?” It
was answered that it had to do with the powerful images, and
the monotone voice. We talked about the difficulties of the
movie, and what was traumatizing, such as the imagery, and
the horribly treatment that was inflicted upon the Jews.
April 14, 2004
Minutes
Scribe: Annie Gayner
Today we engaged in discussion with Hava Beller the creator of
the documentary The Restless Conscience. The film explores German
resistance to the Nazi regime including proposed military coups
and assassination attempts. Professor Mayer introduced Beller
and mentioned that information about The Restless Conscience
and her next documentary project The Burning Wall can be found
at www.burningwall.com. Professor Mayer posed some questions
that had occurred to him after viewing the film including: What
were the circumstances surrounding and inspiring the film? What
were the problems encountered? What is the message of the film?
and What is Beller’s personal relationship to the film?
He then turned over the floor to Beller and the class for questions
and discussion.
Beller initiated discussion by asking the class why we had decided
to take this course. Many of us felt that high school courses
did not give due attention to the complex and essential issues
surrounding the Holocaust. Some said that their interest was
sparked by family connections to the war, films about the Holocaust,
and trips to Holocaust memorials. Generally, we were all interested
in learning more about the various perspectives involved in Holocaust
study and uncovering theories behind how such a horrific event
came to pass. Hava Beller explained that she had been inspired
to create her film when she discovered that a German friend’s
father was hanged for his participation in resistance to Hitler.
Prior to this moment she had been unaware of the German resistance
movement. Her project involved many years of struggle and research.
The responses she got to her proposal ranged from disbelief of
the fact that there were German resistors, to fear of association
with such controversial subject matter. Beller posed a very difficult
question to the class, one that she cannot even answer herself.
She asked us what we would do put in the position of Germans
under the Third Reich. Would we risk our lives and the lives
of our loved ones to stand against one of the greatest evils
in history? Would we give up our identity in service of a cause
that reaps no rewards, only mortal danger? By presenting this
question, Beller forced us to recognize that it is impossible
to judge the German people until we have judged ourselves.
Next, it was the class’ turn to ask questions. A couple
of people touched on the issue of why people came to Hitler when
he never explicitly demanded their support. Did they genuinely
support him or were they simply afraid for their own? Beller
affirmed that much of Hitler’s support came out of fear.
People came to him for security and empowerment. However, Germans
were also motivated by a desire to belong. The propaganda was
compelling and people found it so much easier to go along than
to resist. Beller asserted that most upsetting to her was compliance
of the church and the academic world because these two groups
are supposed to be the most moral and enlightened members of
society.
We also inquired about the tendency towards silence in the German
interviewees. We wondered if there were any people who Beller
had wanted to include, but who had been unwilling to talk about
their experience. Beller admitted that some of her sources took
some coaxing. The only one who refused to be interviewed was
a Nazi who demanded $10,000 for his story. In reference to how
the issue of silence came across in the film, many of us received
the impression that although the topics raised may have been
difficult to talk about, most felt proud of their connection
to the resistance.
We also wanted to know how aware Germans were of resistance during
the war. Beller stressed that the resistance movements had to
be covert and that they were virtually unrecognized by the public.
The only resistance conspiracy that was widely known was the
White Rose student resistance movement. The White Rose took no
pains to conceal their efforts and were, thus arrested and executed.
The treatment of their treason was highly publicized adding to
the terror imposed by the Nazi regime. These facts gave us particular
pause because we can most easily relate to students our own age
who fought for what they believed in.
Another concern we touched upon was the contrast between indifference
and active participation. Beller contended, “Indifference
kills also.” Those not active in the resistance were allowing
evil to continue. She also talked about the “silent resistors;” men
and women who stood against Hitler on a personal level by helping
Jews in hiding. These individuals were motivated by a sense of
civil duty and moral responsibility. However, she argued that
these motivations are problematic because the perpetrators could
also claim to be fueled by a sense of duty.
We finished off our discussion by drawing parallels between Holocaust
Germany and the present world. One point raised was the conflict
between our view of those who volunteered to kill themselves
in the process of killing Hitler and suicide bombers in the Middle
East. Although both believed that they were acting in the name
of justice, we see Middle Eastern bombers in a negative light
while the conspirators against Hitler receive our admiration.
We also discussed what we would do if we were drafted. Most asserted
that they would not dodge the draft, but had reservations about
killing fellow human beings, especially if it was in service
of a cause that they did not support.
Hava Beller provided us with many opportunities for self-examination
and historical reflection. Her visit was a very positive experience
for our class.
Minutes: 4-21-04
Ross Gundry
Today in class we began the group video presentations. The
two groups
presented Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, Roman
Polanski’s The Pianist.
Presentation on The Great Dictator:
Charlie Chaplin was born in 1889 and was known as a stage performer
and a comedian early on in his career, in addition to his fame
in slapstick
acrobatics and masterful improvisation. In 1921 The Kid was
released which was
his first full length film of his career. The Great Dictator
was released in
1940, during the time of the war, and the British government
and Hollywood
suggested that it should not be released. Despite all of the
negative
sentiment, FDR gave the film the green light. The film happened
to be banned
in Europe and South America. One criticism of the film was
that it understated
Hitler’s actual threat. One of Chaplin’s characters
was a Jewish barber who
returns from post-war treatment. The entire film had a lot
of character
ambiguity, and oftentimes it is difficult to decipher whether
it is Hitler of
the barber. The film discusses different types of comedy: comical
satire,
slapstick comedy, and a more mature serious comedy (focusing
on political
issues and relationships). Due to some difficulties, no film
clips were shown.
The end film clip is perhaps the most significant of the scenes
in the movie,
for Chaplin steps out of character and expresses his individual
opinions on
the war and everything about it. Many were very skeptical of
his speech for he
exhibited some views that paralleled certain aspects of socialism.
Presentation on The Pianist:
The film is about a Polish Jew who survived the Krakow Ghetto
and was
reunited with his father after the war and was assisted in
his survival by a
gentile family. Adrian Brody played Wladyslaw Spilman, who
was the actual
survivor and only survived because a Nazi soldier heard how
amazing his music
was. To prepare for the part, Brody disconnected himself from
everyone and
starved himself to fit the part, in addition, he learned how
to play the piano
and actually played during the film. The group discussed the
importance of the
righteous gentiles during the war and how many were killed
solely for helping
the Jews. In 1963, being Righteous became a govnment awarded
title, in effort
to emphasize their significance. Many have since been recognized,
but many
more will never be known because of their deaths.
Due to time constraints we were not able to see no clips from
The Pianist.
Stuart Drahota
Representations of the Holocaust
Professor Mayer
Minutes for Wednesday April 28th, 2004.
The class began with Annie discussing the Academic
Festival which will take place on May 5th. There will
be pieces of art, science, text and ideas from over
200 individuals.
Professor Mayer then spoke about the agenda for the
day. He stated that we would begin and complete group
4’s presentation of Jakob the Liar. He emphasized
that this would be a discussion rather than simply
a listening presentation. Professor Mayer also stated
that we would discuss Peter Heller’s story. On
Friday the class would then take a look at four final
projects, with the remaining to present during the
final exam period.
Group 4 then began to discuss Jakob the Liar. The
original was directed by Frank Beyer who worked in
East Germany with the DEFA. One of his most famous
pieces, Nicolikirche was nominated for an Academy Award.
In 1968 he first submitted Jakob the Liar as a movie
but was refused. After the refusal, he turned the movie
idea into a book, sold thousands of copies and in 1974
the movie was in production.
The story of Jakob the Liar consists of a man named
Jakob who lives in a Ghetto. He is stopped by the police
for violating curfew and while in custody hears a radio
that tells of Russian advancement. He begins to tell
people in the ghetto of the news and convinces them
all that he had a radio. He becomes the center of attention
and everyone wishes to hear news from Jakob. He feels
as though he is helping people out by telling them
encouraging fibs.
Group 4 then discussed Ghetto life. It was a stopping
point for many on their way to concentration camps.
Thousands were crammed into very small areas not fit
for hundreds. Many had isolating walls and barbed wire.
Hunger, disease an suicide were all prevalent. Many
were used for cheap or free labor. Many jews were executed
for crimes based on accusations.
Many themes are present in this movie. Truth and Lies-
it is hard to tell what is reality or fiction. The
lies tend to help more than reality. The authors state
that false hope is okay and helps people get through
their lives. Jakob wishes to keep his friends alive
and fill them with hope so one day they may be able
to get out of this situation. People begin to believe
in the radio as a sort of God and saving grace. Without
the radio many people don’t feel a reason to
live. The theme of Jakob’s old life is also shown
throughout the film. The flashbacks that he has show
times that were better, when he had a significant other
and owned a restaurant. These flashbacks allow the
audience to feel what is going on with Jakob. Another
theme that is present is that of isolation. The people
in the ghetto are only in contact with each other and
the Nazi police. They are unaware of the outside world.
It is hard for them to keep up hope when they know
nothing of anything except what happens in the ghetto.
The 1999 version of the film contrasts the original
in many ways. Still based on the same book but directed
by Peter Kassovitz. Robin Williams plays Jakob. Kassovitz
survived the holocaust with a catholic family while
both his parents were sent to concentration camps although
both survived. There is some strange humor throughout
the film, considering Robin Williams’ past experience
it is difficult to take his acting as serious as one
should. The theme of humor does work well however in
some cases. It is the saving grace of many and keeps
many people interested in their lives. This film is
not the same as the original. It is an adapted version
made for Hollywood and a humorous audience. The films
are similar in that themes of friendship, love, fear
of Nazi’s in general, unknowingness, denial and
despair. Both stories depict individuals who are simply
looking to survive. They use comedy and the news to
attempt to keep hope alive. The Hollywood version has
Jakob lie to the audience during the last scene. Instead
of taking the train to the concentration camp, the
train is saved by a battalion of Soviet soldiers. People
had mixed emotions of whether or not they enjoyed the
ending. The ending of the original seemed be more significant.
It was a reminder of fairytales and previous good times
and how in the end, after the camps a better place
will be reached.
After the presentation, Professor Mayer began to discuss
The Young Kaniz by Peter Heller. It discusses suicide
in Canada after being temporarily relocated. The class
discussed why such a thing would occur, especially
if he was free. Professor Mayer then gave some background
information on the topic. Over 30,000 refugees were
rounded up in Britain in 1940 and considered enemies.
They were placed in camps in Britain, Canada and Australia.
One of note was on the St. Lawrence river in Canada.
Mayer asked the class what we thought of these incidents.
Many thought it was bizarre that it was not well known
but understandable considering America put people of
Japanese descent into camps. In 1944 only one boatload
of immigrants were let into the country form Europe.
998 individuals from Roam were allowed to enter the
states, however were sent immediately to Oswego, NY.
They were supposed to be kept there for 1.5 years and
then return to their homelands. The class discussed
a sense of anti-Semitism present. Acts like these are
often overlooked when people look at the broader scope
of Jewish persecution, especially in terms of the holocaust.
We then got back to the piece by Heller and discussed
how it seemed to be a dialogue, missing another person.
Mayer Said that you could insert answers and questions
yourself and it would make sense. The tone of the piece
is fairly casual and more like a conversation. The
author tells many jokes during the piece and Reinhart
makes note of many jokes that survivors tell of their
past and how they are important. The attitude of the
author is that of Misunderstanding, especially of his
friends feelings. He states that he thinks that things
are so much easier for his friend because he is dead.
Although Reinhart tells us that most people believe
that death is the end of suffering. This is meant to
be a story of a tragic loss. Anger is richly represented
throughout the piece. The class ended and Reinhart
noted that we could pick this up another time. He also
notified individuals who would be presenting their
presentations on Friday.
