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?
Monday, May 5, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)