Facing History and Ourselves

This last class was a great way to end the semester and prepare for our trip to Munich. Jennifer Jones-Clark of Facing History and Ourselves came to talk with the class. The non-profit organization that she works for has the mission of educating about social justice through a historical lens, and how to educate teachers in presenting historical events to their students in an effective way. Overall, I found Jennifer's lesson to be very insightful and helpful with my own learning. It also, however, gave me a better sense for how effective history teachers can be when working with their students. I have had several extremely influential history teachers and professors throughout my education, and the program that Facing History and Ourselves has developed over the past 40 years is definitely adequate to how I define successful education.

The activities that Jennifer had us participate in were beneficial for my own interpretation of history. She made us think critically by using what we know about the past, present, and future. I think that for the most part, the class was definitely engaged with the material. We were all involved in conversation when discussing our attitudes and opinions. Jennifer's lesson can provide insight for how education majors can continue their practice, but also for how we can educate ourselves. I have always been a critical thinker, and I do not always accept things at face-value. I think it is important to dig deeper into a reading or a conversation in order to truly gain something from it.

Jennifer's lesson taught me that I should always be asking myself questions when it comes to history. This history can be from a formal lesson, or it can be the history of a relationship that my friend is telling me about. How can I become better informed of the past by relating it to the present? How can I continue to foster and develop my education and knowledge? When in Germany, I plan on having an amazing time. I am incredibly excited to experience the culture and sights, but I am also excited to be able to experience history up close and personal. Being in Germany and learning about the Holocaust will be so much different than learning about the Holocaust in a Boston classroom. Being in the environment and seeing where things actually happened will have a completely different effect. I want to take advantage of this trip and allow myself to ask the scary questions. I want to reach a certain point with my education by being on this trip, because who is to say when I will be given the opportunity to return to Germany?

German Government Policies and Perspectives - Discussion and Presentation by Rulf Shrutt

The presentation we were able to organize with Mr. Rulf Shrutt of the German Consulate was extremely interesting. This event gave the class a better idea of how German government organizes policy, as well as a direct perspective of a German political figure who has faced his own forms of discrimination and hate. Shrutt began his discussion with giving us a brief history of Jewish-German relations pre and post Holocaust. He also discussed with us his own personal history and how he has become politically involved. A lot of his discussion was focused on the "bind" between Jews and Germans, and this is a connection that is completely unique of all other relations. From this bond, Shrutt expanded on the notion that there is always a "fear of slipping," or that there is always the elephant in the room when dialogue between Jews and Germans occurs. He noted how this elephant makes it very difficult for the two parties to openly discuss emotions or their past, simply because it is uncomfortable territory.

Shrutt discussed German attitudes about the Holocaust, and he gave statistics on how many Germans currently represent a Neo-Nazi party, have extreme resentment for the topic of the Holocaust (because it has been ingrained in their education), or feel some sort of personal guilt and/or connection to the Holocaust. Shrutt's discussion of Germany today opened dialogue for how individuals are interacting on a regular basis. Shrutt discussed his own personal opinions on ways of confronting the elephant in the room and moving forward with history. When asked certain questions, however, Shrutt did seem to put up a political forefront. It appeared that there were certain questions that Shrutt did not want to answer directly, which was interesting. It was incredible being able to have this political figure come to speak with our class, and the Wheelock community, but I felt that a more casual and personable discussion could have left us with greater insight.

From this class, I felt that the real lesson was learned in our group discussion after Shrutt left. The class openly discussed our attitudes and how we perceived his talk. We were all able to engage in an extremely interesting conversation about our own personal attitudes, why we feel certain ways, how we feel society interprets certain phenomenon, and what we should do in order to combat specific emotions. I think that we were all able to engage on a new level during this class. Sometimes, the topics  of conversation that can be brought up during this type of course can easily become conflicting and opposing. I feel that with this group, however, we are all able to take a step back and appreciate individual attitudes. There is always a lesson to be learned from one's peers, and I think that this class have definitely allowed me to connect with my peers in a way that I have not been able to. With such a serious subject matter, we all are sympathetic and open to new ideas. I am excited to see how our discussions develop when we are abroad and what types of discussions we will soon have.

Reconciliation through Facilitated Communication and Dialogue

For this class we were given the opportunity to meet with an admirable clinical psychologist, Julia Oxenburg. Julie came to our class to discuss her involvement and interest with facilitating dialogue between parties in conflict. She told us about her experiences, what she has learned, and what she thinks can come in the future. Julie's research of open dialogue between conflicting groups opened my eyes to how emotions must be shared in order to make progress. As Julie mentioned, her work is geared around the idea that words promote healing. Through the dialogues that she has participated in, she thinks that by breaking the ice through facilitated and structured conversation, individuals can better understand where the other party is coming from, as well as where they themselves are at in regards to individual coping, healing, and growing.

Julie told us of her trip to Berlin, Germany, where she facilitated a dialogue between 15 participants. Of these participants, there were survivors of the Holocaust, second generation of both survivors and perpetrators, Hitler youth, 'resistors,' and even displaced persons. All of the participants had an extremely different story; however, their one major similarity was a personal connection to the Holocaust. Julie's discussion of this dialogue was very interesting because it demonstrated how despite extreme differences, she still found major commonalities between Germans and Jews participating in the discussion. She introduced the idea that the opportunity for a forum such as this brings up certain emotions that individuals were unaware that they even had… This is incredibly fascinating, especially with the subject matter, because one would expect for individuals effected so deeply by an event to understand all of his/her emotions, confusions, frustrations, etc. However, with this type of forum, Julie made it clear that each person involved was making his/her own realizations. There was a process referred to as "unblending,"or providing a space for self understanding. She said that with this forum in particular, but with others as well, participants usually leave the group with a greater sense of identity (no longer feeling like a victim) and loyalty (no longer associating pain with betrayal and survival).

I found the topic of forums and open communication between groups in conflict to be very engaging and rather fascinating. I have always personally felt that confronting a problem head on is usually the best way to get past it; obviously, depending on the specific situation, this approach may vary. However, with conflicts such as victims vs. perpetrators, or opposing religions or ethnicities (ie. Pakistani vs. Israeli), I feel that these types of facilitated forums have such incredible potential for the participants. Even in certain cases in America, such as gang conflict, or student and facility conflict, a straight-forward confrontation of feelings, emotions, and thoughts could generate healing, listening, understanding, and most of all communicating. I was curious about the lines that may sometimes be crossed during these forums. I can imagine that many of the attitudes conflict amongst the participants. I wonder what happens psychologically when these conflicting views are recognized during a forum. How do the participants react to opposing ideas and attitudes? Do the facilitators need to have certain training in order to recover the group from a major debate or argument? Do these types of arguments actually assist with the process of healing? Is it normal and/or expected for outbursts of rage, anger, resentment, sadness, etc. to occur during the dialogue?

After Julie met with us, we continued to watch the rest of the film titles "Hitler's Children." This was a wonderful film that really explored the attitudes and struggles that second and third generation of Holocaust perpetrators must confront regularly. The end of the film highlighted the fact that these "children" really struggle with finding a balance between loving their parents/grandparents and hating them. The film almost ended abruptly. I thought that it ended on a bit of an unsettling note, because it made it clear that these individuals will continue struggling with their identities and family history, yet these individuals will also always be overshadowed by the traumatic family history of the survivors and victims. I think that this film develops in incredible portrayal of these individuals, and what they must face everyday. I thought the film gave us a much different perspective, but one that we can also relate to the readings we have completed from the Berger & Berger text.

The Children of Perpetrators and Bystanders

This forth class continued to focus on the Second Generation of Holocaust survivors. To begin the class, we continued our viewing of "Breaking the Silence," a film that documents the attitudes of the second generation of Holocaust survivors. This film was created at the end of the 20th century, and it focuses on how the children of Holocaust survivors often feel that the great wall of "silence" between them and their parents has affected their relationships, attitudes, and understandings. I found this film to very moving and insightful. It shed light on the controversial topic of whether to discuss horrific trauma with one's children. Will open communication assist with parent and child relations or does it prove to be detrimental with these particular circumstances?

From the film, many of the children of survivors who were interviewed reported that they felt that they could not have a real childhood due to their parents' history. These children felt that they could not express typical emotions of a child, such as sadness, anger, and vulnerability, because they felt that their parents' problems were always larger than their own. These children also felt the constant burden of their parents' past. They felt that there was a sense of "forbidden territory" that could not be crossed, such as getting angry at a parent. This was considered to be unacceptable because of what the parent had endured during the Holocaust. A sense of guilt was also a common topic discussed in the film. These children reported that they felt constant guilt for their own problems, and they did not want to bring them up to their parents because they could never compare. I found this part of the film to be eye-opening, because I have never personally had a block in my relationship with my own parents. To feel this way, I can only imagine it to be very influential on my personality and way of life. I have always felt that having a strong and open relationship with my parents is what makes me a compassionate and understanding individual. Hearing the second generation's stories made me truly appreciate the relationship I have with my own parents. 

This film, however, also focuses on the attitudes of the parents, Holocaust survivors. One question raised, which caught my attention, was how do you tell a child this story? How would a parent reveal to his/her innocent child about his/her horrendous past? The parents that spoke in this film made it obvious why this is a controversial issue. The children were expressing how they either wanted to know the stories in order to get a better sense of their family history and legacy, or that they had absolutely no interest in the topic because it seemed to control their family's lives. The parents, however, routinely made it clear that telling their story is anything but easy. 

This concept of not wanting to speak about the past, is also relevant in the discussion that the class had with one of Wheelock's visiting scholars, Nicole. Nicole was raised in Germany and still lives there today. Nicole grew up with the Holocaust as an abstract topic that was not frequently brought up. Learning about the Holocaust in school, she never felt guilty to be German. She did, however, feel guilty for humankind to have been capable of such events. Nicole was never given answers as a child. She would ask her Grandmother about the Holocaust and the war, but she was never told her family's side of the story. To this day, Nicole still does not know how/if her family was involved in any way. Nicole told the class that she always had this desire to know, but she never got the answers she was seeking. This discussion gave the class yet another perspective. I was able to draw connections that I have been reading in some of the texts, most notably in the Berger&Berger text. There is this constant theme of confusion and wonder; a quench for answers that is never fulfilled. 

We ended this class by watching another film called "Hitler's Children." This documentary focuses on the lives of second and third generation perpetrators of the Holocaust. These children and grandchildren  are decedents of extremely high-up perpetrators who were involved in developing, organizing, and carrying out the tasks of Hitler's Nazi regime. The stories that this film focuses on are another perspective regarding the Holocaust. It was fascinating watching this film, because the psychological trauma for these individuals is extremely apparent. Those interviewed express various issues that they have struggled with their entire lives. These range from feeling as if they can not associate with their last name, how there has been a conspiracy of silence in their family history, and being to enraged and disgusted with their family's actions that they have decided to prevent themselves from having children who would carry family lineage. These perspectives were very different than those of the second and third generations of survivors. There is a sense of disgust and disownment, as opposed to guilt and sadness. 

I have realized through our studies that each perspective on the Holocaust offers something different. Each perspective aids in our understanding of what to expect when we travel to Germany. Every single individual who has been affected by the Holocaust has a different story to tell, and there is no one generalization for how a survivor or a perpetrator feels and thinks. After this class, I have been wondering how German school systems educate about the Holocaust. Is there a set Holocaust curriculum that is followed? Is the Holocaust and the actions and ideas originating from Hitler and other well-known Germans regarded as being bad and evil? Would this unit be similar to how the US teaches its students about slavery? This has been a question I have had since the beginning; however, more-so now, I ask how do teachers and educators communicate with students who may be decedents of influential perpetrators? Is this a common understanding and sensitivity that is expected of German students?

The Second Generation - Review of 1.5 and 2nd generation texts

While reading the multiple texts in preparation for this week's class, I became even more interested in how the Holocaust shaped the futures of both child survivors and of second generation survivors. These readings were engaging and each of the three articles discussed a different concept that is essential to understanding the experiences of these individuals. The discussions that took place during this class presented further curiosity in how psychological aspects of survivors changed and developed after the Holocaust, and how children have been specifically influenced by the atrocious events. From this class I was able to develop a stronger identification of these survivors, notably the 1.5 generation. When people usually discuss the Holocaust and its survivors, it is a generalization for all survivors regardless of age. From Suleiman's article, it was very interesting learning about the specifications of this generation. It identifies that classifying this 1.5 generation is not always easy. Children who experienced the wrath of the Holocaust have many unique variables that contribute to their stories. The actual age of the child is obviously a large factor influencing whether they are considered to be part of this generation, but also their specific experience, their religion and ethnicity, and the choices they needed to make influenced how they changed psychologically from their trauma. The reading made it a little more clear as to how to categorize this generation. One overarching similarity that can be applied to all child survivors of the Holocaust is that they were essentially being forced into adulthood. Having to make life-altering decisions, or "choiceless choices," forced children to grow up a lot quicker than

natural development.

The Barocas & Barocas article dove a little deeper into how second generation survivors can be considered just as affected as first generation survivors. This article acknowledged how the children of survivors can often feel as if their parents are living through them. This can be interpreted as that survivors were trying to rebuild their family that was lost during the Holocaust, and having many children in a new country was one way of going about this task. The second generation, as discussed in the article, can develop their own psychological effects and trauma because of how their parents act, tell stories, or treat their children. Specifically, this second generation has been known for having high anxieties, phobias, and fears because of what their parents have experienced. Reading some of the stories in the Berger & Berger text also highlighted this concept. Second generation survivors have developed a stigma that has been influenced by their parents. 

Kaplan's article focused more specifically on the psychoanalytical point of view for survivors. The article discusses the "affect propeller" which was a bit confusing to first interpret. Kaplan recognizes that psychological trauma can be the same for individuals regardless of their age or culture. Trauma theory was a topic of conversation during class and how this affect-propeller can be interpreted. It was interesting to evaluate the texts in comparison to the video clip we watched of Sonia Weitz, a child survivor of the Holocaust who had lost her entire family except for her sister. The video was extremely moving and by far the most influential part of class. Her use of poetry was incredibly inspiration, because she used this as her outlet to express the trauma she experienced. She could not speak about some of the horrors she faced, yet she could voice her thoughts through poetry. Sonia's use of poetry relates to Kaplan's "affect symbolizing" of creativity. Having a creative outlet has been recognized as a major tool when assisting in the healing of psychological trauma. Kaplan recognizes that this creativity can be a type of revenge, or revenge fantasy, for some victims because it gives them a way to civilly target their perpetrators.

When trying to interpret the affect propeller, I did become confused at some of the concepts Kaplan was presenting. However, it struck me once I realized the circular motion that the propeller implies. Each and every victim, according to Kaplan, literally can be placed somewhere on the propeller, and then they circulate through the stages. The coping strategies for each victim will vary, because each individual will be at a different mental place at a different time. I found this to be one of the most interesting aspect of class, because I was able to recognize what this complicated theorist is arguing. I feel that Kaplan's propeller can definitely be applied to what has been read in the Berger & Berger text, for both the children of victims and of perpetrators. 

From these readings and the class discussion I am still interested in how parenting styles may differ or be similar for victims of various crimes. Are the parenting styles of Holocaust survivors similar in ways to those of other genocide victims? I am also curious about support groups and available resources for this second generation. I wonder how this generation has learned about the Holocaust in school and if they feel that they can actively engage in conversation when it is such a relevant topic in their own lives. 

Holocaust Survivors - Discussion with Ed Klugman

The second time that our class met this semester, I gained a newfound perspective of the Holocaust because of the discussion we had with Dr. Ed Klugman. Hearing from an individual who experienced first-hand the traumas of Nazi Germany of World War II allowed me to become even more engaged and intrigued. I believe that hearing the primary recollection of events from an individual makes it so much more realistic, and it can truly "hit home." The dissuasion with Ed went in several directions, but overall his attitude and presence was overwhelming. After class, I called my mom and could not stop raving about this older gentleman who I could have listened to for hours. Despite Ed's tendency to go off on tangent's or only partially answer some questions, I felt that this visit gave everyone in the class a greater appreciation for all of the individuals who suffered during the Holocaust. Ed's experience with the Kindertransport can be considered less traumatic than other survivors' stories; however, hearing this man speak about his extended family and the shame he felt because he is Jewish made this piece of history come alive in my eyes.

In preparation for this second class, reading Sterling's article on the Kindertransport and Davidson's compilation of Boston survivor stories allowed me to gain a better understanding of how different each individual's story is. It was fascinating reading the Davidson text and then watching the film, because I felt that a lot of the stories had very strong similarities, yet each story was unique to the survivor. I feel that when learning about the Holocaust, usual classes and courses tend to focus on one common story or experience that a mass amount of people suffered. In reading these texts, it made clear and obvious to me that there is not one generalization for the experiences of Holocaust survivors. Every individual has his/her own story which has been shaped and altered by each step to their survival.

This class helped me realize several things that were specifically interesting about Ed's story. I felt that his experience of feeling ashamed to be a Jew was particularly intriguing. As Ed discussed several key points of his experience he would reference different ways that he would try to hide his Judaism. For example, when coming to America after the war had ended he worked incredibly hard to hide is German accent. He not only did not want people knowing he was Jewish, but he also did not want people knowing he was German. He wanted to hide all associations with Germany and his past. It was as if Ed was seeking a fresh start in a new country, where he could become the man that he dreamed of being when he still lived in Europe.

What I found to be the most interesting part about Ed's discussion was how he presented his love and passion for helping others. In one of the readings for the following week, it discussed how second generation survivors, and the 1.5 generation (child survivors), often times seek professions that help others because of their own experiences or upbringing as a result of the Holocaust. This concept definitely applies to Ed's story. He is well into his eighties, yet he continues to peruse new and exciting projects that work towards bettering the community and bringing people together. I loved hearing about his current work and what he finds pleasure in. I find it fascinating that after everything Holocaust survivors and their families have been through, they can still manage to be successfully positive individuals of society. I could never imagine enduring the same sort of trauma... Knowing myself, I am not sure if I could find happiness in the world after experiencing something such as the Holocaust. From reading some of the stories in Davidson, it was clear that some of the survivors struggled with finding a purpose after the war. But it was finding that purpose that made them keep going and pushing forward, past all of the hate and evil that stirred during Hitler's reign.

After this second class, I was left with a lot of thoughts and questions. I would have loved hearing a bit more from Ed, specifically talking about his family's journey throughout the Holocaust. He discussed his own journey with the Kindertransport, but I am still curious about his parents' survival and how they were able to come to America as well. I would also like to know more about Ed's revival of Judaism. On the timeline that he had given us detailing his life, it had a section entitled "The Healing Process." I would have liked to hear more about what he specifically did to gain a connection with his religion after such a long period of time, and if he still continues his Judaic practice today or has developed other spiritual answers.