HOLOCAUST LESSON PLANS

Why Teaching the Holocaust Will Always Be Important -M.Streich

Michael Berenbaum, in the Foreword to the book Why Should I Care, [1] refers to the need “of translating a historical event into value terms that are applicable to students.” Holocaust lesson plans should begin with the historical record. Studying and analyzing history, however, should also lead to further inquiry as well as connecting past events with on-going issues. As Professor Berenbaum states, “We study this intolerance to teach tolerance.”

 

Holocaust Lesson Plans Begin with the Historical Record

 

All history texts that cover 20^th Century European history or World War II have specific chapters on the rise of Hitler, the desensitization of Germans, the isolation of Jews, the building of the concentration camp system, death camps, and survivor stories. Teaching the Holocaust begins with an examination of the historical record, not only from secondary sources, but from original documents and movies made by the Nazis themselves.

 

From the historical record, students can connect to the themes of on-going genocide, intolerance, ethnic cleansing, and racism. Holocaust lesson plans must allow for these connections if the phrase “never again” is to have meaning. Why Should I Care? Lessons From The Holocaust by Jeanette Friedman and David Gold does exactly that. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. also provides educators with resource books such as Teaching about the Holocaust.

 

New Information Adds to the Historical Record

 

Within the past decade, new information on the Holocaust has focused to a greater degree on the negligence of the United States in not doing more to prevent the genocide. Articles and books have explored the role of Pope Pius XII in terms of his silence. A newly released French film, La Rafle, explores that country’s role. Reviewer Alexander Goldberg writes that, “France is coming to terms with its own role in the Holocaust.” (Guardian, March 15, 2010)

 

Holocaust lesson plans should utilize the new research in order to develop new questions for students, promote research project ideas, and see old truths through a new prism. Professor Thomas Porter, a Russian Historian at North Carolina A & T State University, for example, is researching the Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Russia during World War II, a relatively under-reported story. Much of earlier Holocaust research focused on a “western front” mentality that frequently ignored what was commonly called “The East.”

 

Holocaust Lesson Plans that Focus on Particular Themes

 

Although many colleges have entire semester courses devoted to studying the Holocaust, this is simply not possible in survey courses. Focusing on a particular theme or series of themes allows for greater student analysis and discussion. Themes can include:

 

Approved Nazi art versus “degenerate” art

Using propaganda to stir up Anti-Semitism

Jews fleeing Germany – like the passengers on the St. Louis

Life in a concentration camp

Hiding Jews during the Holocaust

Survivor stories

What constitutes crimes against humanity?

Who defended the Jews?

 

Each of these themes can be connected to current global studies; genocide did not end in the world with the closing of the Nazi camps.

 

Following Up Holocaust Lesson Plans

 

Many larger cities may have exhibits dedicated to the Holocaust. In a number of schools systems, a trip to Washington, D.C. is part of the curriculum. Such field trips reinforce Holocaust lesson plans or can prepare students before the unit is taught.

 

Some schools sponsor summer trips abroad, most of which include parts of Europe that still have concentration camps as a reminder of the terrible past. Most of these are open to the public. Students fortunate enough to participate in overseas trips can be encouraged to develop classroom presentations

The Goals of Holocaust Lesson Plans

 

Ultimately, the Holocaust is studied because it represented the worst aspects of the dark side of men and women. It becomes too horrific to contemplate. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said when told about what was happening in Europe, “I know that what you have to say is true, but I don’t believe it.” Professor Robert H. Abzug writes that there is a difference between knowing and believing in terms of assimilating the facts. [2] A Holocaust lesson plan goal must start with knowing and believing.

 

[1] (New York, Gihon River Press, 2009)

[2] America Views the Holocaust 1933 – 1945: A Brief Documentary History (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1999)

 

When I first taught a Russian History elective in the early 1990's my students were exuberant that the United States had "won the Cold War." My response was always: the Cold War has taken a hiatus. Once we finished studying Russian History, they would better understand. I quoted Mikhail Suslov, one of the Soviet era's most prominent ideologues, stating that the triumph of the Communist state might mean taking steps backward in order to move forward.

Attending an educator conference that began in St Petersburg, our local guide, a highly educated and erudite critic of the "West," matter-of-factly told us that Gobachev had sold out to the West and was not highly regarded. Things would eventually be corrected and the old Soviet Union would rise again. 

Today, Mr. Putin's desire to invade and annex all of Ukraine is another important step in restoring the old system, the old strategic plan. Russia would never be surrounded again by hostile powers. Europe and the United States have never fully understood that. In the U.S., we - today, know very little about Russia. When I was attending a public high school, the Russian language was offered (as well as Chinese). But that was shortly after the Sputnik years and the Iron Curtain mentality. 

We have forgotten all of that and now the world is more dangerous. That is why history is so damned important. 

 Stolen Art: Should it be Returned? - M. Streich

The New Acropolis Museum opened in Athens in 2009, showcasing approximately 4,000 artifacts. One of the most prized items, however, is missing. In the early 1800s, Lord Elgin, the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, removed the famous marbles associated with his name and they have been in Britain ever since, displayed today in the British Museum.

 

In Egypt, Zahi Hawass heads the Council of Antiquities. Among the artifacts he zealously attempts to recover is the bust of Queen Nefertiti at the New Museum in Berlin. Although the Times (May 4, 2010) stated that, “Worldwide the trend has been towards returning looted artifacts to their country of origin,” museum directors, universities, and private galleries have been loathe to discuss the issue.

 

The Looting of Greek History

 

Before the 2009 opening of the New Acropolis Museum, Helen Skopis, writing in the Athens News, commented that “…the new museum becomes the centerpiece of Greece’s campaign for the return of the Parthenon Marbles from the British Museum.” This effort was strongly pursued by then Culture Minister Antonis Samaras. The new climate-controlled museum represents a fitting home for the marbles, with over 14,000 square meters of exhibition space.

 

The British Museum, however, believes it’s ownership of the Elgin Marbles to be legal, despite the fact that the document was issued by the Ottomans before Greece became independent. This does not affect Museum Director Neil MacGregor’s perspective. The Times quotes MacGregor as stating that, “It is only by comparing things from different places that you can understand them.”

 

Evaggelos Valliantos, writing in the Hellenic News of America, quotes former Culture Minister Melina Merkouri identifying the Parthenon Marbles as the “soul of Greece” and hopes that when the 1012 Olympics are in London, Britain, as a gesture, will return the sculptures.

 

Legal and Illegal Artifacts – The Case of Nefertiti

 

Recovering the bust of Nefertiti, according to Matthias Schulz in Spiegel Online (Ma8 28, 2010) ranks high on Zahi Hawass’ list. Hawass has managed to recover thousands of artifacts over the years, many of them taken out of Egypt illegally. But, as Schulz writes, in December 2009, the museum provided documentation to prove that the sale of the bust in 1913 was legal. Such contracts do not assuage culture ministries in many countries that claim such artifacts as part of their heritage. As Newsweek’s Cathleen McGuigan wrote (March 12, 2007), “…the pursuit of such artworks has ignited a complex debate over cultural patrimony.”

 

Many of the most impressive artifacts, like the Rosetta Stone or King Priam’s gold from Troy, were spirited to the West during the 19^th Century at a time the great ancient empires were dominated by imperialist European powers or through their surrogates. The fascination with Egypt, for example, is centuries old. Romans – even Emperors like Hadrian, were drawn to the monuments along the Nile River, some taking parts of history, others content to leave graffiti. In most countries today the removal of artifacts is treated as a criminal offense.

 

World Events Hinder Honest Dialogue over Disputed Artifacts

 

The New Acropolis Museum in Athens cost 130 million Euro. But since its opening, the Greek Debt Bubble has burst and critics question whether the government, under new austerity measures, can guarantee adequate security and preservation of artifacts. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq, media headlines noted that during the occupation of Baghdad, the National Museum was looted.

 

Although it was later confirmed that museum employees had carried to safety many of the most priceless artifacts, the event caused critics to bemoan the security of vulnerable museums. (Guardian, June 10, 2003, David Aaronovitch)

 

Museums, by their definition, are repositories of art. Art, however, is also history. An Etruscan sarcophagus in the Vatican Museum tells a definite story. Is the value of that story determined by the number of people viewing the artifact? Is it more beneficial, in terms of understanding the past, to display the bust of Queen Nefertiti in Berlin rather than Cairo, where fewer people can see it? These are some of the questions that should be addressed by those attempting to reconcile heritage with the recovery of artifacts.

 

Pacifism and Activism: the Examples of Tommy Rodd and Jeanette Rankin - Michael Streich

 

In the September 1966 issue of Esquire magazine, readers were able to catch a brief glimpse into the life of Tommy Rodd, an upper-middle class teenager with a bright future who refused to register for the military draft and fight in Vietnam. Rodd was no coward. Unlike the wars of the 21^st Century, Vietnam, as seen by men like Rodd, was an everyday affair with television footage of jungle carnage and body bags shipped home to the quiet communities of white picket fences and steepled churches. Tommy Rodd was a pacifist who chose federal prison rather than a rifle. He was able to make this choice because the war filtered into every American living room.

 

Pacifism and the Openness of War in America

 

In 1916 Jeanette Rankin became the first woman to be elected to Congress. A Montana Republican, Rankin was one of the few representatives to vote against the war declaration taking the United States into the Great War and sending thousands of troops to the blood soaked battlefields of Europe. She was not reelected.

 

Representative Rankin was not the only person opposed to the futility of the European conflict. Many Americans were appalled by the images of trench warfare and the staggering numbers of casualties. Rankin opposed war on pacifist grounds.

 

Rankin ran again in 1940 and won. War once more lingered in the shadows and despite the protestations of isolationists, other Americans, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt, appeared to be steering the nation toward participation in the conflict. From propaganda to the reality of despotism in Europe and Asia, the openness of war was in every newspaper and magazine. In London, Edward R. Morrow riveted the nation with his radio broadcasts of the Blitz.

 

Rankin Votes against War with Imperial Japan

 

When Speaker Sam Rayburn called for a roll call vote in the House on December 8, 1941, everyone held their breath as he went through the states alphabetically, eventually coming to Representative Rankin. Rankin had attempted several times to gain the attention of the Speaker only to be declared out of order. Her nay vote was the only vote opposing the declaration of war.

 

Korea and Vietnam Cast Doubt on the Righteousness of War

 

The Korean War was fought, ostensibly, to thwart Communist expansion and Americans who opposed the conflict risked being labeled Communist sympathizers. Vietnam, however, was a different war. Some Americans began to question containment and President Johnson’s escalation of the war after 1964 began to attract questions and especially protests, notably among young Americans being drafted to fight.

 

The media abetted these protests by offering a forum to dissenting Americans as well as projecting the images of war on nightly news broadcasts. This increased during the presidency of Richard Nixon who came to see the media as an enemy. For conscientious objectors, the images of war confirmed what many already knew: the government’s explanations were duplicitous.

 

Robert F. Drinan, S.J., who served in the Congress for five terms and sat on a joint congressional committee investigating the Watergate allegations, wrote that, “…the peace community would complain that they had been gagged if the government pressured them to cease their vigorous claims that the government is excessively belligerent and warlike.” But this was only possible as long as the nation’s media accurately reported the course of the war.

 

The Lessons of Pacifism, Activism, and Change through Media Openness

 

Sociologists refer to the success of the “Lilliput Strategy.” Often used to describe anti-globalism, the same coalescence of often disparate groups both during and after Vietnam gave rise to entire new movements. These movements believed that change was possible. For pacifists, it also meant a greater accountability of the U.S. government and a rejection of long held policies supporting despotic regimes.

 

At the same time, war became less visible. Congress replaced the military draft with an all volunteer force and the role of media coverage in conflict areas was curtailed. During President Reagan’s second administration, for example, the Grenada operation was carried out in secrecy, without media coverage.

 

Additionally, 21^st Century wars are remote and media coverage is tightly controlled. The conflicts impose no sacrifice on Americans who, for the most part, cannot even identify Afghanistan or Yemen on a map. Unlike the extensive media coverage of Vietnam at the time Tommy Rodd received his draft card or Representative Rankin’s anti-war votes earlier in that century, military footage today is carefully orchestrated and any hint of a draft is speedily quashed in the Congress. No Americans want another Vietnam.

 

Lifting the Fog of War

 

From protest music to student activism, Vietnam was the last conflict that polarized a nation largely due to media coverage. In 2011, war coverage is carefully scripted despite on-going polls that demonstrate a willingness among many Americans to dramatically cut defense appropriations. As long as war is sanitized by the media, pacifism and activism will be checked and there will be no withdrawal of consent among Americans.

 

Sources:

 

Jeremy Brecher and others, “Globalization and Social Movements,” Globalization: The Transformation of Social Worlds (Wadsworth, 2012)

Robert F. Drinan, S.J., Can God & Caesar Coexist? (Yale University Press, 2004)

Mark Hamilton Lytle, America’s Uncivil Wars: The Sixties Era From Elvis To The Fall Of Richard Nixon (Oxford University Press, 2006)Bernard Weinraub, “Four Ways to Go: Tommy Rodd Went to Jail,” Esquire, September 1966

[Copyright owned by Mike Streich; reprints require written permission]

December 7th is Pearl Harbor Day. The sudden sneak attack by Japan unified America, igniting a war that would forever change the world. Japan never apologized. I have been to the Pearl Harbor memorial four times and two of those visits observed Japanese students watching the video presentation and laughing. Now, I am a naturalized citizen, born in Europe, yet this still enraged me. After the attack, a popular song went as follows:

 

History in every century records an act that lives forevermore.
We'll recall, as into line we fall,
The thing that happened on Hawaii's shore.

Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we go to meet the foe.
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
As we did the Alamo.
We will always remember how they died for Liberty.
Let's remember Pearl Harbor
And go on to victory.

 

It can be heard on YouTube Music. Pearl Harbor has been compared to 9/11 and the unification of all Americans after a national tragedy. This is not a call to arms as much as a reflection of who we are as a people and the diversity we cherish. But let's never forget Pearl Harbor and the men and women who died and were wounded in that terrible event.

 

Seen in a local book store/coffee house: "Remember Pearl Harbor, Remember the Maine, Remember the Alamo...Remember Peace."

 The January 6th Insurrection was America's Gunpowder Plot or Guy Fawkes Day!

 Today is Reformation Sunday! Thank You Dr. Martin Luther! Michael Streich

 

 

The use of congregational singing is an often overlooked aspect of the Reformation period during the 16^th Century. Roland Bainton, is his classic biography of Martin Luther, [1] writes of “singing practices” for entire congregations as well as in Lutheran homes. Singing united people in a common cause and the lyrics served to educate. Bainton quotes a Jesuit who stated that, “the hymns of Luther killed more souls than his sermons.” The greatest of these hymns, the “battle cry” of the Reformation, is A Mighty Fortress is our God.

 

Symbols and Messages

 

Luther wrote the words to the hymn after a reflection on Psalm 46: “God is our refuge and strength.” Twice in the brief Psalm God is compared to a “stronghold.” God fights His people’s battles and, although the “nations made an uproar,” “He raised His voice, the earth melted.” Luther’s hymn, tailored to 16^th century realities, incorporates these symbols into the verses. Bainton refers to Luther’s lyrics as, “richly quarried, rugged words set to majestic tones [that] marshal the embattled host of heaven.” [2]

 

The English translation begins, “A Mighty Fortress is our God, A Bulwark never failing…” Luther’s beginning, however, is far more to the point and allows the singing peasants to identify symbols from their own 16^th Century experiences: Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Ein gute Wehr und Waffen…” Luther begins by comparing God to a fortress, but more specifically a stronghold, a “feste Burg.”

 

The term feste implies an impregnable citadel or stronghold. It brings to mind some of the inaccessible fortresses in the German hills that are often referred to as a festung. In this fashion, Luther emphasizes the absolute power of God over the invading forces, “And He must win the battle.” (End of second verse). The German here reads, “Das Feld muss er behalten.” This is a military phrase – not giving up the “battle field” to the enemy.

 

The use of the Burg is very obvious. A Burg was a fortified town. When invaders approached, the surrounding populace fled to the safety of the walls. In some cases, walled towns had various layers of walls. Residents of the Burg were called burghers. Significantly, they were free citizens of the town. Luther’s analogy is highly appropriate and Protestants, very familiar with medieval and post medieval wars, could easy understand that their God was like the most powerful of all Burgs: nothing could breach the walls.

 

Line two of the first verse is translated as, “a bulwark never failing.” Here again, Luther’s words are far more descriptive. Wehr refers to a barrage or an armed barrier. Another extended meaning in German refers to defending oneself tooth and nail. Waffen relates to weapons or arms. In essence, the Burg is a barrage and a weapon against the invader.

 

Who was the Invader?

 

Throughout the hymn, Luther identifies the invader. It is “the old foe,” the  “prince of darkness” (verse 3) at the head of a legion of devils. His forces are destroyed, however by one “little word,” in the German, “Ein Woertlein.” In contrast to elaborate ritual, the word is simple and is carried to the next verse of the song. The word is God’s truth, simple yet compelling.

 

Luther draws, perhaps, from Job in the last stanza: goods and kindred may go, even life itself, but God’s truth will remain. Luther’s German is more precise, identifying “Kind und Weib” (child and wife). While the English translates “Gut” as “goods,” the term refers more precisely to a manor or estate. Hence, the parallel with Job, who, after losing everything, blessed the name of the Lord.

 

Luther’s hymn was sung boldly as an affirmation of God’s power over forces that sought to disrupt the truth of God. Significantly, Luther wrote the hymn 1527-1529, a time of severe depression for the Reformer. It remains as one of Protestantism’s greatest anthems.

 

[1] and [2] Ronald Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, published originally in 1950.