Holocaust in History by Marrus

"Holokaustos - the burnt sacrificial offering dedicated exclusively to God."

I'd never heard the term defined in quite this way. I think reading it like this gives the event a more sacred meaning. Although, I do not agree that history is not for everyone to learn about and analyze for themselves. We do have to be wary of misinterpretation but when you censor critique or hold back knowledge, it gives the impression of privilege or elitism and more importantly, it deprives the scholar of the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past. I must confess that Marrus' introduction loses me at certain points. The writing style is very theoretical...it also feels philosophical, but perhaps my limited knowledge of the various aspects of scholarship he references taint my ability to fully process what he's presenting. However, his writings about Butterfield's 2 phases reminds me of Cheikh Anta Diop's "two cradle theory" that references the warlike, tragic, pessimistic worldview of the people of the "northern cradle" (Europeans). It also gets me thinking about how history has been written about genocide, in general.

The fact that "precise totals" continue to be elusive is irrelevant in a sense. How can one really fathom the depths of such a horror? American schoolchildren have tried to comprehend it with paper clips or butterflies, just as Japanese schoolchildren tried to comprehend the bombing of Hiroshima with paper cranes. We set up spontaneous and permanent memorials in honor of the dead but what can we really set up that demonstrates the value of a human life? Historiography, certainly is a way to document what happened, but it is no way to memoralize a life, a soul, the spirit of a man. I think there is room for various scholarly and creative perspectives on what happened during the Holocaust. I do not trust one view. I value the perspective of a visual artist, poet or musician of a time period just as much as (or sometimes more than) a historian.

Just as there were many different kinds of people that suffered and died during that time, there can be that many different ways to present the story. We have to rely on people to read about it, to learn about it, to care and to make up their own minds about right and wrong. We can not dictate one way of scholarship over another...then, we would be no better than the very perpetrators we seek to discount.

Responses to New PA Prompts

What do you notice?
I notice that at the time when the Jewish community needed the world the most, doors were slammed in their faces. At a time in history when people were worried about their own well-being and survival (through WWII and the Great Depression), very few were willing to take the risk of being upstanders. The "restrictionist sentiment" that Marrus speaks of has been mirrored in contemporary society, as well. Think of post-9/11 America and its more fervent anti-immigrant sentiments.


What argument does Marrus make?
* the world turned it's back on the Jews when they sought asylum due to religious discrimination and fear (xenophobia)
* This fear and discrimination existed not only in Europe, but in Palestine and wherever the Jews went
* Palestinian immigration restrictions established by the British were not necessarily to favor the Arab sentiment, as much as it was a way to maintain Arab support against another German offensive
* Many lives were saved around the world, but what was done was done too late and for too few - more could have been saved had fear and discrimination not been factors.

What do you learn or what thoughts are brought up for you?
I was very interested in the numbers of refugees or displaced persons accepted and denied around the world and found myself examining maps and charts from other sources (I'm a visual learner), like the USHMM.

• 30,000 refugees accepted in Switzerland
• 100,000 to the Iberian Peninsula
• 17,000 to Shanghai
• 60,000 to Palestine
• 85,000 to the US (1938-1939)
• 140,000 to Israel (post 1948)
• 100,000 to countries occupied by Germans
• 96,000 Jewish "displaced persons" to the US (1945-1952)
  

I'm left wondering about...

1. Whose responsibility is it to take refugees in? Who has the right to "police" the world? Why were some countries, like Spain (the Iberian peninsula took in 100,000 Jewish refugees), more amenable than others?
   
2. It's interesting to me that political and economic concerns superceded moral concerns.
3. How does Marrus distinguish between "refugees" vs. "displaced persons" in his writing?
4. In the 1920's after WWI, there were much more flexible immigration policies. I wonder though if this applied to all people - were people of color as accepted?
5. Where does illegal immigration (consider "aliyah bet" into Palestine) fit in the refugee question?
   

How do you think this theme applies to the work of Facing History?

I think this section would work well juxtaposed with "Well Founded Fear" (asylum seekers film). It would work well with any immigration resources, like Enrique's Journey, as well. In a larger sense, it connects with our scope and sequence. In considering the work that has been done on the Jewish experience during the war (as refugees, displaced persons, immigrants, emigrants, etc), there is room to compare-contrast immigration policies of the past and the present.