In 1978, efforts began to construct, organize, and open the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Early on, the project proved to be complex and laden with various controversies. In Edward T. Linenthal’s Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum, he depicts the decision-making process of the President’s Commission on the Holocaust and how its members attempted to resolve various issues. Of particular interest within the first few chapters is the question of inclusion: should the museum focus only on Jewish Holocaust victims? Would including “other victims” of other ethnicities deter from the Commission’s initial goal of memorializing and remembering the Jewish experience? In the years since the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s opening in 1993 the public has resurrected those questions that so plagued the minds of the Commission members for years.
Throughout the initial meetings of the Commission, chairman Elie Wiesel expressed his hopes for the Holocaust Memorial Museum as a living memorial to the memory of the Holocaust. Through this memory, he wanted the Museum to depict the uniqueness of the Jewish experience during the Holocaust. When public and political leaders from other ethnicities expressed their desire to include “other victims” into the permanent exhibit, Wiesel was hesitant. Although he agreed that other ethnicities influenced by the Holocaust should have a place in the museum, Wiesel was still unsure about the motives of the political leaders. He was also worried that once “other victims” besides Jews were included into the Museum that the uniqueness of the Jewish story of the Holocaust would be lost. (113) The debate that ensued caused multiple members to resign their positions in the commission. Finally they agreed to “careful[ly]” include the stories of the “other victims” into the exhibit. (139)
According to Fath Davis Ruffins, the overall outcome of the Holocaust Memorial Museum was a “triumphant success.” In her article “Culture Wars Won and Lost,” Ruffins expresses the fact that some historians and history professionals appreciate the Museum as a living memorial to the Holocaust and comprehend its essential role in remembering the uniqueness of the event. (87) While this small portion of the American population has an educated understanding of the Museum, Ruffins continues to say that most non-Jewish Americans interpret the Museum as a “narrative” of Jewish culture, leading them to associate the Jewish culture with the “bleakest aspect” of their history rather than embrace the rich heritage they possess. (88)
Similar to Ruffins’ depictions, Anson Rabinbach forms the argument that the Jewish-American population is subject to be only associated with the Holocaust. In his article “From Explosion to Erosion,” Rabinbach even goes so far as to saying that the “Americanization” of the Holocaust has resulted in a superficial interpretation of the Jewish culture. Popular movies, documentaries, and the institutionalization of the Holocaust have subjected the historical event to American popular culture, desensitizing people to the importance and memory of the Holocaust. Rabinbach goes so far as to blame the Holocaust Memorial Museum for the “inevitable erosion of Holocaust memory.” (227) Instead of a memorial of remembrance, Rabinbach believes that the Holocaust Memorial Museum has steered the memory of the Jewish history toward a “worrisome” path. (242)
Throughout Linenthal’s book Preserving Memory, the debate on including “other victims” into the Holocaust Memorial Museum persisted until its opening. Commission members agreed to include other ethnicities which ultimately contributed to preserving the complete memory of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, a new issue arose when Americans began misinterpreting the Museum’s message as a display of Jewish culture rather than a significant historical event. To some, it is this superficial view of the Holocaust that is contributing to the erosion of true Jewish heritage.
No comments:
Post a Comment