Debriefing

In class today we debriefed from our visit to the concentration camp, attempting to digest and make sense of what we saw. There was a general consensus that nothing new or significant was learned. Rather, another element, a visual layer, was added to our sense of understanding the Holocaust and concentration camps. These continued thoughts from our visit may seem disconnected from one another - similar to how we will always be disconnected to the camps, no matter how hard we try. There is no logic to these thoughts, just as there is no logic to these camps.

Someone saw the following etched onto a wall within the barracks by a former prisoner:

"If there is a God, He must plead for my forgiveness." A perspective we cannot even imagine or attempt to understand.

We discussed the memorials we saw, and how all memorials are political. They honor the victims in words which further that particular nation's political agenda - this is inevitable. They build the victims into a political or national model, whether consciously or subconsciously. Can there be an apolitical monument?

The 2003 plaques (shown on yesterday's blog) commemorating the American liberating forces almost seemed unnecessary. They seem to be the typical American response, glorifying the heros. This place is not about America and its Allied accomplishments, but it is about the victims. The plaques, although nice and appropriate in the correct context, seem violating here. Is there ever a correct context though?

It was stated that to fully grasp the situation of the camps one must oscillate between commemorating the individual and commemorating the mass. Is this the reason for the monuments outside of the camp?

Deaths in Mauthausen were mostly political, thus may it be appropriate to have or erect political monuments here?

Was there any fluidity in viewing and entering the gas chambers? The chambers were full during the war with the victims. Today, the chambers are filled with tourists and us. Is this an ironic fluidity or is this emotional vandalism?

In Ruth Kluger's biography, she protests against visiting these concentration camps, stating that tourism and visiting them only serves to glorify the crimes committed there. However, is there a middle ground, fluctuating between individual stories and guided tours? Is there a similar middle ground between glorifying or punishing the individuals involved in the Holocaust (war generals, surviving SS members) versus glorifying or punishing the mass victims and soldiers?

Is a compromise possible? May visiting under an educational premise with a tour guide be a compromise? When we were there, there were bikers visiting the barracks, children running and screaming, and laughing, families taking pictures, and pure ignorance by the majority of the viewers. Is less foot-traffic and a lessening of the "family-outing" mentality the answer? Who determines the bounds of regulating human behavior?

In regards to the camps, is time a dimension or rather a diminishing factor, lessening the importance and impact of a past history? When studying something, does a visual response strip away the academic element and force an emotional and physical visceral response? Does it place us in a place beyond and deeper than empathy?

Seeing the camps paralyzes the analytical factor - it is easy to analyze and speculate, but visual processing forces the experience to become more personal. We are disconnected, yet somehow drawn in, kicking and screaming, scared to enter the place of facing the truth. As I said before, I didn't learn any key information regarding concentration camps of the Holocaust which I did not know before. Rather, another element was layered upon my own understanding of the past events. The analyzing is now diminished.

There are layers to this unique, atrocious event, to visiting the camps, to cultivating responses. Questions such as "how do we regulate 'appropriate' visits and responses without actually regulating and making the camps less accessible," or "is joy even allowed amongst the now green grass and flowers and laughing kids?" Are the children we saw laughing and enjoying their visit not allowed to have a childhood of their own within the bounds of the camp since the children imprisoned in the concentration camps did not have childhoods? There are many questions, but somehow these questions seem satisfying in themselves. Answers are often unattainable.

Upon entering and touring the camp, I did have preconceived notions of how I would feel and how I should feel. I had judgments against the monuments. I still do not completely grasp them, nor do I believe that the monuments and the tourists lessen the glorification of the camp. I do not regret visiting, but I also would not go again. I appreciate the visual element which I gathered, but emotionally I remained numb - digestion and understanding are only just beginning.

Often visitors project their moral beliefs onto the victims. Does being the victim purify the person? We assume that yes, being victimized does purify that person, and thus we hold them to a higher moral standard.

What is the correct response?