Thursday, June 18, 2009

Holocausts

Some days have passed since the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. -- enough time, I hope, to allow me to publish a piece which I, by coincidence, had hoped to write that very day. (Needless to say, murderers like James van Brunn are the reason why I sometimes hope that my disbelief in Hell is misguided.)

Not long ago, I proofread a student's essay on the museum, an essay which raised some interesting points I had never before considered. That essay informs this post.

In 1978, Jimmy Carter set up a commission to direct the creation of a Holocaust Museum on the Washington Mall. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum opened in 1993.

I certainly think that Holocaust museums should exist in a wide variety of locales. But why place one on the Mall, home to the American History Museum, the National Air and Space Museum and so many patriotic memorials?

The Nazi genocide occurred in Europe. The United States was neither victim nor victimizer during that tragedy.

Those who visit the Holocaust Museum probably come away thinking: "Thank God we live in a democracy; such things can't happen here." But such things did happen here.

At the time of Carter's proposal, the Mall did not have a museum dedicated to conveying the true scope and nature of slavery. Neither was there an institution on the Mall preserving the memory of the genocide of this land's original inhabitants. Was it not a strange decision to highlight Germany's shame and not our own?

To this day, the Mall does not have a museum which tells the story of slavery the way the Holocaust Museum tells the story of Europe's murderous racism. In fact, I don't believe that such a museum exists anywhere. A National Museum of African American History and Culture is in the planning stages, but it will not focus on this nation's original sin.

A National Museum of the American Indian opened in 2004. A comparison of the architecture tells a revealing story.

The NMAI is one of the most beautiful buildings ever constructed in this country, with graceful, sinuous lines that evoke the contours of rolling hills and curving rivers. By contrast, the Holocaust Museum is deliberately forbidding, unfriendly, unlovely; it is a fortress. Within, the intentionally ugly exhibits are meant to replicate the experience of being trapped in a ghetto and sent to a concentration camp.

The NMAI does not immerse the visitor in horror. Far from it: The emphasis is on celebrating Native cultures and artifacts. A foreigner entering this building might come away with the impression that Indians have usually received fair treatment from whites.

Two current exhibits:
Ramp it Up celebrates the vibrancy, creativity, and controversy of American Indian skate culture. Skateboarding combines demanding physical exertion with design, graphic art, filmmaking, and music to produce a unique and dynamic culture...
Our Universes focuses on indigenous cosmologies—worldviews and philosophies related to the creation and order of the universe—and the spiritual relationship between humankind and the natural world. Organized around the solar year, the exhibition introduces visitors to indigenous peoples from across the Western Hemisphere who continue to express the wisdom of their ancestors in celebration, language, art, spirituality, and daily life.
By contrast, the Holocaust Museum forces visitors to live out a nightmare, to confront unimaginable obscenities. The picture to your right gives but one example.

When the National Museum of the American Indian was still being planned, a writer named Carter Camp (of the Ponca Nation) expressed his disgust with the direction of the project:
Americans sensibilities will have been spared at the cost of continuing depredations against Indian people. Americans will go to the Holocaust Museum and be told the horrible truths of what Hitler and the Nazi's did to the Jews. They will cry for the victims and mourn with the survivors, in the end they too will be determined to protect the Jewish people from a repeat of the Holocaust. All thinking people support this. They will also be comforted (and exempted) to know that America defeated the Nazi, stopped the killing and helped Jews return to their homeland

Next, Americans can walk over to the museum of 'Indian' history. They will be amazed and pleased at the beauty of our past. Scenes of tipis, tanning hides and pastoral living will hide the blood covering every-square-inch of America. Our blood. They will go home marveling at our ancient art and beauty and a little sad we had to pass into history because our buffalo suddenly "vanished."
It hurts me to think about the many atrocities we may have been able to prevent had we Indian traditionalists, (for whom the American Holocaust still burns freshly) been able to tell a true history of our own people. I envy my Jewish relatives for serving their people so well. Our Indian leaders have seen fit to sell our history so the Whiteman can bend it to fit the myth they use to avoid history’s judgment. Better for tourism in Washington D.C. too.
The Native American community is not a monolith. I am sure that quite a few agree with Carter Camp, while quite a few may believe that the NMAI should continue to focus primarily on the positive. Which stance is correct? I'm not an Indian, so that's not a call for me to make; I'm not even sure that a correct answer exists. Perhaps two museums...?

Visitors to the Holocaust Museum will encounter another anomaly. When Jimmy Carter convened his commission, the directive was to create a museum dedicated to all of the victims of the Holocaust, and to all victims of other genocides. Nobody really knows how many non-Jews perished in the Nazi camps. Simon Weisenthal believed that the numbers of Jewish and non-Jewish victims were roughly equal. Proportionally, the gypsies suffered losses roughly equivalent to Jewish losses.

One would expect an American museum to represent those other victims. Yet that is not the case.

The Museum does make some reference to the crimes committed against homosexuals, but the sufferings of Gypsies, slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others go unmentioned. Moreover, the Museum was originally intended to include a permanent display on the Armenian genocide. Those plans faded -- due, it is said, to pressure from Israel, which boasted good relations with Turkey. In recent times, the Museum has devoted some space to the general topic of genocide -- for example, visitors may now see an exhibit on Darfur. That exhibit is not permanent.

When the Museum was in its planning stages, Rabbi Seymour Siegel that any attempt to include the Gypsy tragedy would be "cockamamie." Elie Wiesel (who was one of the chief planners) decided to concentrate solely on the Jewish experience. He defended that stance with these words:
...the universality of the Holocaust lies in its uniqueness. If I speak as a Jew about Jews, of course I speak about others as well. If I were to stop speaking about Jews, I would betray both the others and my own people.
An admirable sentiment -- if Wiesel is talking about one of his books. But a museum built on the Mall is not a personal statement; it reflects national decision-making. One does not expect to see "the upright pronoun" in a museum's mission statement.

A Holocaust Memorial is planned for Brooklyn. When various parties suggested that the Memorial also pay heed to the sufferings of Gypsies, gays and other non-Jewish victims, New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind offered words that were far less eloquent that Wiesel's. In fact, Hikind got downright ugly:
To include these other groups diminishes their memory," said Hikind, as he stood next to his 89-year-old mother, Frieda.

[...]

"These people are not in the same category as Jewish people with regards to the Holocaust," Hikind said following a press conference at the memorial. "It is so vastly different. You cannot compare political prisoners with Jewish victims."
Actually, and as I keep reminding my readers, you can compare anything with anything else. But anyone who would label Hitler's non-Jewish victims as "political prisoners" is incomparably callous.

I honestly don't know the right answer to these issues. My intent has been to engender thought and, perhaps, discussion.

22 comments:

mr.Mike said...

Better a flawed reminder of what one human is capable of doing to another human than none?
We got a whole hit parade of wonderful things that happened here in the big PX.
From the treatment of native populations, to slavery, to the internment of American citizens of Japanese decent, to the better treatment of Nazi POWs interred on American soil than black and Japanese Gi's to the torture of prisoners in the War on Terra.
One thing we haven't done is learn from past mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Jews were not the only people targeted for their **religious beliefs**.

Why THESE victims, victimized BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION, are not wholly comparable to the Jewish victims escapes me. Certainly, their numbers of dead were far greater.

XI

-----------

"CATHOLICS AND THE HOLOCAUST
(People have asked about the number of Catholics who died because of the
Nazis. The site on the Nuremberg Trials came up with the number of 42,000,000
for Christian victims of the Nazis. Since most of those were Roman Catholics,
one can gather that the number was at least quite overwhelming.)" Extracted from the first site given below. At least 3 000 000 Polish Catholics were holocaust victims. Note especially the systematic massacre of the clergy and religious orders.
Source(s):
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/his...
http://www.buttonproject.com/facts.php
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/h...
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_...


Of related interest - http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Cro...

Joseph Cannon said...

XI, I am surprised to see someone remind us that believers in The Religion That Everyone Loves To Hate have also been persecuted.

However, fairness dictates remembrance of victims of the Ustashi.

Anonymous said...

What is actually worse than not mentioning the Catholic deaths in the Holocaust is the latter day determination of some prominent members of Jewry and the Holocaust religion to both ignore/deny their loss, and moreover, CONDEMN the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope for their actions and alleged lack of action.

When actually, the Pope and the Church were the single largest saviors for Jews (the Pope is credited with saving some hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives), risking both individual death by the priests and the organizational destruction of the Church, in order to offer safe haven hiding spots in Catholic churches in Nazi-occupied areas.

XI

RedDragon said...

"The Native American community is not a monolith. I am sure that quite a few agree with Carter Camp, while quite a few may believe that the NMAI should continue to focus primarily on the positive. Which stance is correct? I'm not an Indian, so that's not a call for me to make; I'm not even sure that a correct answer exists. Perhaps two museums...?
..............................................................................

Well. Where do I begin?

I am "Native American" and I can honestly say that not one of my people have forgotten what was done and still is being done, to my people. As a child, I grew up listening to my Great Grandfather and Grandfather tell me stories of what was done to the Apache. I learned at an early age, what genocide meant. I learned that we were considered nothing more than "Savages" and that we needed to be either "Tamed" or "destroyed" for the greater good of this country.

I heard many, many stories from my elders on how women and children were "Slaughtered" for their land. I learned from these elders that once we decided to fight back, we were doomed.

Why is there not a "Museum" to tell the TRUTH about this country's march across our land? because it does not fit the idea that is America. I am truly sorry for the horrors endured by the Blacks and Jews. Nothing can ever justify man's inhumanity to man. But. this country has much to answer for when it comes to my people. Am I bitter? No. Do I hate my country? No. But make no mistake, as long as there is breath in my body and my blood flows through the ages...My children and theirs after, will know what was done to us!

Joseph Cannon said...

Yeah, but RedDragon -- what would you do if you ran the zoo?

In other words, suppose the NMAI were placed under your administration. What would be different? What would be the same? Would your decisions receive broad support from Native Americans all across the country?

Joseph Cannon said...

I have to add this, RD:

It may be out of line for me to say it, but -- I think that if I were an American Indian, I would want that museum to can the exhibits devoted to "skate culture." I would prefer to have exhibits devoted to things like the Trail of Tears.

But of course, I'm not an Indian (except for a tiny bit on my father's side), so I probably don't even have a right to an opinion.

One thing I didn't mention is that the Holocaust museum has (or had) an undercurrent of "Feel guilty, Uncle Sam." There was a large exhibit devoted to the idea that FDR could and should have bombed Auschwitz. That actually would NOT have been a good idea, for a number of reasons, and American Jewish groups at the time advised FDR not to pursue any such course of action.

Bottom line, I don't feel guilty about the Holocaust. At least, I don't feel guilty as an American. As a member of the human race, I DO feel guilty, because I'm ashamed to be part of a species capable of such bestiality.

No, my national sense of guilt has a lot more to do with the fact that I know damn well that I have no right to park my capacious ass on land that belonged to the Chumash.

When I was in first grade, they made us memorize a dumb poem that I don't think is taught anymore:

"Where we walk to school each day/ Indian children used to play..."

And I asked the teacher: "Why'd the Indians go away?"

Come to think of it, that's a pretty good third line for that poem. Just leave that question dangling in the air.

Anonymous said...

When the Indian museum first opened I went to their online site and searched "trail of tears" which resulted in zero hits. But why did I do that? Because of obvious and ironic things you point out in your article.

Anyway, the NAIM now has hits when searching "trail of tears". Not to generalize too much, and I know there are exceptions, but thank god the Indians haven't turned their sad period in history into a cult.
- Yuri

Anonymous said...

"And I asked the teacher: "Why'd the Indians go away?"

I guess I was in 3rd grade, the teacher asked "What should the Pilgrims have done when they met the Indians?" Oh man, I knew the answer and was called on. I said they should have asked the Indians if they could share the land. The class cracked up as if this was the greatest joke they'd heard in a long time.
- Yuri

Dr. Dan said...

The FIRST thing one should encounter when entering would be an exhibit of GAZA and the Israeli Ethnic Cleansing. WACO would also be good subject, THAT was genocide, by the definition. Also, of course, Armenia, American Indians, etc. etc. etc. WHY is it if I put a 2 foot tall Nativity on my own town hall lawn, I have 12 ACLU lawyers on me, but this RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT goes unchallenged? Yes, we know why..

tom sheepandgoats said...

Joseph Kempler, a Jehovah's Witness survivor of the holocaust, is often asked on the speaking circuit: 'could it happen again?' His answer is that it has never stopped happening. He cites Darfur, among other examples. He reports a special bond with victims of genocide, no matter where or when that genocide may have taken place. They 'read' him. They know his experience, because it is their own. Likely, he would include the plight of the American Indian.

http://tinyurl.com/lp5dcu

Joseph Cannon said...

Jeez, this post evinced some very ugly comments. I didn't think Holocaust revisionists visited this place. All such comments (predictably) violated rule 4, so -- POOF! -- they're gone.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a revisionist, but I do resent the placement of a Holocaust Memorial in the middle of Faneuil Hall in Boston.

WTF?? All the monuments in my city are, rightly, about the founding of this country. We have the Bunker Hill Monument, statues of General (not President) George Washington and Paul Revere, The Freedom Trail, etc. And in the middle of it all we have a Holocaust memorial deliberately designed to look like smoke rising from ovens.

I'll say it again: WTF!

Gayle

Joseph Cannon said...

There's kind of a NIMBY syndrome at work here, but it seems to me to be at least partially justifiable. Faux crematoria next to Bunker Hill does strike me as inappropriate.

Anonymous said...

HA!

I had to Google NIMBY to find out what it meant!

The memorial itself is haunting and horrible and really rather elegant all at the same time.

I just don't know what it's doing in the middle of the square where the Sons of Liberty plotted the American Revolution!

NIMBY? Maybe. I'll have to think about that.

Gayle

Anonymous said...

Joseph's witty riposte to the poem he learned prompts me to give an answer, since I assume he is a fellow Californian (his reference to the Chumash) - I think the Indians did not go away. I think that in California, they call them "Mexicans" with all the illegitimacy that implies. Lou Dobbs undoubtedly believes that white Rotarians founded California. The tribes of the Southwest did not draw up the border. And the local tribes, looking like their Mexican cousins, also having been organized into a Hispanic social structure by the missions in previous centuries, are still there. No wonder you don't want to speak English if they make you recite stuff like that! I guess I was just one of those kids who noticed things they didn't instruct me about. Half the kids in my elementary school class were "Mexicans". Were they? I think they were indigenous.

Now I live somewhere else, and with Gayle, I wonder at the placement of the Holocaust monument in Boston, close to the formerly significant site of the Boston Massacre (now dwarfed by high rises). My Jewish mother-in-law survived a Nazi death camp and she might or might not have appreciated this thing had she seen it. You can never tell what a real survivor will feel about something. If you believe in the unique nature of each human, a monument covered in numbers is likely to feel a bit numbing. I happen to feel that the Vietnam memorial wall struck exactly the right balance. The one in Boston is kind of aggressively modern, like the City Hall itself, and its intent is to diminish the time travel aspect of the little block near it with the pubs where Revolution was plotted. I don't know why the place was chosen, but I think it was about politics.We can read into it whatever we want, but to me it says "See? Don't go dreaming too much about the past. Look what happened even after people thought they were free" It would take a science fiction writer to imagine what will be the fate of all these monuments centuries from now.

Mazoola said...

Let me start by saying the Holocaust Memorial Museum is an amazing place. In many ways it's the museum equivalent of Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial. (Caveat: I haven't been to the museum since 1994 or '95, and the exhibits inevitably have changed since that time.)

That said, I wanted to mention its location on the Mall came about largely as the result of a bait-and-switch played by the museum's original planners. When the museum was given the final go-ahead in the early 1980s, one of the reasons given for its being awarded the near-Mall location was that it would be housed in two historic buildings, donated by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, whose brickwork resembled that of some of the concentration camps. The following year, having controversially secured a prime location, the memorial commission announced the buildings were unsuitable for retrofitting, and had them torn down. (There's not much available on this online for free - it's covered in the WaPo's archives, of course - but it is mentioned in passing in this article.

Anonymous said...

You can never tell what a real survivor will feel about something.

Indeed. They sometimes disappoint or outrage their " supporters"!

Annie

Zee said...

mazoola, thanks for that interesting detail on the location of the Holocaust Museum.

Gayle, I always wondered about the Holocaust monument in the Faneuil Hall area, too, but I don't have a problem with it, especially as designed. Maybe more places should have reminders of both the high spots and low points in human history. We have a Leif Erikson statue, too! But the place where the telephone was invented is unmarked. And we definitely need more Native American monuments. Instead we extol the Puritans, who basically ruined our country. I do know people who go to Plymouth to celebrate a day of mourning during Columbus Day and Thanksgiving. So not all remembrances have physical monuments.

I think it's imperative to remember, and people are wrong to call the Jews' remembrance as making the Holocaust into a "religion" or a "cult." The last survivors will be gone soon, and you can bet the likes of white supremacist Dr. Dan, here (I'm glad you left up one such post, Joesph) will be redefining "genocide" as one botched invasion of that WACO cult. I always tell such people who are obsessed with Palestinians and Israel under the guise of "caring" about Palestinian land, "well, let's give all of our land back to the Indians then." They not only never have a clue what to say to that, but it's obvious they've never even given that idea one moment of thought...injustice is not really the underlying motive for their "outrage."

So, yeah, I would be for including the Trail of Tears in the Native American museum! Targeting Jews for focusing on this dark part of their own history is misguided at best. AAs, women, gays, all groups should try to make sure their history of being oppressed is known, despite the inevitable accusations that they are playing the "victim." I don't think any of them should play nice and shut up and "move on."

Anonymous said...

Dr. Dan,
your obvious anti-semitic sentiments are very clear from your comments

elliewyatt said...

Navajos are still suffering genocide by the US government.

US wanted uranium for bombs in the 1960s and developed huge uranium operations on Navajo land, strewing uranium all over. The Navajos worked as miners. Though the gov't knew of the health hazards of uranium, the Indians were not told for a few years. Finally they handed out red postcards to the miners advising that protective gear should be worn. No gear was provided, the Navajos were unable to read the English the cards were printed in, anyway.

The miners are gone now, of uranium poisoning and cancers. The land is strewn with uranium waste, where the people walk, grow their food and the children play. Very young women and men die of strange cancers, babies are born deformed or blind, children without bones in their limbs. One unique and deadly disease that strikes only Navajo is attributed to uranium. The homes are poison because mine waste was used for foundations, as the people were not told it was deadly.

The creeks and ponds where they used to collect their water and water their sheep flocks is now poison. They must drive every day, long distances to the trading post to fill water tanks from deep wells.

I know a typical widow of a miner. She is due compensation for the uranium death of her husband. About $30k. The gov't agrees that it is due her, but it has been tied up in red-tape for over 30 years because he did not have a birth certificate or Social Security number. She wants the money to drill a deep well in her village for her people. She is 95 now and when she dies, the $ claim dies with her.

A group of Navajos testified in 2007 before a congressional panel to try to obtain cleanup funds. They brought a bucket of soil from their land. The soil was considered such a hazard, it took special security clearance and was permitted in the chambers for only a minute.

Our Navajo brothers and sisters and their children are sick and dying today because we neglect to clean up the poisonous mess we created to build bombs.

b said...

There are a couple of museums of slavery in England, albeit not very good ones, in Bristol and Liverpool. But not in London, despite that city's being the main base of the Royal African Company which monopolised the English slave trade in the late 17th century and early 18th centuries.

Some readers may be unaware that the guy in charge was James, 'Duke' of York. His slaves were all branded 'DY' on their foreheads. Then he became 'King' James II. Oh yes, and he's the guy that New York is named after. The Royal African Society was set up in London as soon as the royalist scumbags re-established the monarchy in 1660. Think of that, the next time you hear some idiot opine about the 'romantic' Stuart family.

Enough of a history lesson. It's my belief that the reason why no slavery museum exists in London is because it would upset the 'royal' family.