Taryn Fink

POS4931

4th December, 2006

The Holocaust Remembrance Controversy

For the most part, one could hardly argue against the point that humanity’s future depends in large part on understanding our past. In keeping with this basic idea, an individual would be hard pressed to find someone that disagrees with the notion that in order to keep from repeating history some time down the road, each generation must be fully aware of what has taken place before them. The Holocaust is one of the most substantially horrific experiences that mankind has gone through, and understanding why and how it was allowed to happen is crucial to making sure something so severe never takes place again. Therefore, the need for preservation, commemoration and education on the events that comprise the Holocaust is necessary. At this point, it is clear that facilities must be produced to meet these needs. However, upon the realization that there is a need to keep the Holocaust alive in people’s minds, lest we forget, and we accept that places actually have to be created that can fit these objectives, a conflict arises on how to accurately portray the magnitude of the actions that took place during the Holocaust and in World War II, without taking it too far.

This paper seeks to look at the subject of Holocaust remembrance, especially over the latter half of the twentieth century, and explain how it can be seen as both exploitative and beneficial, simultaneously, even within a single commemorative location. Based on research, it also appears that whether Holocaust remembrance is seen as positive or negative, or whether a specific type of remembrance is seen as a memorialization or an exploitation, may hinge at least in part on whether you are seeing a memorial, a museum, or something else entirely, because the targeted audiences can be completely different, and each may focus on a different viewpoint on what took place just over sixty years ago. Museums tend to incorporate various learning tactics that are accessible to wide ranges of people, so as to appeal to both those directly connected to the subject matter, and to those who are not knowledgeable in the area. Memorials, on the other hand, speak to a group of people in one way, which can be interpreted different by each individual; however, the message projected is the same. The forthcoming essay will illustrate its point by examining specific museums and memorials, including the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., the Imperial War Museum in London, and the Auschwitz museum, on the site of the former concentration camp, as well as discussing basic opinion on the subject by scholars and researchers.

Marouf Hasian Jr.’s article “Remembering and Forgetting the “Final Solution”: A Rhetorical Pilgrimage through the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum”, explores the composition of the USHMM, to look into the debate between exploitation and appropriate ways to memorialize the dead. Based on the way he presents his facts, and his personal experience on a tour through the museum, there is clearly a conflict at hand on whether the museum is exploiting people and their experiences, or whether the setup of the building and the exhibits within it are completely fitting for the goals the director means to obtain. Hasian declares within the introductory paragraph, before the article even begins, that this specific museum is “a vehicle for Americanizing the Holocaust”. (Hasian 2004, 64) This immediately alerts the reader to the immense possibility for exploitation. Although the Holocaust took place during World War II, in which the United States was involved, the Holocaust was a separate entity in itself that took place across the Atlantic, isolated in Europe. In the particular sequence of events that make up the Holocaust, the U.S. had virtually no influence, and the leaders exerted no power to attempt to change the course of events. So why then, would one of the largest Holocaust museums in the world, be built in America’s capital, between art, science and history museums, in a country so far removed from the events the USHMM seeks to educate about? On what basis does this museum have the right to make the Holocaust somehow “American”? These questions beg the simple answer: exploitation of a subject that is known for its ability to draw people in. However, that conclusion cannot be automatically assumed.

In Isabel Wollaston’s “Negotiating the Marketplace: The role(s) of Holocaust museums today”, she quotes Suzanne Bardgett, project director for the Imperial War Museum’s Holocaust exhibition, as saying “museums have long ago lost their innocence of the profit motive…it makes no sense to spend millions on a project one considers thoroughly worthwhile and then to shy away from promoting it”. (Wollaston 2005, 65) Here, it could be argued that Bardgett is justifying the reason why certain things are done that could be considered exploitative. If you think about it, you most likely cannot remember a museum you have visited that is without a gift shop close to the exit, for you to browse through right before you leave. This is even true of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Although the idea of postcards with replicas of paintings found in the art museum you have just visited sounds pleasant, the same thing cannot really be said of gifts in a Holocaust museum. What does one find? Pictures and posters of exhibits? Magnets and key chains? A snow-globe, even one depicting the city the museum is in, definitely does not seem like the proper trinket to take as a souvenir from your Holocaust museum tour experience. Promotion is one thing, but the idea of purchasing even tiny pieces of memorabilia from a visit to a place dedicated to explaining in detail the mass genocide of a religion, seems like a blatant exploitation of something that survivors still have graphic nightmares about, some six decades later. Yet, one must also realize that just like natural history, art and science museums, there is more than one Holocaust museum. There is more than one point of view being presented. There is a competition to draw in visitors from around the world, and to particularly capture those in the near vicinity who have a direct connection to and a vested interest in the current presentation of the Holocaust. As Hoskins quotes Finklestein, the “Holocaust Industry” (Hoskins 2003, 7 and Finklestein 2000) is in full swing.

As stated at the beginning of the paper, the purpose here is to show that exploitation and memorialization can take place side by side. The USHMM can certainly be interpreted as a pure exploitation, based solely on knowledge of the museum’s internal setup, before one even steps foot inside the building. If the reader looks at Hasian’s references to Breitman and Kraut, and Lipstadt; “given America’s belated entry into World War II, its closing of its immigration gates, its failure to become actively involved in rescue missions, and the incredulous press treatment by the U.S. press at the time” (Hasian 2004, 67), one would be impressed upon to agree with the fact that Americanization of the Holocaust within this museum is a definite exploitation. However, moving away from the negative, the USHMM also provides a very important place for learning about the past so we can move forward, and not revert back to the darker times in world history.

One of the basic purposes of Holocaust museums the world over is to educate, but the education goes far beyond that of pre-WWII background and the Holocaust. These museums seek to instill in people’s minds that each individual has an obligation to speak out against wrongdoing, and that each person has an influential voice: one person can make a difference. Indifference is often times the mindset on which blame falls, regarding why terrible actions are allowed to occur. Museums, exhibits and memorials dedicated to the Holocaust show visitors just exactly what indifference can lead to. There is a hope that after being confronted head on with this concept that being an idle bystander can no longer be a viable option. In terms of education, the curators of the USHMM felt that there must be a way to connect the visitors directly to the past, so as to create “confrontation therapy” (Hasian 2004, 71), a Zibart term that Hasian uses to explain the use of specific spatial elements of the museum. When a visitor enters the museum, he or she receives a “passport”, depicting either a victim or survivor of the Holocaust. The “passport” contains information about this person, providing the carrier with a distinct face to connect to the horror. The visitor is encouraged to seek out parts of the museum’s exhibits that correlate to the person’s story within the “passport”. Having been a visitor to the museum, I am still in possession of my “passport”, and I can attest to the connection to the Holocaust that one feels by following the story of a real person. The USHMM tour begins on the fourth floor, with a ride up in a small, rattling elevator that immediately puts those confined by this journey upward into an uncomfortable mood, on purpose. As one progresses down through the museum, the temperature gets increasingly colder, the floors slope downward ever so slightly, and the lighting becomes more dim. The passages get narrower, bit by bit, and the intensity of the experience picks up. There is no turning back; you must continue on, through the darkness, literally and figuratively. Although there are some who would define such a system of visitation as a “game”, and therefore declare it exploitative, this seems to be an entirely appropriate method of getting people to understand just how the Holocaust developed.

The USHMM, although it contains both “museum” and “memorial” in its name, is much more of a museum than a memorial. When someone mentions “memorial”, one of the first images that comes to a mind is the Vietnam War Memorial, in Washington, D.C. The idea of a statue, or sculpture, a list of names, more of a monument than anything, is generally the picture associated with a memorial; a place to contemplate and reflect. But a museum is a place of interaction and learning. The way the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is laid out is done exactly right to promote both of those actions. However, bringing up a most interesting point, Wollaston quotes Deyan Sudjic, stating that “if Holocaust museums ‘are not to seem heartless and exploitative, they must be memorials as well as museums. Yet that involves sacrificing detachment and objectivity.’” (Wollaston 2005, 66) Detachment and objectivity seem to be two ideas that represent a memorial, because a memorial is generally simple and meant to be observed, but these ideas certainly do not define museums, which encourage attachment to a subject so as to fully grasp it. The USHMM’s “passport” is one example of that. So how does something be both a memorial and a museum in and of the same? Can a museum with memorial status of sorts be free of exploitation accusations? This brings us to the Imperial War Museum.

The IWM, with a separate permanent exhibition on the Holocaust within the museum, somehow manages to be both a memorial and a museum, one inside the other. The IWM website, via Wollaston, says that the museum represents “all aspects of modern war, and of the individual’s experience of war, whether allied or enemy, service or civilian, military or political, social or cultural.” (Wollaston 2005, 63) Wollaston again quotes Bardgett, on the IWM’s main goals: “the general purpose of the museum, which is to educate rather than to commemorate”. (Wollaston 2005, 66) So here we see a disparity of sorts, in that the purpose and representation clearly delineate a museum, yet Andrew Hoskins, in his article “Signs of the Holocaust: exhibiting memory in a mediated age”, writes something that implies “memorial”. Hoskins says “This system served to control the flow of visitor numbers…so to ensure as quiet and uncrowded reflection as possible”. (Hoskins 2003, 11) However, with the Imperial War Museum’s presentation of war as it is, it almost seems unlikely to be a memorial at all. The IWM is unique in that it does not shy away as much as other museums, from having to choose what side to represent, and therefore who to pull in. This museum shows as many angles as it can so as to leave as few questions unanswered as possible, and the victims’ points of view are shown next to the perpetrators’ viewpoint, to some extent. With this system, it seems nearly impossible to even bring up the suggestion of exploitation. This is an educational site that is necessary for all generations to come, because it explains both how evil was allowed to rise to glory, and how the victims suffered. This exhibit attempts to leave nothing out by not picking an alliance, but by being faithful it its accuracy to all.

So what about the Auschwitz museum? Is it appropriate to build a museum on a site that is considered to many, especially those who lost family there during the Holocaust, holy ground? The deputy director of the museum, Krstyna Oleksy refers to Auschwitz as “the largest cemetery in humankind’s history” (Wollaston 2005, 66), and if this is the case, how is it right to put a museum on the site, allowing people to traipse all over the final resting place of so many innocent victims? Although this is referred to as a museum, the true character of Auschwitz and its past lend to a memorial atmosphere. There are specific monuments on the grounds of the museum, but Wollaston presents a unique idea, that a museum is a place for tourists and a memorial a place for pilgrims. But, because Oleksy refers to Auschwitz as she does, she also proclaims that “a trip to this place should be something in the nature of a pilgrimage every time”. (Wollaston 2005, 66) Despite the museum title given to the site at Auschwitz, it almost feels wrong to even debate the exploitation possibilities here. This site represents the death of so many Jews and others considered “undesirables” during the Nazi rise to power, yet it is also a site today that Jews visit as if to say “You didn’t win. We’re still here and we’re stronger than ever”. It is an enduring memorial to the dead, because no matter what is put on that site, it does not change what horrendous activities took place there during the late 1930s and early 1940s. Although the buildings have been cleaned up a little, the character of the site changed so as to make it slightly less overwhelming, and markers denoting what everything is have been put up so that it is more museum-like, the somber tone of this site is not museum-like and it does not risk exploitation in the same way a typical museum does. There is no promotion here. The world knows what this site stands for.

Soon after the end of the Holocaust, Theodor Adorno proclaimed “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”. Lawrence L. Langer’s article “Recent Studies on Memory and Representation” struck a chord when he referred to an Aharon Appelfeld, an Israeli writer, who commented in response to Adorno. Langer prefaces Appelfeld, and together they reply that “any literary forms emerging from the catastrophe would have to honor two impulses, the ‘desire to keep silence and the desire to speak’”. (Langer 2002, 78) This competing desire perfectly describes the difficulty when standing on the line between what is interactive education, and what falls into the category of exploitation.

Despite each museum being completely different, every site dedicated to preserving the Holocaust in more than just textbooks, but in people’s minds, will always be in question for its motives. Some people will always wonder why attention is being brought to something that is in the past and should remain there. However, it is clear that George Santayana’s declaration “The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again” is true, plain and simple. It is necessary to continue to develop museums and memorials to those victims of the Holocaust, and for understanding the memory of the events themselves. It would appear that there really is no way to generalize the findings into people as a whole viewing Holocaust representation now as either completely exploitative, or entirely appropriate. There will continue to be mixed feelings on the subject, based on who is viewing what, where, and how the exhibition is presented to the viewer. Wollaston asserts that “The more symbolic the location, the fiercer the controversy is”. (Wollaston 2005, 67) This is such an accurate assessment, because people will always question others’ motivational factors for presenting a subject that is in itself, highly controversial. The necessity for informing future generations on the background of the Holocaust will only increase as time goes by and the last of the survivors pass away. This same need for places to receive accurate information will almost certainly breed inconsistency in facts as more and more museums and exhibits spring up to attempt to keep people aware of the atrocities that occurred in the past. With more museums and the like popping up to continue on the mission of education, there will be a growing debate over what is considered exploitation and what is considered a necessary learning tool. However, it would seem that as long as tourists are going to museums and reaping the experience they wish to have, and that pilgrims have a place to go to grieve and to remember the victims, then the idea of exploitation need not be a central focus in the study of Holocaust remembrance. We should just remember.