Challenges of Holocaust Representation - Essay Example

Due Challenges of Holocaust Representation Every individual or group of individuals making a society and/or a generation have a past to rehearse, and so is often talked about with some form of certainty of perceived knowledge, giving events making that history specificity irrespective of the generation in their custody. But what process is really appreciable when documenting/formulating opinions of events of the past that we as a generation did not witness? Noteworthy from the very outset is the fact that in a few years, living survivors of the Holocaust itself will be no more, and that although many observers, more so the historians have acknowledged this fact, the impact of the event itself is already underway with a host of unwarranted importations in expressive literature. Also important to note is the very fact that history, written or expressed in any other form, must at least in part, be seen as a representational reality based on the review and acceptance of factual data, otherwise, such representation becomes intolerably offensive both to the survivors and the rear generations with the desire to have a glimpse of the past (Hartman 193). Any testimony of the supposed witness must therefore be weighed and valued against the very significance of silence, for latter, as practice well regarded also acts as a revered preserve of memory; a ‘minute of silence’ in commemorating the dead is but a familiar practice in modern times the world over. A dignified silence may well be of great value in the face of such a moral quandary. Indeed as Lanzmann put it, events such as the Holocaust are but unique; so o the extent that they create boundaries not to be crossed, and silence may well serve as the safest zone to be reached by the enemy (2). The problem of the impossibility of total objectivity in documentation of history, and the holocaust to be precise, always faces quite a lot of challenges. First and foremost, “error is to human”, so is old adage, for with the human element added to the process of cataloguing of empirical data, out of necessity, interpretation occasionally creeps as evident almost in the entire film Shoah, in effect, initiating in earnest a debate of the sort over the correctness of each and every version of thoughts therein. It is undeniable, more so in academics, that historian, and so to other writers delving on certain topics, only have absolute authority over they produce, and that at no time can /will they be seen as the ultimate authority over any given piece of history, the holocaust included. Accordingly, they [historians] history compile their content based not merely on whether evidence adduced in their analysis is true or false, but also based on their thoughts; giving meaning at times on events larger than what they deliver to their audience. Irrespective of the circumstances and armed with the supposed God given intellect, historians often immerse themselves into historical record, in the end drawing conclusive meanings in relation to the documentary evidence before them, occasionally oblivious of the danger of such certainties. Inherent in such conclusions is coloration of past of past events with own prejudices, beliefs and unwarranted opinions that more than distorts inclination of originality. All other factors held constant, however, to what extent should such prejudices, beliefs and opinions color historical events? The answer remains a choice, with one side of the divide promoting a positivistic ideal, marshaling efforts to keep the history as original as possible devoid of own biases, with the beliefs that the only requisite element in compiling data is the expertise that they already have, admitting ignorance even in the face of missing crucial evidence, as other side allows the free flow of imaginative thoughts, picking events at will and addressing them in the light of existing theories [those developed as recent as the 21st century included], in the end reconstructing own versions of events for which there are no record: “Variables and constants can be distinguished in the procedure of Nazi railway transports. We cannot know whether this procedure was based on a regulation or whether the functionaries in charge had a free hand” (Primo 2). Regardless of the approach used in compiling history of the event, defects in objective delivery cannot be ruled out in the article, for often times what comes to be known as the historical reality are but the results of interpretation of the knowns and the unknowns; both incorporated in the article. Further, the basis of such interpretations cannot be considered the same given the differing depths of the filtering of evidentiary data, all of which are at the mercy of convergent biases and personal experiences of those doing the interpretation. The question of the numbers killed in the Holocaust, for instance, remains a hotly debated one, with varied accounts giving whatever values in their estimates could have been correct. Creating a kind of side debate, Berenbaum estimates the number of Romanies killed in the Holocaust by the Nazis “somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of the entire population of European Romanies” (129), drawing the figures from the 250,000 displayed at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum; number considered gross underestimations by other writers on the same. Also discussing the numbers of the Romanies killed in the same event, The Memorial Book for the Romanies states that given the absence of pre- and post-war census data to enable a comparative analysis of numbers of the Gypsies, it is impossible to find the actual number of Gypsy victims (Hancock 244). Given the glaring differences, of expertise included, the interpretation of the written documentation of the holocaust and the formulation of the master narrative runs parallel at any given time. Berenbaum confirms the same nearly in every topic dealt with in the text, most notably with regards to what exactly motivated of the members of Einsatzgruppen into committing mass murder as they did, noting that historians are themselves divided on the subject, with a quite a number employing deductive reasoning to give conclusive answers (97-101). Christopher Browning, in particular, combines a host of derivative factors that include extraordinary circumstances coalescing with “peer pressure, careerism, obedience to orders, and group solidarity”, gradually overcoming moral inhibitions within them[members of Einsatzgruppen] into fulfilling the regime wishes (Berenbaum 102-105). Indeed by its definition, history is but attempts to document past events, keeping personal inferences at bay as much as possible. Rather than allowing such events to give meaning to missing data, many historians have instead claimed the existing lacunas by authoring their own version of the master narrative, and so has been the history of the holocaust. With no specific author of the master narrative in the subject, therefore, the data collection of the event depended much on the public acceptance rather than on interpretation of other writers, in effect, making individual colorations in the master narrative entirely subjective. Accordingly, authors and filmmakers, may consciously or unconsciously use interpretations /opinions already accepted to build believable stories, in the process, cutting out fats and adding own thoughts forwarded to latter generations in inaccurate forms. Of the materials provided, it would be hard to doubt Primo Levi’s firsthand accounts of the humanitys darkest moments in the holocaust. In his own writing, he vividly recalls the experiences he survived as a prisoner himself, making it difficult to find anyone with more eloquence in telling of a heart wrenching story the holocaust was. Work cited Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust As Told in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Washington D.C.: United States Holocaust Museum, 1993. Print. Hancock, Ian and Dileep Karanth. Danger! Educated Gypsy: Selected Essays. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2010. Print. Hartman, Geoffrey H. “Learning from Survivors: The Yale Testimony Project.” Holocaust and Genocide Studies 9.2 (Fall 1995): 192-207. Print. Lanzmann, Claude. From the holocaust to Holocaust. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. Primo, Levi. “Useless Violence”. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. Shoah. Dir. Lanzman, Claude. Perf. Simon Srebnik, Mordechai Podchlebnik, Motke Zaidl, Hanna Zaidl, Jan Piwonski, Richard Glazar, Rudolf Vrba . New Yorker Films, 1985. Film. Read More