 |
|||||||||
     |
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
| You are here: 2000 / Workshops, Panels and Seminars / Workshops on Remembrance and Representation / Workshop 1 on Remembrance, "It Happened There: The Existence and Meaning of Historical Locations" / Report from Workshop 1 on Remembrance and Representation: "It Happened there: the Existence and Meaning of Historical Locations" | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Participants Countries and organizations Conference documentation Conference programme 
|
|
|
|
Report from Workshop 1 on Remembrance and Representation: "It Happened there: the Existence and Meaning of Historical Locations" Presentation by Mr. David Barnouw Presentation by Dr. Jan Munk Presentation by Dr. Robert Sigel Presentation by Dr. Teresa Swiebocka Presentation by Dr. Jonathan Webber Presentation by Dr. James E. Young Report from Workshop 1 on Remembrance and Representation: "It Happened there: the Existence and Meaning of Historical Locations" Report from Workshop 1 on Remembrance and Representation Moderator: Prof. Dr. James E. Young
The workshop focussed on the role of historical sites – particularly concentration camps – in Holocaust education and remembrance and the challenges presented in balancing their importance as unique educational sites with the need to preserve the dignity of victims. The panel noted that while powerful, the sites alone do not convey the full story of the Holocaust. Participants discussed the need to personalize both victims and perpetrators as a tool for greater understanding and to drive home the enormous loss to humanity that the Holocaust represents. The panel also noted that the evolving perception on the importance of the sites and understanding of the events portrayed was an essential part of the story of each site. Presenters: Dr. Robert Sigel Dr. Jan Munk Mr. David Barnauw Ms. Anne Grynberg Dr. Teresa Swiebocka Dr. Jonathan Webber Summary: Dr. Robert Sigel noted that visitors to Holocaust sites are drawn by the ”aura of authenticity” in an effort to gain a more personal understanding of events and the lives and sufferings of its victims. Drawing on his work on Dachau, Sigel observed that historical locations provide tangible proof that the events took place and visitors are moved by the sensation that they can touch history. At Dachau, they seek to personalize both victims and perpetrators so visitors understand the humanity of the individual victims and factors the drove perpetrators to their crimes. Historical locations create a special desire and ability to understand the Holocaust, and allow visitors – through a sympathy and empathy for the victims – to better understand the events. Dr. Jan Munk described the evolution of Terezin from its origins as a memorial foundation established immediately after the war to a larger installation and museum incorporating sites related to its function as a concentration camp. In the 50s and 60s, the Terezin site faced challenges posed by the authorities indecision on the message to be conveyed, further complicated by use of Terezin in official propaganda. After 1989 the museum to refocussed its work on Holocaust education, inaugurating programs of short and longer-term education. The Terezin foundation/museum seeks to commemorate the Holocaust and supports research to further develop its exhibits and educational programs. David Barnauw from the Netherland’s Institute for War Documentation noted that our appreciation of the events of the Holocaust and how those events are memorialized has evolved in the passing decades. While 100,000 Dutch Jews perished in the Holocaust, no concentration camps were built on Dutch soil. Historical sites connected to the Holocaust are therefore mostly transit camps and sites connected to Nazi authorities. There was little movement to preserve these sites in the immediate post-war period and that the impetus to identify and preserve Holocaust locations, including the Anne Frank House, evolved later. Barnauw observed that Holocaust sites were now a ”growth market” and warned of the dangers of a ”Disney park” syndrome, where the truth becomes blurred in the effort to make the events accessible to the greatest number. Barnauw called for a pragmatic approach on Holocaust locations, noting that providing high-quality exhibits and information in a few selected sites was preferable to the proliferation of a greater number of under-resourced museums and sites. Anne Grynberg described the origin of a special museum at D’Izeu in France memorializing the life and fate of 44 Jewish orphans and 7 educators who hid for two years before their seizure and deportation to Auschwitz on the order of Klaus Barbie. Their story rose to national prominence during Barbie’s trial and the French government chose to create a special museum that particularly spoke to children about the Holocaust. Grynberg noted local opposition to the creation of the museum fearing both disruption of local life and fear how local inhabitants would be portrayed. In developing the museum, they chose to create a simple memorial to the individual children and use exhibits in outbuildings to explain the context of the events. The museum also tries to tie the Holocaust to the current day through exhibits on contemporary crimes against humanity. Teresa Swiebocka noted that death camps have become powerful centers for remembrance and education. Of these, Auschwitz is not only the largest center for destruction of European Jewry, it was the largest prison and center for the systematic of the looting of the Jewish population. Immediately after the war, the Polish government - responding to the large number of spontaneous pilgrims to the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp – passed a law for the permanent preservation of the site. The site – covering 200 hectares – includes 150 buildings and 300 ruins. The museum tries to strike a balance between Auschwitz’s position as the world’s largest cemetery and its role as an unparalleled site for education on the Holocaust. It seeks to explain the attempted extermination of European Jewry while preserving the dignity of the individual victims. Remembrance is a particular priority at the Birkenau site where the majority of Auschwitz’s victims perished. Auschwitz preserves surviving elements of the camp and nothing new has been added. The museum has launched a post-graduate program for educators and publishes memoirs of survivors in several languages. Swiebocka highlighted the post-1989 approach that led to the creation of an international board to oversee preservation, research, and education. She also noted that the museum is also trying to document and memorialize parts of the camp besides Auschwitz I and Birkenau that was not possible earlier due to lack of resources. Jonathan Webber noted that Holocaust sites play four essential roles. They serve to awaken understanding of the genocide. Sense of place also helps people understand how the Holocaust happened. Direct contact with the sites help develop a personal relationship with the past through an act of remembrance. The sites also make a moral and political statement. For example, Auschwitz’s memorial in 19 languages underscores that a minority population from dozens of countries were systematically isolated and brought to a chosen place to be killed. Each element presents its own problems. We must grapple with the idea that a mass murder of a minority became the national policy of a civilized country. Also ”territorializing the Holocaust” in specific sites hides the truth that the Holocaust was a dynamic event that touched every corner of Europe. When visiting sites, visitors focus on the relics still there and may not internalize the massive nature of the crime and loss. There are also shortcomings in seeking to identify with the victims through the exceptional perspective of the concentration camp. The nature of the sites – in the case of Auschwitz, that of an open-air museum – subordinates remembrance to education. To surmount these challenges, Webber proposed concrete remedies. Since the core message underscores the need for tolerance, Jews need to accept that others suffered. Jewish, Catholic, and other memorials should be erected at Auschwitz. Noting Auschwitz’s role as the world’s largest cemetery, Webber suggested that relatives should be free to memorialize individual victims by erecting personal markers and plaques. He called for the creation of a commonly-funded European Holocaust Commission to identify the location of all mass graves, erect suitable memorials, and publicize their location. To underscore the Holocaust’s significance as the planned extermination of a minority people, sites must focus on developing sensitivity to the situation of minorities in a majority culture. To give expression to the sense of loss, countries should identify and preserve ruined synagogues and other structures as evidence of the lost culture. In discussion, participants noted the danger that obsession with the ”authenticity” – or more skeptically ”the myth” – of historical locations may obscure the larger scale and horror of the Holocaust. One participant underscored that the genocide of the Roma was an essential part of the history and needed to be incorporated into exhibits at the sites and suitably memorialized. Because many sites lie in poorer parts of Central and Eastern Europe, participants agreed that the task of documenting and memorializing them should be a common European task, funded by all effected countries. Participants agreed that historical sites also needed to show how interpretation of events changed over time. This is particularly important in former Communist countries where the facts of the Holocaust were selectively portrayed to serve political agendas. The panel also agreed that nations need to take a pragmatic approach to preservation and memorializing of sites, emphasizing the quality of educational content over the number of sites preserved. >> Back to top |
|
|
|
Introduction Opening Session: Messages and speeches Plenary Sessions: Messages and speeches Workshops, Panels and Seminars
Other Activities |
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| For information about this production and the Stockholm International Forum Conference Series please go to www.humanrights.gov.se or contact Information Rosenbad, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden | |||||||||