Why teach the Holocaust?

A critically informed rationale for teaching about the Holocaust in a particular curriculum subject

Andrea Szőnyi

Introduction

Holocaust, Holocaust education, rationale - these are ideas used in the belief that the same coding and decoding system is applied when talking about them. We believe we understand each other and the words bear the same meaning for all of us. There are instances though, when however much one understands the words themselves, they seem to receive a different meaning – or no meaning whatsoever – in a given context.

When settling down to develop a “critically informed rationale for teaching about the Holocaust” as the title suggests, I cannot help but mention that my global perspective is largely influenced by my local context. My worries require further explanation.

A rationale: this genre itself does not exist in mainstream education in Hungary. Teachers do not know or understand what this is. To break this ignorance a ‘rationale for the rationale’ should be expressed here.

A clear identification of the purpose of the rationale itself is needed. Samuel Totten writes: “Lessons and units of study bereft of controlling principles often lack clearly delineated goals and objectives” (2004: 7)

What is the purpose of such a rationale?

Using Totten’s classification (2004) by creating rationales we can:

· identify purpose

· develop goals and objectives

· focus ideas, identify priorities

· select content

· select pedagogical strategies

· avoid pitfalls

Context

Context defines approach, arguments and content. Arguments for teaching about the Holocaust can universally be very similar. Comparing the fundamental documents of leading institutions in Holocaust education - the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the International Task Force for Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research or the Holocaust Education Development Programme - we find them very similar. When developing a rationale, the key concepts influencing the state of Holocaust education in a Hungarian context cannot be left unconsidered.

· Hungary and its role in World War II

In both world wars Hungary fought as an ally of the losing party. After World War I, with the Treaty of Trianon, two-thirds of Hungary’s territory was lost. This remains a trauma in the national conscience of Hungarians to this day. In World War II, Hungary was an ally of Nazi Germany, thus a perpetrator. In the view of many, Hungary is also a victim: it was invaded by the Nazis. Being a victim and a perpetrator at the same time results in confusion in approaching the topic of the Holocaust. This confusion in the attitude is even deepened by the fact that Hungarian administration and many of the civil population were active participants in the deportations, which is something entirely difficult to face.

· Communist dictatorship after World War II

Hungary shares the history with other Eastern European countries of living under a Communist dictatorship, which adds to the victim-status and results in a “competition of sufferings” as well as belittling or attempting to ignore the Holocaust. In this respect, a large proportion of Hungarian society behaves like the ethnic groups described by Salmons.

Students from cultural and ethnic backgrounds that have long histories of prejudice and discrimination need their own pain to be acknowledged before they examine the experience of victims of Nazi persecution.

(Salmons, 2003:147)

· Jewish community

Unlike other Eastern European countries, Hungary has a living, diverse, and considerable Jewish community; this makes attitudes toward Holocaust education even more complicated.

Hungary has a tragic national history, was controlled by a Communist dictatorship for more than 40 years, it is linguistically isolated, and has a large yet fragmented Jewish community at the present time.

· Initiatives in education

Holocaust education cannot be treated independent of the facts above: since Hungarian society has not yet faced - and seems to have little intention to face – its role in the Holocaust, there is no clear standpoint towards Holocaust education. There have been initiatives in the past few years – the introduction of the Holocaust Memorial Day among others - but in many cases these remain de jure decisions and whatever de facto happens in schools depends on the individual teacher or school administration. Students learn about the Holocaust as part of the History curriculum which, due to linear History teaching, does not happen until students are nearly18 years old.

Holocaust education in a special context: Hungary

“Controversy can be a great silencer” (Riley, 2001: 151).

“The Holocaust occupies a prominent place in the collective memory of the UK.” – writes Paul Salmons in the opening sentence of his essay (2003:139). Let me alter this sentence to be descriptive of Hungary: The Holocaust does not occupy a prominent place in the collective memory of Hungary.

Why is it especially important to teach about the Holocaust in this context?

· Lack of knowledge

People know very little about the Holocaust. Survey results of 2003 and 2006 show that although 79 % of the population had heard the term Holocaust, when asked about its meaning, the following results were received (2003):

Table 1. What does Holocaust mean? What comes to your mind when you hear it?

(Kovács, 2005:207)

If these results are compared with international data, we find that Hungarian population is less informed in this respect than people in Western European countries.

… more than half of Hungarian adult population (55%) does not reach even the average knowledge level measured in the whole of the population and only a very small group of the population (2%) has more serious knowledge about the Holocaust (table 3).

Table 3. Level of knowledge of the Hungarian adult population (%)

(Kovács, 2005:209)

· Definitions

It is impossible to teach about something that is not clearly defined. The word Holocaust is often used in public discourse - even too frequently – but it is used as an empty term, without content. Sadly, the meaning is often blurred and the term universalized. In contrast to the clear and precise definitions of the term given by leading international institutions in Holocaust education, we find that no major Hungarian institution has clear definitions of this term.

· Difficulty in constructing historical identity

“Not facing the past can be fatal for the democracy of the present and the future”( Kovács& Meissner, 2001: 5). Facing the past is essential to construct historical identity. This may be even more true in traumatized societies: trauma prevails, even if unspoken of. Hungary has not yet faced the trauma of the Holocaust and the role individual members of the society played in it. Second and third generation Hungarians – not only descendants of Holocaust survivors - have to understand the nature of this trauma so that they can react and reconcile. Remembrance can cure personal and social trauma.

· Comparing suffering

Hungary often falls into the trap of avoiding understanding the Holocaust and entering into a competition of sufferings. Riley explains that historical integrity is compromised if comparison is drawn (2001). At the same time, other victim groups should receive their proper place and attention, whereas – referring back to definitions – differences have to be made clear and sufferings of others also have to be justified.

Approaches in Holocaust Education

When the question of how to approach the topic - what to put in primary focus, what objectives to set up - is raised, educators seem to have various answers. The historical approach is voted for with a chronology of an extended list of facts. Others put more emphasis on the social aspect: the Holocaust can be viewed as the “culmination of the worst qualities in civilization: hatred … , intolerance, genocide” (Mach, 2004: 23).

Yet others focus more on the moral aspect: the role of individual responsibility. Students should know that we are all responsible for our actions, that we should raise our voices and take actions in the face of evil. Some educators believe that students have to be presented with the Holocaust from a more emotional perspective, saying this has a more powerful impact than historical facts.

Whatever our approach to Holocaust education is, the uniqueness of the subject has to be stressed. As Ian Gregory puts it, the Holocaust is a “singular” event in history and human history (2000:49).

Most often, Holocaust is taught in History class, as is the case in Hungary. Approached as a historical event in the past, the Holocaust comes in chronological order and lacks the emphasis on “singularity”. Rather, it is taught as an event similar to the Napoleonic Wars or the history of the Etrusces.

Tolerance education is the other area: it serves as a ‘cover’ for Holocaust education. The Holocaust is often used as an example of other contemporary events of hostility, stereotype, and prejudice. Applied exclusively, this approach too, narrows our understanding of the Holocaust.

… to ransack the Holocaust simply in order to highlight some point about historical method or explanation, even to highlight a point about prejudice and its role in human affairs, is to be too disrespectful of the victims of the Nazi genocide.

(Gregory, 2000:49)

Clearly, the Shoah cannot be taught without the appropriate historical knowledge; at the same time there are far more related issues which must appear in education. When we teach about the Holocaust, we also teach about the “unimaginable suffering” and the “differing degrees of human wickedness and indifference” (Gregory, 2000:50) - moral questions. Thus, this subject is not just another unit in a textbook to be memorized. Furthermore, study of the Holocaust also tells us about human potentials, so a discussion of this area should also be included. At the same time, putting unnecessary stress on the moral aspect is questionable. Very often, however noble the intention is, teachers use Holocaust education as an event which future society can take moral lessons from, which again turns out to be a simplification of the subject. “Another … pedagogical difficulty is that the Holocaust may be perceived … as a rather distant event which is used ‘merely’ as an example … to teach tolerance” (Davies, 2000:5). Conclusively, “tolerance and teaching about the Holocaust have an uneasy relationship” (Gregory, 2000:51)

Holocaust education should combine the elements of both historical and moral approaches. Casting an eye again on the special context in Hungary, I immediately contradict myself and the content of the previous sentences. There are special instances, when reality overwrites the ideal. In Hungary, most frequently, the greatest achievement is to teach the Holocaust from this moral aspect, disguised in the soft robe of Tolerance education. Sadly, even this is considered a great step.

Why teach and what approach to choose?

Our presentation of the Holocaust – regardless of the context – has to focus on the notion that the Holocaust is the most important single event in twentieth century history. We should educate about it, rather than merely pass on information. Students need to know both: historical facts and the significance they bear for the present and the future. Holocaust education should link the study of the past and connect it with the present and the future.

However cleverly we focus on any of the individual components, we cannot be successful. When teaching about the history of the Holocaust, we must focus not only on what happened and when but also on how and why – undertaking historical enquiry - in order to create historical understanding. “Instructors who focus primarily on the whats, whens … but ignore the whys leave students bereft of essential knowledge” (Totten, 2004: 9) Our rationale should be based on historical facts, a necessary condition, but should be completed with other equally relevant factors. Facts must be made sense of; they serve as the basis of historical thinking. History serves as the “bedrock for informed discussion about larger issues” (Davies, 2000:55). At the same time, we have to build our moral understanding on the historical facts yet an emotional response is not to be avoided. “There has to be a clear rational thought as well as an emotional response”(Davies, 2000:5). “…when developing rationale statements one should develop them on both cognitive and affective levels – the mind, knowledge and thinking as well as the heart, emotions, and feelings” (Totten, 2004: 9).

The importance of programmes, which place primary focus on revealing social and psychological processes leading to the Holocaust is discussed by Kovács (2001). In order to understand these processes, students - apart from learning about the chronology of events - must understand “the motives of the perpetrators and passive bystanders and identify with the rescuers too, not only with the victims” (Kovács, 2001:5).

To teach the complexity of certain aspects, equal stress should be given to processes that turned individual people, “ordinary men” into perpetrators, “willing executioners” (Goldhagen, 1996) or bystanders and victims and to show there were choices not taken and ask the question why? (Browning, 1998:223) However, students should also know that some choices were ‘choiceless’. Understanding this complexity might lead them to identify dangers for democracy in our own society, and to realize the importance of respecting human rights, and consciously taking up social responsibility to protect democratic institutions. Dealing with problems of responsibility for the Holocaust (and the role played by Hungary) is a precondition for members of the society to rebuild their own historical identity.

One important thing for teachers to stress is that there were people in these historical situations. We teach children: we have to show them the people behind the historical facts, and, in this way, connect macro- and micro-history. Moreover, we have to show how these individual people or smaller communities lived their everyday lives before the Nazi ideology, using modern industry, exterminated most of them. In addition, it must not be forgotten that Holocaust is part of national history too. The history of the nation cannot be presented without the history of the Jews as discussed by Tomaszewski (2004): it is common history. It incorporates issues like doing justice to the dead and the reconsideration of national-Jewish relations.

One of our complex tasks in education is to show both individuals as well as the diversity of human behaviour. At the same time being too didactic by claiming the supremacy of morality should be avoided. Facts and their significance, events and people, reality and emotional reactions to this reality should be presented.

The emotional aspect is to be handled with care though. Ian Davies writes:

… to leave students unmoved by the Holocaust, to have exposed students to the Holocaust and for them not to have felt he misery and degradation of the victims of Nazi ideological fantasies, is not to have done justice to the horrors constitutive of the Holocaust. Teaching about the Holocaust cannot be and must not be an intellectual exercise alone.

(Davies, 2000:58)

I believe that teachers should be very careful about showing the horrors and suffering. Graphic images can be contra-productive in education. They can alienate students, which works against our intentions: we want to bring students closer, thus using the most appropriate educational tools is of utmost importance. It is within our educational competence to select the right sources for the given age group, something we can use the most effectively.

Teachers should always offer a complex framework. I highly agree with Davies (2000) that Holocaust education must evoke a conjoining intellectual and emotional response, but context, target group, age and other factors are to be considered. “The premier demand upon all education is that Auschwitz not happen again” (Adorno, 2003:19).Yes, “we owe” the survivors “no less than to ensure their voice is heard and the lessons learned” (Davies, 2000: 59). But not at all cost - so the approach must be chosen carefully.

Educational value and relation of project to rationale

As schooling has a crucial role in forming students’ opinion about the world, it has a crucial role in presenting values. If there is a strong value-based standpoint from the educational side, students will feel more secure in approaching this complex past history and will be able to construct their historical identity. Furthermore, historical enquiry can stimulate students to formulate their questions, confront their ideas and find answers for themselves.

As explained before, it is impossible to understand the persecution and extermination of a people without understanding their life. It is impossible to approach death without showing life first. If life is left out, the picture that students get remains fragmentary, something that is very hard to relate to. Our project introduces the past, the flourishing life of the Budapest Jewry as well as the events of the Holocaust in the same geographical area: the Jewish district of Budapest, which also comprised the Jewish ghetto in 1944. The educational value of teaching about the Holocaust in relation to the Jewish district is very special. In this way, distant past, recent past and present can be linked: life, near extermination and the struggles for revival. Our on-site, peer-guided, informal educational programme is to be completed with educational lessons based on personal testimonies related to the area. We plan to integrate what has been argued for above into our project.

Not being a history teacher myself, I argue for an interdisciplinary approach. I believe that with the proper historical context – a result of cooperation between History teachers and teachers of other subjects - the Holocaust could and should be taught integrated in other subjects. Holocaust is something much more than an historical event, why should it be then framed exclusively into a History class? Yet, proper teacher training should be provided for all educators wishing to deal with this subject.

Conclusion

There are four answers enlisted in the document entitled Why teach the Holocaust? published by the Holocaust Education Development Programme of the Institute of Education. One of the answers is the sentence already quoted above: “The Holocaust occupies a significant place in our collective memory.”

I believe we have to teach the Holocaust in Hungary so that it occupies a significant place in our collective memory.

Bibliography

Adorno, T. W. (2003) ‘Education after Auschwitz’, in Rolf Tiedemann (ed.) Can one Live after Auschwitz? Stanford, California, Stanford University Press

Bauer, Y. (2001) Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven , Yale University Press

Braham, R.L. (2000) The Politics of genocide: the Holocaust in Hungary. Wayne State University Press

Braham, R. L. (2004) The Treatment of the Holocaust in Hungary and Romania during the post-communist era, ed. Randolph Braham, Boulder, Co, East European Monographs

Brown, M & Davies, I. (1998) ‘The Holocaust and Education for Citizenship: the teaching of history, religion and human rights in England’, Education Review 50, (1), 75-83

Brown, M. & Davies, I.(1998) ‘The Holocaust and Education for Citizenship: the teaching of history, religion and human rights in England’, Educational Review 50, (1), 75-83.

Davies, I. (2000) Teaching the Holocaust: Educational Dimensions, Principles and Practice. London, Continuum International Publishing Group

Foster, S. J. (2001) ‘Historical Empathy in Theory and Practice: Some Final thoughts’, in

Davies, Jr. O.L. and Yeager, E. A. and Foster, S.J. (eds.) Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies. Boston, Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Goldhagen, D. (1996) Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York, Knopf

Hannah Arendt Association (2001) Holokasztoktatás és Autonómiára Nevelés (Holocaust and Autonomy Education) Mónika Kovács (ed.) Hungary, Hannah Arendt Association

Hannah Arendt Association (2005) Holokauszt: Történelem és Emlékezet (Holocaust: History and Remembrance) Mónika Kovács (ed.) Hungary, Jaffa

Hosszú, Gy. (2002) Utak a holokauszthoz, történetek a holokausztról (Ways to the Holocaust, stories about the Holocaust) Debrecen, Pedellus

Kovács, A. (2005) A kéznél lévő idegen – Antiszemita előítéletek a mai Magyarországon. Budapest, PolgArt (The Alien at Hand – Antisemitic Prejudice in Contemporary Hungarary)

Krónika Nova (1997) Szemtől szemben a történelemmel és önmagunkkal: a holokauszt és az emberi természet. Zsuzsa Gáspár (ed.) (Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and the human nature) Budapest, 1997, Krónika Nova Kiadó

Mach, Z. (2004) ‘The Memory of the Holocaust and Education for Europe’ in Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, J. & Hondo, L. (eds.) Why should we teach about the Holocaust? Cracow, Judaica Foundation. Center for Jewish Studies

Riley, K.L. (2001) ‘The Holocaust and Historical Empathy: The Politics of Understanding’

in Davies, Jr. O.L. and Yeager, E. A. (eds.) Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies. Boston, Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Russell, L. (2004) ‘The problems of Teaching the Holocaust in the History Classroom’ FORUM 46, (3), 100-103.

Salmons, P. (2003) ‘Teaching or Preaching? The Holocaust and intercultural education in the UK’, Intercultural Education 14, (2), 139-149.

Short G. & Reed C. (2004) Issues in Holocaust Education. England, Ashgate

Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education (2003), Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust: documents of the Education Working Group

Tomaszewski, J. (2004) ‘Why’ in Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, J. & Hondo, L. (eds.) Why should we teach about the Holocaust? Cracow, Judaica Foundation. Center for Jewish Stuides

Totten, S. (2004) Issues of Rationale in Teaching about Genocide: Issues, Approaches, and Resources. Totten, S. (ed.) USA, Information Age Publishing Inc.