the possession of history and all its valuables.
here is a question, i am asking honestly and openly, wondering about history and memory and who "owns" what.
i am in the middle of yet another documentary about the holocaust - "auschwitz: inside the nazi state" - done by the BBC in 2005. i got it from the library. i am at the summer of 1944 (roughly).
you know that iconic image of the train arriving in auschwitz-birkenau? you know all the photos from the infamous "auschwitz album", which are basically the only photos of the selection process that are so reproduced again and again?
the train was built to implement Eichmann's plan for the hungarian jews. the photos are of one of the countless transports of hungarians. the country was systematically emptied of its jews, the only surviving ones really in budapest, largely due to the fact that they just ran out of time.
earlier, they spoke of denmark. denmark managed to save roughly 95% of its jewish population, shuttling them to sweden, hiding them. they speculate on why, but largely the danish people simply say that they did not see a difference between them and the jews, that they did not see why one group was being singled out from the rest where there was nothing to separate. that it wasn't really a sense of saving another people, but simply being fair.
while hungary was an axis ally from early on (buying into the belief that the germans would return the land they lost at the end of WWI), they did not evacuate their jews the way the nazi powers would have liked. (italy is similar here.) so, they took over themselves.
the germans had help from the hungarian police - it would not have been possible without them. but it's important to remember, also, the history of the hungarian people - always second to the austrians, but always linked - and therefore linked to germany. the aristocracy, the country, spoke german, especially on the borders, which were only really created after 1914. the romanians were given all of translyvania - and while you may think of dracula, that territory is also some of the richest farmland in europe. after 1914, hungary was reduced in size by roughly 64%. and even the name "hungary" was derogatory. and let's not forget where most of the gypsies came from.
so i ask this - as i watch this documentary, as i see these photos that i have seen so many times before, i think, these are my people. and yes, my great-grandmother's brother died at auschwitz, though not for being jewish.
am i allowed to "claim" part of this history? as part of my history? or is the holocaust really just a jewish memory? would your answer be different if i did not have a family member who died there? can the holocaust belong also to the people of europe, who did not want to lose their neighbors and friends, who lost their sons and daughters, not for being part of a religion, but for other reasons? i know the systematic extermination of a certain people makes it a genocide. i am not trying to claim that this was a hungarian genocide - far from it. i am just wondering if it would be offensive, if what i am saying is offensive? because these ARE my people, in a very real way. except for the fact that they aren't - that my family went to church while they went to the synagogue.
and i wonder how this all relates to the latest discussion about anti-semitism. and i think about how we did this diversity "game" in my class the other week, and everyone starts on a straight line. you move forward or backward depending on a yes or no answer to the specific questions. when asked, "you had family that was forced to move to the us" most of the class stepped backward. later, when we were debriefing, someone said, i was surprised so many people stepped backward at that question. because you think, "slavery," of course, but you don't think about the holocaust, or famine, or economic conditions. and those that think "holocaust" put it on the same level as "slavery" and. it's just eye-opening.
i suppose what i mean to ask is, in the wake of all the posts on "hidden histories" and such, does it really matter? do we need to divide the lines so clearly? yes, i would love it if everyone could tell me what happened in 1956. what the Peteofi Circle was, even who Peteofi was. the two bridges that divide the city of budapest - that buda is on the hill, and pest is the "city". that the parliament building is one of the most beautiful works of architecture in eastern europe. what st. stephen's day is, how old the country is, why so many hungarians left, the divisions of the land, the racism that went into calling them "hungarian", what the hungarian people call themselves. what the double occupation was, what the spring time of the peoples was, and five famous hungarians. there are so many, but they were all exiled, you wouldn't know. did you know the person that first realized germ theory, and said, "physicians, wash your hands," was hungarian? that oliver wendell holmes read a translated hungarian paper when he brought it to the us? does it matter, if it affects us all?
is there such thing as collective history? and can collective history exist in concert with personal history, with group history, or is it all or nothing? must we fight over who owns the history of the bombing of hiroshima - america, japan, the american soldiers, the historians, the victims, the politicians? the political is personal, and the personal political, but can't there be a point where we can all stand and say, yes.
i know it's probably just a naive wish. but i wonder sometimes if i could continue to work in world where i didn't think that collective history could one day be possible, in concordance with personal history, personal memory. i don't want to take anything away from the holocaust by looking at the auschwitz album and saying, "those are my people," but am i? de facto?
(this is what happens when a) my computer dies, and b) i've managed to stay away from "stimulating" media for three days. i overdose a bit.)
i am in the middle of yet another documentary about the holocaust - "auschwitz: inside the nazi state" - done by the BBC in 2005. i got it from the library. i am at the summer of 1944 (roughly).
you know that iconic image of the train arriving in auschwitz-birkenau? you know all the photos from the infamous "auschwitz album", which are basically the only photos of the selection process that are so reproduced again and again?
the train was built to implement Eichmann's plan for the hungarian jews. the photos are of one of the countless transports of hungarians. the country was systematically emptied of its jews, the only surviving ones really in budapest, largely due to the fact that they just ran out of time.
earlier, they spoke of denmark. denmark managed to save roughly 95% of its jewish population, shuttling them to sweden, hiding them. they speculate on why, but largely the danish people simply say that they did not see a difference between them and the jews, that they did not see why one group was being singled out from the rest where there was nothing to separate. that it wasn't really a sense of saving another people, but simply being fair.
while hungary was an axis ally from early on (buying into the belief that the germans would return the land they lost at the end of WWI), they did not evacuate their jews the way the nazi powers would have liked. (italy is similar here.) so, they took over themselves.
the germans had help from the hungarian police - it would not have been possible without them. but it's important to remember, also, the history of the hungarian people - always second to the austrians, but always linked - and therefore linked to germany. the aristocracy, the country, spoke german, especially on the borders, which were only really created after 1914. the romanians were given all of translyvania - and while you may think of dracula, that territory is also some of the richest farmland in europe. after 1914, hungary was reduced in size by roughly 64%. and even the name "hungary" was derogatory. and let's not forget where most of the gypsies came from.
so i ask this - as i watch this documentary, as i see these photos that i have seen so many times before, i think, these are my people. and yes, my great-grandmother's brother died at auschwitz, though not for being jewish.
am i allowed to "claim" part of this history? as part of my history? or is the holocaust really just a jewish memory? would your answer be different if i did not have a family member who died there? can the holocaust belong also to the people of europe, who did not want to lose their neighbors and friends, who lost their sons and daughters, not for being part of a religion, but for other reasons? i know the systematic extermination of a certain people makes it a genocide. i am not trying to claim that this was a hungarian genocide - far from it. i am just wondering if it would be offensive, if what i am saying is offensive? because these ARE my people, in a very real way. except for the fact that they aren't - that my family went to church while they went to the synagogue.
and i wonder how this all relates to the latest discussion about anti-semitism. and i think about how we did this diversity "game" in my class the other week, and everyone starts on a straight line. you move forward or backward depending on a yes or no answer to the specific questions. when asked, "you had family that was forced to move to the us" most of the class stepped backward. later, when we were debriefing, someone said, i was surprised so many people stepped backward at that question. because you think, "slavery," of course, but you don't think about the holocaust, or famine, or economic conditions. and those that think "holocaust" put it on the same level as "slavery" and. it's just eye-opening.
i suppose what i mean to ask is, in the wake of all the posts on "hidden histories" and such, does it really matter? do we need to divide the lines so clearly? yes, i would love it if everyone could tell me what happened in 1956. what the Peteofi Circle was, even who Peteofi was. the two bridges that divide the city of budapest - that buda is on the hill, and pest is the "city". that the parliament building is one of the most beautiful works of architecture in eastern europe. what st. stephen's day is, how old the country is, why so many hungarians left, the divisions of the land, the racism that went into calling them "hungarian", what the hungarian people call themselves. what the double occupation was, what the spring time of the peoples was, and five famous hungarians. there are so many, but they were all exiled, you wouldn't know. did you know the person that first realized germ theory, and said, "physicians, wash your hands," was hungarian? that oliver wendell holmes read a translated hungarian paper when he brought it to the us? does it matter, if it affects us all?
is there such thing as collective history? and can collective history exist in concert with personal history, with group history, or is it all or nothing? must we fight over who owns the history of the bombing of hiroshima - america, japan, the american soldiers, the historians, the victims, the politicians? the political is personal, and the personal political, but can't there be a point where we can all stand and say, yes.
i know it's probably just a naive wish. but i wonder sometimes if i could continue to work in world where i didn't think that collective history could one day be possible, in concordance with personal history, personal memory. i don't want to take anything away from the holocaust by looking at the auschwitz album and saying, "those are my people," but am i? de facto?
(this is what happens when a) my computer dies, and b) i've managed to stay away from "stimulating" media for three days. i overdose a bit.)