Reentry

I'm finally back home - it was a long flight! It feels good to be home in my own bed and eating dinners with my family, but it is weird to drive a car again and to buy a week's worth of groceries in one day. Even in the simple things - no pastry and melange for breakfast, no lunch at the deli in the city, no walking a mile before even eating breakfast, much less lunch! Going from living in a city for a month where everything is packed into a relatively small area, and where each encounter is an intense burst of energy - whether it be riding the U-Bahn or fighting through the crowds in the city center to get to class on time - to living back in the states where there is so much space and silence and no ability to just walk and explore and wander without boredom is such an odd transition.

Not only is it difficult transitioning back into a daily routine where walking seven miles and being out from 9am to 9pm is not required, but it is difficult to translate what I have seen into everyday conversation.

People ask me what I liked best, what thing was my favorite, to see pictures, and to hear my stories. I find it hard, though, to explain my answers to them, especially because all a person really wants to hear is the sentence-long answer with the most exciting details. However, the exciting bits were not the fabric of my trip; rather, the everyday mundane activities and interactions were the bulk of my experience. Making new friends, hiding away in the booth of a coffeehouse to people watch, eating scoop upon scoop of gelato, running to catch the subway to make it to class, getting lost and agonizing over the map looking like tourists, and then finally being addressed in German while walking - blending in and being mistaken for an actual Austrian - those were the pieces of the trip I remember best and which I treasure the most. So when I am asked about my favorites and about the bests, I don't have an answer. Nor do I show the 5,000 pictured I managed to take. Rather, I stumble over my words and give a noncommittal round-about answer about the Alps and the sacher cakes and the churches.

Not only is it difficult to describe my trip and identify its very essence and bones, but it is even harder to relate my experiences with the Viennese identity and experience. Throughout the month I have had the opportunity to talk with Austrians and Americans living in Austria about their view on Austria (politics, religion, and society), and I have seen Austria's own interpretation of itself through its museums and monuments. My attempts to reconcile the facts of history with personal perspectives and with the reality of Austrian architecture and monuments has not been easy. How does one reconcile that Hitler was a product of Austria and that Austrians were overjoyed when annexed into Germany, yet with hindsight Hitler was one of the most destructive and abusive men in history? How does an Austrian reconcile the monument to the Jewish man wrapped in barbed wire while honoring those Austrian non-Jews who were simply "victims of war and fascism" - do they honor one above the other or both equally? Is maintaining the concentration camps a form of glorifying the Holocaust, abusing its history (while ignorant tourists laugh and play within the barren barracks), or educating the public?

I honestly do not believe that it is possible, nor necessary, to find a harmonious balance and reconciliation between these truths - sometimes all we can do as humans is actively participate in the history of the present and learn about the history of the past. These things may not make absolute sense together, but they have occurred and they do exist, and so we must accept them and try to understand them as individual aspects of Austrian culture.

This trip has allowed me a rare and amazing glimpse into a people's pieced together culture - a culture not clearly defined; suppressed under a monarchy, dragged into a war, and then the victim and participant in a subsequent war. This nation without a defined character has taught me the uniqueness of its culture, drawing me into its fibers and allowing me to languish in its imperial majesty. Not only have I had the opportunity to meet people from the world over, but I have seen history face to face, touched its relics, and studied its traces. Vienna has been such a rewarding experience, and to say that I learned more in one month abroad than two years at Davis would be an understatement - I have never retained a subject matter so intensely and with so much detail as I have in learning about the Habsburgs. Translating my experiences into daily conversation may take some time, as I am still digesting some of the most intense moments (Mauthausen, etc), but what I gained from this trip I will always carry with me.

Rath Heuriger

29 August 2010

Tonight we had the opportunity to visit a wine garden (heuriger), one of the most traditional and oldest in the area. The Rath Heuriger is 170 years old, and is located about an hour from our apartments in Vienna. When we arrived, the heuriger looked beautiful and quaint.

Located among crabapple trees and long green grass, picnic tables were scattered throughout and people were sitting amongst them drinking their specialty wine from mugs. Here they serve their current year's vintage - a white wine cuvee - and it is so popular that they are only open for a scant four weeks during the summer, when their supply runs out and they are forced to close for the year. They serve no formal food, but offer an array of various German sides - german potato salad, three spreads with brown bread, cheeses, and more. Is it the essence of the Viennese spirit - good company, good wine, and fresh air.

The history of wine in Austria is quite older than Rath itself. In 700 BC, vitis vinifera seeds (the most common wine grape varietal) were found in a Celtic grave, since Austria and Vienna were both inhabited by Celtic peoples before the region was conquered by the Romans. In the first century AD, the land of Pannonia was established, inhabited continuously by both Celtics and Romans. Emperor Marcus Aurelius lifted the prohibition placed on cultivating new vines, temporarily spiking an interest in winemaking. After this however, history was not kind to the wine industry and interest weakened. It wasn't until Charlemagne permitted vintners to serve young wine (that year's vintage) in Heurigen and introduced German varietals that an interest in wine was re-cultivated. The Cisterican order of monks cleared forest land and planted vines, controlling most of the region's wine production. Burgenland, south of Vienna, was granted extensive privileges by Mary the Hungarian queen in producing wine (wein-plus.com/austrian_guide/Burgenland). The Esterhazy family was an important patron of the wine trade, being the largest land owner in the Burgenland region - our visit to Eisenstadt a few weeks ago was full of posters for the local wine festival. After the golden age of wine growing in the region during the 1600's, phylloxera (an insect which attacks vitis vinifera grapes and is a recent problem in the Napa valley) struck Burgenland, leaving the region to adapt and become a region known for its white wines. Interestingly enough, Stift Klosterneuburg - home to our canon friends - is the oldest and largest working winery in Austria, having been established in the 1100's as a source of revenue for the monastery (travel.nytimes.com).

Claim to Fame - In 1756, Riedel Crystal was founded in Austria, and now produces some of the world's most famous and notable stemware. It was founded amidst the seven year's war between Austria and Bohemia and was part of the Art Nouveau (Jugendstil) period, making first glass window panes and later crystal glassware (crystalclassics.com).

Having been schooled in wine from my own dad and having participated in the wine culture before this trip, it was a priceless experience to be able to partake in such an integral aspect of Austrian hospitality and culture.

The wine was truly unbelievable and the conversation was even better - who would have ever thought that I would be sitting in an Austrian wine garden drinking and laughing late into the night with friends I had not known until this trip? How blessed I am.

Recent Headlines

I have compiled articles from the New York Times and other relevant news resources concerning some of the museums we have visited, Vienna as a city, and the UN. Since my other posts tend to be long, I have decided to compile excerpts from these various articles and my responses to them in a concise narrative in one post.

NYTimes July 20, 2010 - "Leopold Museum to Pay $19 million for Painting Seized by Nazis" by Randy Kennedy - In 1938 an Egon Schiele painting ("Portrait of Wally" 1912) was seized by the Nazis from Lea Bondi Jaray, a Jewish gallery owner in Vienna. In 1954, Mr. Leopold acquired the Schiele painting through good faith and a legal transaction, making it part of his personal collection now housed at the Leopold Museum. In 1997 the painting was lent to the MOMA for a temporary exhibition, but was seized by the US government who claimed that Leopold did not have rightful ownership of the painting. The MOMA and the Leopold Museum believed the painting should be returned to the Leopold. However, the US government was stubborn in its insistence that the painting was not legally owned by the Leopold. In the end, the Leopold paid $19 million to the Jaray family for the Schiele painting, the painting spent some last weeks at the MOMA in a temporary exhibit, and the US government dismissed the case upon the Leopold Museum's payment for the painting. This entire situation is an ongoing struggle, with many families coming out and claiming that paintings within the Leopold and within the Belvedere collections were stolen by the Nazis and that they should be returned to the original owners. These legal cases are modern manifestations of the ongoing effects of the Nazi regime into the cultural realm of Vienna and eastern Europe as a whole.

NYTimes June 8, 2010 - "U.S. Presses Its Case Against Iran Ahead of Sanctions Vote" by David E. Sanger - Today at the U.N. we learned about the Non-Proliferation Treaty regarding nuclear weapons. Iran is a member of this treaty, but has been found in violation of many of its articles and in enriching uranium. There is an ongoing battle between the U.N. specialists and Iran, the U.N. asking why there are tests and nuclear materials unaccounted for and articles violated while the latter is stating its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. This article states that the U.S. is putting forth new information, revising its previous findings from 2007 that although production of Iran's nuclear fuel had increased, Iran's leadership had suspended work on nuclear weapons designs. However, the U.S. is now pressing for sanctions to be put on Iran by the U.N Security Council as the fourth round of votes for sanctions against Iran comes up. The U.N. and the Obama administration is presenting evidence to the Security Council showing that Iran has revived elements of its design program for nuclear weapons. According to the IAEA, suspicion of Iran's nuclear programs has risen due to its "possible military dimensions to its nuclear program" and that Iran "has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities." After today at the U.N., it seems that if Iran was truly using uranium and nuclear technology for peaceful activities, the tests and enrichment of uranium would be easily explained and there would be transparency regarding their tests and their actions. Iran's lack of cooperation seems to point to other uses of nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends. [This article is a follow up on an article from May 2010 which stated that Iran had expanded its work at its nuclear sites and that it has enough nuclear fuel for two nuclear weapons].

NYTimes July 13, 2010 - "U.S. Wary of South Korea's Plan to Rescue Nuclear Fuel" by Choe Sang-Hun - Aside from tensions with North Korea and Iran about their nuclear tests and production of nuclear weapons, tension between South Korea and the U.S. is beginning to emerge due to South Korea's desire to recycle nuclear fuel. The article states that South Korea is quickly running out of room to safely store used nuclear fuel, and has expressed interest in reusing this fuel for nuclear reactors which provide 40% of the nation's electricity and in reducing waste. However, S. Korea is still under an agreement with the U.S. from 1974 that prohibits the nation from recycling nuclear fuel since recycling produces plutonium which can then be used for both nuclear reactors (and thus electricity) and nuclear bombs (in the example of North Korea). S. Korea insists that its only aim is to reduce waste while producing electricity, but the U.S. has not lessened its suspicion on South Korea's attempts from the 1970s in making nuclear weapons and believes that it will set a precedent, thus encourage North Korea's nuclear weapons project since tensions between N. and S. Korea are also not diminishing. This entire situation revolves around politics more than it does science, especially since the U.S. has allowed India (not part of the NPT) to recycle its spent nuclear fuel. Even with alternative options such as pyroprocessing (the plutonium produced would not be pure enough to use in nuclear weapons) and recycling the fuel outside of S. Korea, the United States remains overtly wary of South Korea's attempts at nuclear recycling.

NYTimes July 9, 2010 - "Vienna Still a Spot for Cloak-and-Dagger Work" by Nicholas Kulish - This article discusses Vienna's role as an international city, especially in regards to the recent exchange between agents at the Viennese international airport. Vienna is the home of the United Nations in Vienna, contains the IAEA, the UNODC, and is a key city between the east and the west. During the Cold War, Vienna was at the edge of the Iron Curtain yet remained neutral, encouraging spies to conduct business here; only spying against Austria is a crime - espionage in itself is legal. Even Vienna's high concentration of emigrants contributes to a high number of intelligence officers within the city reporting on political and social dissidence within these communities. However, in contrast to the still high concentration of intelligence officials and espionage activities within Vienna, the Mercer Human Resource Consulting firm listed Vienna as its most livable city in the world. This second NYTimes article ("The Best Place to Live?" by H.D.S. Greenway, May 26, 2010) states that "Vienna used to seem a little sad - all those grand imperial buildings with no empire left, stuck on a dead-end street at Western Europe's Cold War frontier. But with the Iron Curtain gone, Vienna is once again at the center of the Central European crossroads and is enjoying its place in the sun." Having seen both the imperial side of Vienna at the Hofburg and the diplomatic side of Vienna at the U.N., I can agree that Vienna is a meeting place of intelligence officers for good reason, yet I can more than readily agree with the second article stating that the tension between imperial with no empire and an old Cold War center with a war no longer cold is finally being reconciled, producing a city culturally, diplomatically, and historically beautiful.

The U.N.

Today's visit to the United Nations in Vienna was amazing. I wasn't sure what to expect, especially since I study neither modern history nor political and international relations, but the lectures were interesting and engaging nonetheless. We arrived and went through security, officially leaving Austrian territory. We were able to sit in the cafe for a while and soak it all up before our tour guide arrived.

Our tour guide first led us into one of the viewing rooms for the main conference room, telling us about who attends these conferences and the obstacles regarding languages. There are six official languages within the United Nations, those being English, French, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish. German is also spoken at the Vienna UN since it is in Austria, but it is not considered an official language. Interpreters must know on average three languages upon being hired, but they are only allowed to translate for 30 minutes before taking a break. Translators are responsible for not only translating a conference from its given language into their mother tongue and perhaps a third language, but they are also responsible for conveying notions, concepts, and subtleties with little to no delay. To work as an interpreter for the UN, interpretation studies is not necessary, but the fluent knowledge of three languages is a must.

After viewing the conference room, we were led into a smaller lecture hall where a representative for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was waiting for us. His lecture gave us a brief overview of the UN's role and responsibilities concerning the production and use of nuclear sources.

The IAEA's motto is "Atoms for Peace," conveying their governing principle of promoting the peaceful use of atomic energy. The organization grew out of an idea initiated during the bombing of Hiroshima and the fear of annihilation during the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.. The organization was thus formed in 1957 to promote the responsible use of nuclear resources. The IAEA deals with the dual nature of nuclear technology - its use for nuclear energy and its use for weapons of mass destruction. At the heart of nuclear energy is the nuclear fuel cycle, where uranium is mined, converted to gas, enriched and then either recycled or disposed of. At any point in this cycle, the materials can be diverted from the aim of nuclear energy and used instead for weapons and bombs. The IAEA thus monitors whether these materials are being diverted from this cycle and who is diverting them. It is not their responsibility to regulate the environmental or social impact that nuclear materials may have since states themselves are sovereign, but the IAEA creates guidelines for using nuclear materials peacefully.

The IAEA principally promotes the peaceful application of nuclear applications and technologies. In the 1950's when few countries has the resources (financial and intellectual) to initiate research into nuclear technology, the IAEA saw nuclear technology as information which should be shared. Now, although still maintaining the principle that nuclear information is valuable and useful thus meant to be shared, the IAEA is also intent on setting up guidelines ensuring that nuclear information is used and shared with peaceful ends.

In 1968 the Non-Proliferation [of nuclear weapons] Treaty was signed by the UN, assigning another task to the IAEA. The NPT made the IAEA responsible for the fundamental control of non-proliferation (thus, as there is a dual use of nuclear technology, the IAEA has a dual mandate). Non-proliferation is not a responsibility of the IAEA, but its fundamental foundation influenced by media, international pressure, and set guidelines by the UN is now in the hand of the IAEA. 182 countries signed this treaty. The nuclear weapons states which are legally authorized to build and have nuclear weapons are the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France, and China since all five countries exploded a nuclear device before January 1967 and thus before the formation of the treaty. These states are not to transfer nuclear weapons, they are to facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and they are to pursue disarmament. The non-nuclear states which are not legally allowed to have nuclear weapons but who have signed the treaty are not to proliferate weapons and they are to accept the safeguards set up by the IAEA to assure peaceful use of nuclear technology. The goal is that someday, no state will possess nuclear weapons, thus they promote non-proliferation (but not necessarily disarmament). Those who fall outside of the NPT are India, Pakistan, and Israel, of which the first two do possess nuclear weapons and the last is suspected to have nuclear weapons. In 2003, North Korea left the NPT, and subsequently ran one unsuccessful and then later a successful test for nuclear weapons.

The three pillars of the IAEA are 1) safety and verification, accounting for nuclear resources and technology; 2) safety and security, promoting safety within nuclear plants and guarding against nuclear terrorist threats; and 3) science and technology, researching effective ways to use nuclear energy.

After the first lecture, we were able to grab lunch with the other UN workers and interns in the cafe, and were lucky enough to sit next to the intern assigned to our first lecture. He is working on his masters in Vienna in European politics and is interning for two months at the UN; he was very gracious is letting us pick his mind for hangouts and neat things to do in Vienna. After lunch, we went back to the lecture hall to hear from the Human Trafficking agency.

I was particularly interested in this lecture, since one of my best friends and my roommate from last year founded the SOLD Project in Davis (fighting child sex slavery in Thailand), has spent the last two summers in Thailand, and is currently involved in passing legislation with the California Against Slavery campaign. I have been able to learn so much from her and to become involved on campus a bit with SOLD, so I was extremely interested to learn about the UN's role in human and sex trafficking.

The lecture began by stating that the victims of human trafficking are often hard to identify since before 2000 there was no international definition for human trafficking and there is so much red tape in catching and prosecuting traffickers. However, in 2000, the UN passed the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. This protocol thus provided the first international definition of human trafficking, and identified three aspects to trafficking: the act, the means, and the purpose.

Traffickers often take advantage of national and natural disasters, war, poverty, and unfulfilled dreams. However, the trafficker is not always the recruiter, since recruiters are often those who are more integrated into the smaller communities. Traffickers traffic victims for either labor, organs, or sex, but there is often a blur between the three. All types of transportation of victims is used, making it much harder to stop the crime. Also, there is a blurred line between smuggling and trafficking, since smugglers and traffickers often work together and since recruiting for both is carried out at every stage of transporting the victims. The main difference, however, is that smuggling is a crime committed against the state where the victim has given consent, whereas trafficking is a violation against human rights and often lacks proper consent.

The main problem in human trafficking is that there is often a focus on the victim's illegal passport and such, and thus the trafficker is able to slide under the radar. Officers don't know how to recognize the signs of trafficking and either ignore them altogether or prosecute the trafficker on another crime thus eliminating any chance of charging the perpetrator with human trafficking. It is with this problem that the IAEA attempts at promoting dialogue - to train and raise awareness concerning the signs of trafficking. Another large problem is the issue of consent - often victims give consent to initial recruiters, but are later deceived or have been coerced. Through these improper means, consent is invalidated (consent with children is never an issue since all forms of child trafficking is improper).

The main type of human trafficking is sex slavery and exploitation, accounting for 75% to 80% of all types of trafficking, although trafficking for organs and for forced labor are common as well. The Human Trafficking Agency at the UN focuses mainly on the criminal justice component, as well as rehabilitation and the protective witnesses program. The agency often runs into difficulty with religious rules and traditions as well, which play a large part in psychological imprisonment and which are hard to disconnect victims from. I had a list of questions to ask the lecturer, but unfortunately my questions became irrelevant when I realized that the UN and the Human Trafficking Agency has no legal control over individual sovereign states, but that they are only able to advise, promote, train police, and seek out reforms and guidelines to offer to those states who ask for help. They work closely with NGO's, but they are distinctly separate from localized governments.

My Questions:

1. Does the UN find localized education for high risk victims an effective way of combatting human trafficking?

2. What are the biggest deterrents for traffickers when the majority of the police focus on a victim's legality or lack thereof as in the video shown to us?

3. What are some active steps in localized governments where trafficking is prominent that the UN is taking to implement the Protocol from 2000 in contrast to promoting this protocol?

4. What are the strongest forms of prevention? Localized victim education? National legislation? International legislation? Public education?

5. Which is more effective: punishing the pimps through legislation (top-down policy) or educating the victims and those in high risk situations (bottom-up approach)?

6. How much influence does the UN have when training police to recognize victims of trafficking?

7. How does the UN feel or react to online sex-trafficking such as the current situation on Craiglist?

8. Is this is a "cult issue" or a "trend issue?" What has spurred recent interest in the issue of human trafficking?

9. How does the UN understand and regulate those who claim that they have chosen into prostitution rather than being sold into prostitution (referencing the recent articles in the New York Times and CNN which target Craigslist as a site of illegal soliciting and forced prostitution)?

10. There is a concern that the current financial crisis is causing an increase in sex slavery in Cambodia (according to the UNIAP). Is there fear that this trend has or will develop in the U.S. or other countries?

Although I felt my questions were inapplicable to the lecture today since there was a big focus on the sovereignty of the state and the UN's role in promoting and creating guidelines instead of the UN's role with local NGO's and education for high risk victims, I was able to gather a unique insight into an international crisis which I had not previously been privileged to have.

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?

Mauthausen

Today amidst the rain we visited Mauthausen Concentration Camp outside of Vienna. I want to refrain here from making any sort of conclusion from today in this post, focusing more on my observations, questions, and the paths which those question may lead me down. I feel that more time is needed for me to come to a conclusion (if one can every really come to any conclusion after such a visit) regarding what I saw.

The following are simply my reactions to our visit, our tour, and the images which I saw. Pictures of the camp itself will not be posted as well - they cannot do justice to such an atrocious past.

We arrived and met in front of the main gates leading into the camp - the only gates through which the victims were led. This camp was the mother camp of all Austrian concentration camps, with other satellite camps connected to it. There were about 200,000 prisoners here, most prisoners being political dissenters. The main goal was the elimination of political dissent against the Nazi regime through labor, thus classifying this camp as a type III camp (hard labor) instead of an extermination camp. Of the 200,000 prisoners, 30,000 were Jews, but there was in influx in the number of Jews here just before Auschwitz was liberated when the Jews were transfered from the camps closest to the Allies.

Around 100,000 prisoners did die, with 83,000 being liberated by Allied forces; the remaining 17,000 are unable to be accounted for due to missing records and such. Those who did die died through labor, abuse, malnutrition, disease, and gassing. The camp was built in Mauthausen due to its close proximity to a granite quarry; the first prisoners arrived here in August 1938 to begin building the buildings and walls.

Before entering the camp we saw the many, many monuments erected by different nations. Some commemorated individuals, some armies, some the victims. My first thoughts:

- It seems that the monuments take away from the gravity of the camp and tends toward glorifying its history.

- The monuments remember the soldiers more than they do the victims (in reference to the plaques praising the American liberating forces posted above).

- Are our attempts at "remembering" actually beneficial? Or are they more harmful to the memory of the camp?

- The various nations built these monuments, attempting at some form of closure to the unburied bodies. Is this really closure, or is this glorification? Or could it become a form of both?

- These monuments were built to give closure, but will there ever really be closure? Are these attempts futile?

- Is the best we can do simply remembrance [ through memorials]? Or are testimonies more useful and relevant? Does Ruth Kluger, as a survivor of Auschwitz, have a right to dictate Holocaust memorialism? Surely she has more right than I. Is her preference for testimony over monuments correct? Is there a correct preference?

How were the citizens of the town of Mauthausen supposed to react to the camp? Indifference? Feigned ignorance? Participation? Fear? Emotional self-protection? Our guide mentioned that many of the towns people felt honored since they too were Nazis. The camp gave them jobs in a time of war. However, now, their culture and their own hometown is rejected due to the camp and its history. These people cannot mention their own town without shame. Their sense of honor is now turned to shame. Their identity is now looked down upon due simply to the town's association with Nazism. Thus they are forced to disconnect from something as elemental and essential to a person's own identity as one's hometown.

Nowadays, many want the camp torn down, yet the mayor of Mauthausen himself is a tour guide at the camp. Is there a middle ground? The younger generation sees the camp as a responsibility, to remember; they are able to reject the actions of their grandparents and great-grandparents since they are distanced by several generations from the Holocaust.

During the camp's use, neither the SS nor the victims knew how to quarry stone or granite; thus, stone specialists and townspeople were employed in the quarry among the victims to help. They were forced to sign declarations of silence to keep the truth of the camps suppressed. Is this silence forgivable? Was this silence simply a matter of survival in a world filled with the threat of death and forced labor if one did not comply to the Nazi regime?

We were able to walk down into the quarry. The stones have been evened out to allow tourists to descend into the green plain which used to be the active quarry and labor site. Now it is serene and green. The steps, although smooth, are still stone, and are most steep. I cannot imagine carrying granite up stones rougher than the ones we used, all the while being beaten and abused, malnourished and under-clothed.

This silence and suppression surrounding just the camps and the declarations of silence has contributed to an emotionally backwards culture, family, and nation. It is human nature to remain silent for the safety of one's own family and children, but to attempt at justifying it when challenged remains difficult. Thus a collective guilt emerges from the peoples' silence.

Seeing the camp today, it looks old and run down. However, in the camp's operating days, it was quite modern with its showers and central heating.

We were told that individual creativity in regards to mockery and punishments dolled out by the SS was rewarded. The goals of the Nazis were articulated, but top-down instructions were not given. There was a sense of sadistic, inhuman humor alive here amongst the dead.

There was a gas chamber that was used, where 4,000 out of the 200,000 victims were killed. Gassing was only one method of extermination in this camp. It seems somehow fitting that while the insecticide used to kill the lice upon a victim's entry was also the same insecticide used to kill the victim in the gas chambers. Morbid, but logical according to the SS.

The most moving part to me, was not the gas chambers, not was it the memorials or the bunks in the barracks. Rather, the two remaining cremation ovens were the most disturbing remnants left within the camp. Walking through the gas chamber, one walks into two small rooms, where families have left pictures and stories of the victims' lives before the war and the camps. In this same room as the stories, pictures, and attempts at closure, there are two large cremation ovens. Bodies were burned, and their ashes used to pave and fortify the paths and streets surrounding the camp. It was such a morbid image. the gas chamber was a room, with its gassing tube removed by the Nazis so as to remove evidence. The ovens remain.

Burg Forchenstein

13 August 2010

Friday as we headed back to Vienna from the Alps, we took advantage of our bus and stopped at another Esterhazy castle and a Liechtenstein castle. As stated by Beller in his Concise History of Austria, during the Habsburg rule "military and political success was accompanied by an economic expansion which favored the largest landholders"(75). Thus, the Esterhazy fortress was another building illustrating the prominence of a Hungarian noble family.

The castle is called Burg Forchenstein, used by the Esterhazy family as a treasury and arsenal since the Turks failed to capture it in their sieges and wars. Furthermore, the Turks never actually entered the region of this castle, making this castle one of the only castles not disturbed by the Turkish invasions. The medieval castle was originally built by the Mattersdorf Counts, but around 1450 the Habsburgs obtained the castle. In 1622 Nikolaus Esterhazy was given the castle by Emperor Ferdinand II as a reward for a military victory, giving Nikolaus both lordship of the town and the land itself. The castle was rebuilt into a fortress, with a moat and tall walls, looming over the the land and able to see enemies from afar. Paul, Nikolaus's son, expanded the fortress, and embellished its interiors and ceilings with frescos, creating a aura of power and might from within. Thus the military facade of the fortress gave way to baroque frescos, courtyards, and paintings. Upon the death of Paul, the castle was no longer used as a fortress, but, as previously stated, as a treasury and arsenal.

Our tour began in the baroque courtyard, just inside the walls. The archway leading into the courtyard is painted with frescos of leading Roman Emperors, including Nero and Caesar; the baroque colors, however faded, still seem to radiate from the deep reds, yellows, and blues used as dye. However, once inside the courtyard, the surrounding walls are painted with brilliant frescos of the emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, many of those being from the Habsburg dynasty. Throughout the archway's and courtyard's frescos, the designs surrounding the Roman and Holy Roman Emperors include classical motifs and ancient symbols, including a bronze alligator which came from Egypt in 1704 and is said to be the 'defender' of the castle.

After we entered the castle, we were led around to see the various rooms, most involving the artillery and weapons used to defend themselves from the Turks. Many of the rooms also had paintings of the Esterhazy family and of nobles associated with military importance. There was a Prussian tent captured in war made entirely out of heavy silk, rifles and war guns captured from both the Prussians and the French. We were able to see the glass grenades used in war (one of the first versions of the modern grenade), the old map used for battles, and the various accessories employed during executions and public punishments (the chair for the guilty, the sword for beheading, the wooden neck and arm holders, and prices for beheading, etc). The punishment and execution instruments were some of the more interesting artifacts we saw, especially since I took Crime and Punishment as an upper division history course this past Spring, and execution rites and practices were discussed extensively.

The next rooms also contained grenade bags, muskets, holsters, artillery wagons, wooden saddles, flags with crests indicating the rider's military leader, and swords. The enormity of the arsenal collection that we were able to see and that has been recovered gives one a glimpse into the grandeur and wealth of the Esterhazy family, and how their wealth allowed them to ineract with both the Habsburgs, and the Roman Catholic Church (the two sources of power throughout Austria's history). The last rooms were the kitchen and the dining room - interesting to see, allowing one to see what life was like rather than providing deep historical meanings. Our last stop was at the well, dug by Turkish and Spanish prisoners of war - it is one of the deepest man made wells, and was propelled purely by man power.

After our tour at the castle, we headed home along the Panoramic Highway - through one of Austria's most dense wine regions, with vineyards on either side. On this highway we stopped briefly at Burg Liechtenstein, built during the mid 12th century by the Liechtenstein family - a large landholding family in lower Austria under the Habsburg rule. The castle was then destroyed by the Turks in 1529 and 1683 but was rebuilt and restored. Unfortunately, it is undergoing reconstruction and was only partially open to the public.

In all, it was a great break from Vienna, but the city is so beautiful it is hard not to miss it.

The Alps

12 August 2010

Thursday turned out to be a beautiful day in the Alps, allowing us to hike! We set out at 10, and ended up hiking for 7 hours! We were able to hike from house to house, eating lunch at one cabin, cake at another, etc. It truly was absolutely breathtaking - the mountains and green grass were never ending. I can understand how the Habsburgs gained power so quickly, and how they came to be seen as absolutist monarchs - invaders were unable to conquer the rugged Alps, and the wealth which the Alps provided the monarchy was crucial in their ability to become such prominent rulers over so many years.

Eisenstadt

11 August 2010

Wednesday we headed out on a bus for the Alps, but took a detour to learn more about a prominent hungarian ruling family. We stopped at Eisenstadt, a small town outside of Vienna, the capital of Austria's easternmost state, Burgenland ('land of castles'). Eisenstadt was the main center of power for the Esterhazy family, a Hungarian noble family who owned a considerable amount of land during the Habsburg's reign, obtained from redistribution of Protestant lands, redistribution of land of the defeated Turks, and through marriages. They appealed both to the Habsburgs and the Catholic Church, thus gaining notoriety and prominence in Austria and in Hungary.

Count Nikolaus was the first member of the family to become powerful, elected as Palatine of Hungary in 1625. Nikolaus's son, Paul was soon elected Palatine of Hungary as well as Prince of the Holy Roman Empire by Emperor Leopold I and a member of the prestigious Order of the Golden Fleece, thus yielding considerable power. Paul inherited his father's stature and land, and he continued his expansion of land through marriage. Paul was a devout supporter of the Catholic Church, having been raised by Jesuits, and thus became a major patron of the local church in Eisenstadt. His first marriage was to his niece, Countess Ursula, to prevent the division of the Esterhazy lands and thus uniting them - leaving his lands to his two oldest sons upon his death also ensured the unity of the lands.

In 1946, the Esterhazy family lost all of their fortunes, becoming Swiss citizens and losing all of their land to the state. 500,000 acres of land were lost to the Hungarians, but some of their Austrian lands were retained.

Paul I's devotion to the Church led him to build a Franciscan church on an artificial hill within Eisenstadt, naming it Mount Calvary Church; they also oversaw a hospital. The church was built by 15th and 16th century Franciscans, portraying imitations of Calvary due to the Turks' siege on Jerusalem in 1071. The church was built in thanksgiving for driving the Turks from Austria and Eisenstadt - freedom, an army, and faith were the building blocks of the church.

Outside of the church there is a plague statue, erected in thanksgiving for surviving the plague; another plague statue is found on the Hauptstrasse (main street), in memory of the last plague to have come to Eisenstadt. The church itself is built highly irregular, with an uneven roof and stairs climbing the outside. Behind the altar lies a door, leading those religious on a physical tour of the stations of the cross, with an altar or small alcove dedicated to a particular station. These stations begin inside the church, but wind around and lead up to the church's roof, where the crucifixion of Christ is portrayed.

The most famous association with this church, and with the Esterhazy family, is the composer Haydn. Paul II became a patron to the composer Haydn, and later Nikolaus I became a patron as well, beginning a lasting and close knit history between the family and the composer. Haydn was the first composer to earn a salary from music, performing mainly in Vienna and was hired as Kapellmeister for the Esterhazy court. Inside the church lays both the Haydn organ on which Haydn played his various compositions, and Haydn's remains. In 1820, a crypt was built within the church, and to this day Haydn's remains are found there. His music stands apart from other classical composers in that it is not overwhelming with grandeur and pomp but shows raw talent and creativity. It is easy to listen to and does not require a particular mood for one to be in upon hearing it.

The palace we saw was once a medieval fortress of 250 rooms, built to fortify the family from the threat of Turkish invasion. However, in the 1660s, Paul began renovations to transform the palace from medieval to baroque. Thus, not only were we able to see the domination and power of the Esterhazy family within the style of the palace, we were able to see the family's close association to both the Catholic Church and classical music.

After our tour of the Esterhazy palace, we were given time to walk through the town, and then we were off to the Alps. We arrived at dusk, and had to take a gondola from the mountain's base to the top in order to arrive at the inn. The place was extremely neat, perched on the top of a mountain, and surrounded by amazing views. The inn is used as a ski resort in the winter, and as a popular hiking destination in the summer. Seeing the

beauty and grandeur of the Alps for the first time made it very clear the power of the Habsburgs and their intimidation to other nations - the sheer amount of land, impenetrable land at that, made the Habsburgs politically and financially powerful.

Butterfly's Landing

The pace of today has turned out to be the perfect balance to yesterday - instead of visiting 7 churches, we focused ourselves only on one. Having fallen onto a day with minimal activity, we allowed the splendor of the church to resonate within both the dome itself and within ourselves. Today's church : Karlskirche.

In 1713, the bubonic plague hit Vienna for a second time, devastating its ruler Emperor Charles VI. At the plague's end, Charles vowed to build a church out of thanksgiving, naming it after St. Charles' of Borromeo who helped and cared for the victims of the plague. Thus, at the plague's end, Charles commissioned Fischer von Erlach and his son Joseph to design the church, starting construction in 1719 and completing the church in 1739.

The church is massive in both size and presence, and neither pictures nor words can do it justice. The architecture of the church is unique; it is typically classified as baroque. Ferdinand II, Ferdinand III, and Leopold I were all patrons of the church, funding for the redesign of the churches from gothic to baroque (Parsons, 106). However, Karlskirche does not solely fit into the category of baroque as the churches of yesterday most certainly do. Karlskirche combines the baroque style with Roman, Greek, and oriental flair. Together, all the different types of architecture give off a Byzantine aura. This combination of architectural styles is by all means appropriate since Vienna itself was the gateway between Christendom and Islam, east and west.

The church itself is an obvious reference to St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, what with the dome and the columns. The dome is of the oriental style, reflecting such churches as St. Mark's in Venice and the Duomo in Florence. The columns and statues (one Old and one New Testament angel) in the front reflect Roman and Greek styles, themselves reflections one of the other.

The two towers are modeled after Trajan's column in Rome, but instead of depicting victories from war, scenes from the life of St. Charles are depicted. Inspiration is also taken from the two towers which once flanked the temple in Jerusalem and the towers of Hercules. Thus, the outside of the church flawlessly combines the architectural styles of the east and the west, using St. Peter's in Rome as a blueprint for both style and presence.

Karlskirche is not only grand in size, emphasized by its dominating structure and the amount of detail portrayed in the baroque style, but it is even grander in its attempt at capturing the spirit of God within the sanctuary. Upon entering, the eye is torn between the marble and gold which surround the church. I believe that this feeling of awe and wonder and smallness in the midst of such greatness was the designer's intent; to use natural light, high glass windows, marble pillars and gold filigree to create a dance of textures.

Above the wooden doors leading into the church is a massive coat of arms flanked by two angels blowing trumpets. The crest is both that of Charles VI and that of Spain, since in 1700 Charles succeeded his relative and became Charles III of Spain. Above the crest is the grand organ, surrounded by angels and cherubs playing a variety of instruments, illustrating the silent "noise" that such a grand church is able to give off. In the front of the church is the masterpiece of the designer. The main focal point is the sculpture of St. Charles' glorification,

flanked by angels and hovering underneath the golden glory of heaven. The pillars surrounding this are topped by the four fathers of the western church, namely St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. Also near the pillars of the church fathers are cherubs holding putties of the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These eight men portrayed have a very specific purpose, uniting the past tradition and theology of the Old Testament with the new theology introduced in the gospels of the New Testament. Above both the sculpture of St. Charles and these eight men is the Hebrew Tetragrammaton carved into the gold rays suspended in the arched window. Above these pieces of art, painted onto the arched ceiling is a portrayal of the lamb, the altar of God and His presence of fire, Mary and baby Jesus, and the book of seals, again referencing both the Old and New Testaments.

On each side of the church, between the pulpit and the door, are three separate chapels, each with a different purpose and baroque painting. One chapel that stood out was the painting of St. Luke painting the mother of God. Supposedly, this was a prominent topic for baroque painters, what with St. Luke being the patron saint of the painters' guild. Another beautiful chapel contained the painting by Daniel Gran of St. Elizabeth (St. Isabel in Spanish) of Portugal, who cared for the poor and the sick. St. Elizabeth, as well as a modern portrait of Mother Theresa in a neighboring chapel, quietly reinforce the origins of the church as being a church built in thanksgiving for living through sickness and poverty. A third chapel of interest was that with a large painting of the assumption of Mary, flanked on the bottom by two sculptures representing her virtue, and on top by two smaller paintings of both the annunciation and the visitation. In the last temple on the left side of the church, looking up through the ceiling and up into a smaller dome is a fresco of Mary, the protector of the Holy Roman Empire.

Fortunately the frescos on the dome of the church are being restored. Normally this would pose a problem for those wanting to view the dome; however, they cleverly built a platform on which one can view the frescos within the dome itself.

Taking the elevator up to the platform was the longest elevator ride ever, soaring farther and farther away from the safe and stable ground. At the platform, the dull colors of the frescos seen from ground level come alive, with scenes depicting St. Charles' intercession, Christ's cross, and most prominently Christ being greeted by the open arms of His Father (alluding possibly to the story of the prodigal son, although in a different context altogether). A further climb takes one up the dome and inside of the bell tower, with views of the whole city.

The display of wealth, grandeur, and power within Karlskirche is inseparable from the Habsburg rulers who built and used this church, much as the "Habsburg emperors' display of power was...inseparable from their reality" (Spielman, 103).

After Karlskirche, the exhaustion from so much visual symbolism and theology led us straight to Demel on Kohlmarkt, for tea, sacher torte, and some time to digest what we had seen.

Later in the afternoon, we went as a group to the Central Cemetery - something I was NOT looking forward to but which was later redeemed by its sheer beauty. We entered through the Catholic gates (there are three gates) and the whole of the air was saturated with green and ivy and grass and clear air. For as green as downtown Vienna may be, nothing rivals the green found outside of a city.

We walked down the main boulevard and came upon a grassy area where the graves of Beethoven, Mozart, Strauss and Shubert are all located. Butterflies were dancing around among the flowers, and even landing on my head - extremely beautiful. From the Catholic graves we walked to the Jewish graves, with a distinct 'divide' between the two. As opposed to the well-kept Catholic graves, the Jewish graves were overrun with ivy, deer, and tumbled stone. For as beautiful as the ivy and green was, it was quite sad to see the obvious lack of family left to care for the graves.

After the cemetery we walked to a nearby dinner. Unfortunately I was not sitting with any of the three people on the trip who know German, so Sidney, Daryl and I closed our eyes and randomly pointed to a meal - luckily they were all delicious. For dessert, the best apfelstudel of the trip so far!

In all, it was a slow-paced day but filled to the brim with visual impact. Karlskirche is too much to take in all at once, and will definitely require a couple more trips simply to sit and take it all in.