VIEWPOINT - Does the new Holocaust Museum for Hope and Humanity stay true to its primary mission?

 

January 1, 2021



In the past month, no less than three opinion editorials were generated as a result of an article written by Christine DeSouza for the Dec. 4 edition of the Heritage Florida Jewish News. Her article was to highlight a particular exhibit by John Noltner, titled “Uprooting Prejudice: Faces of Change.” However, what DeSouza uncovered was the depth of conflicting feelings toward the appropriateness of the exhibit’s display within the Holocaust Memorial Resource and Education Center.

Lisa Bachman, HMREC’s assistant executive director provided, “…. we promote thoughtful reflection on the causes, events, and consequences of the Holocaust as well as deeper issues at stake still today. We stimulate thinking about the nature of prejudice, bigotry, anti-Semitism, hate, and extremist ideologies that marginalizes people and leads to violence.” Bachman further asserted that such extended programming focuses upon “… deeper issues … of the nature of prejudice, bigotry, anti-Semitism, hate, and extremist ideologies …,” and espoused the “mission” to use Holocaust history to build “… just and caring communities, free of anti-Semitism and all forms of prejudice and bigotry.”

“… Our goal is to make connections and create awareness for thoughts and ideas we may not have considered.”

Notwithstanding, several leading Holocaust-related organizations strenuously differed with Bachman’s representation of the goals and purposes for a Holocaust remembrance organization.

Both the director and the chairman of the Board of the Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, Florida, stated “…. we believe no comparisons should be made between other historical and current events and the Holocaust.” Additionally, Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel Branch was “outraged” at the local exhibit on the basis of “…. universalization when dealing with Shoah …” Noted novelist, essayist, and Touro College Distinguished University Professor Thane Rosenbaum wrote: “The museum might believe that it has a broader mission to make the Holocaust relevant to the events of our day. But what it is doing instead is blurring moral boundaries and showing a profound disrespect for the dead …” referring to multiple genocides thru history. Professor Rosenbaum goes further, stating “… the George Floyd death, and what it has come to symbolize, is in no way genocide and to place it in the museum only serves to trivialize actual mass murder.”

In a counter response published in the Dec. 11 edition of Heritage Florida Jewish News, Stephen Smith, director/chair of the USC Shoah Foundation, writes: “A good museum challenges you, sparking a social and cultural conversation.” He further asserts that Holocaust museums are no exception. Unfortunately, one must question Smith’s purity of political objectivity when, referring to earlier criticisms, he employed such axioms as: “… those criticisms were … weaponized and spread by right-wing media …”; “… America’s intractable structural racism”; and perhaps the most disturbing comment: “In fact, we recognize there that the Holocaust is all about racism taken to its extreme.”

The Heritage published in its Dec. 18 edition, a counter to Smith’s “counter.” In a rather vitriolically titled editorial: “Anti-Semites inside our Holocaust Center,” Alan Kornman would appear to be directly attacking the HMREC directors. A deeper assessment might focus on the writer’s disdain for the Noltner exhibit’s references to the Black Lives Matter movement. However, Kornman’ s true infuriation lies in the fact that the historical significance of the Holocaust as a Jewish genocide is being diluted thru HMREC exhibits or hosted programs related to contemporary social issues. In his mind, and in the mind of many, there is no equivalency.

The Mission Statement of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial and Museum in Washington, D.C., provided “... for the documentation, study, and interpretation of Holocaust history, and serves as the country’s memorial to the millions of people murdered ….” Further within the Statement is reference to “… related issues, including those of contemporary significance.” A review of the website will show that most such “issues” relate to contemporary anti-Semitism. Therefore, perhaps a deeper review of Holocaust from a contemporary interpretation is in order.

“Systemic racism” is defined as a “… policy, system of government … that favor members of the dominant racial or ethnic group … while discriminating against or harming members of other groups … to preserve the socials status, economic advantage, or political power of the dominant group ….” (dictionary.com). As distasteful as racism and its implementation may be in any civilized society, it is not genocide as defined: “… the deliberate killing of a large number of people … with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” (dictionary.com).

Not including the Nazi’s “Generalplan Ost” for the ultimate cleansing of Europe, which claimed an estimated 14.5 million lives, there have been five identified 20th century genocides of over 1 million persons: the 1915-22 Armenian/Turkish genocide of 1.8million; the 1971 Bangladesh/Pakistan genocide of 3 million; the 1975-79 Cambodian/Khmer Rouge genocide of 3 million; the 1939-1945 Nazi/Pole genocide of 1.9 million (not including Jews); and the Holocaust genocide of 6 million Jews. Two-thirds of European Jewry (9.5 million) was destroyed during the Holocaust. Worldwide Jewry declined by 40 percent, from its 16.6 million in 1939. The 20th century Holocaust supersedes any other historical, or modern genocides by at least double! (From 1735 to 2017, there were 32 addition worldwide genocides from 1,000 to 750,000 persons). The indefensible bigotries and prejudices of racism, sexism, homophobia, religious prejudice or xenophobia may all be functionally present in contemporary societies. As untenable, or even violent as any of these bigotries may become, they pale in comparison to the tragedy of human genocide. And, no other genocide in history, either modern or ancient, compares to the breadth of degradation attributable to the Holocaust.

Smith and Bachman each expressed their deeply held (and justifiable) antipathy toward racism. Notwithstanding, the abhorrent and distasteful acts equating social (and other) inequities with the atrocity of genocide is beyond equivalency. Taken to extreme, the result is a distortion and denigration of the position that Holocaust occupies in both Jewish history, and other genocides occupy in world history. Only by understanding the historical complexities of the Holocaust will a civilized society be able to avoid a future equivalency. The amalgamation of anti-Semitic depravity, the intricate morass of European and world political circumstances, driven by a dictatorial personality capable of harnessing public insecurities, defined that “perfect storm.” Suggesting that had Europe’s social issues or inequalities been resolved 100 years ago, the Holocaust could have been avoided; or that striving to identify and correct today’s social anxieties will avoid another Holocaust in another 100 years is denying historical reality. Equating contemporary social injustices with the complex atrocity of the Holocaust genocide is an aberration and an historically naive justification.

The Heritage article and subsequent editorial responses each became more emotionally charged in subsequent presentation. And this points out the conundrum in which the HMREC as well as the entire Orlando Jewish community now resides. The HMREC has historically and exclusively functioned for memorializing, understanding, and teaching about the Holocaust. And now the HMREC is caught on the horns of a dilemma. How does the HMREC, soon to become the Holocaust Museum of Hope and Humanity, reconcile its historical representation to the greater Orlando community in its new Lake Ivanhoe museum? Is the Orlando Jewish community about to witness the amalgamation of the HMREC into a new “center for civic tolerance”? Does the HMHH’s new mission statement — “We use the history and lessons of the Holocaust to build a just and caring community free of anti-Semitism and all forms of prejudice and bigotry” — accurately represent the intention of Holocaust remembrance?

A significant portion of the local Jewish population believes that the HMREC is allowing its original mission, as well as the mission of our U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, to be diluted into the new mission statement of the HMHH. By incorporating exhibitions, speakers, and programs along the lines of the John Noltner exhibit, it is justifiably attempting to facilitate the mission of understanding and eradication of “… all forms of prejudice and bigotry.” The challenge therein becomes being true to those two distinctly Jewish goals: first, Holocaust remembrance, memorialization, and understanding; and second, the deeply rooted Jewish directive to promote social justice throughout the world … without dilution of the first. How does the new HMHH accomplish both worthwhile goals without denigrating the historical mission of the Holocaust museum?

At the end of DeSouza’s article, Dr. David Diamond suggests: “We must have some introspection into what makes a Holocaust Center distinct from other entities promoting civic tolerance.” He further suggests that a (community) discussion needs to occur. While in principle this might be insightful, it is highly doubtful that such interaction will ever culminate in unanimous conclusion or direction. However, a potential solution could be creating a physical distinction to allow for the attainment of both perspectives. The new Lake Ivanhoe facility could be designed to house a physically distinct segment for the Holocaust Museum, as well as a distinct section for a Social Issues Museum. The SIM would focus on contemporary social injustices, with the goal of identifying, understanding, and resolution. Each museum would remain true to its own distinct programming and mission, without infringing upon the other’s. The building would provide for separate naming and identity of the two distinct museums. While the Holocaust Museum for Hope and Humanity would still receive primary billing, the “sub-facility” would also be labeled, (suggestion only) The Orlando Museum for Social Awareness and Understanding. In so doing, the community would be able to promote the enhancement of social justice awareness as well as allay the concerns of those committed to the orthodoxy of Holocaust Remembrance and Memorialization.

Perhaps a wider community discussion really does need to occur. In either case, a resolution must be found. To allow the HMREC to evolve into the HMHH without due consideration of historical intent will alienate a significant portion of the Jewish community.

Howard B. Lefkowitz has been affiliated in the Orlando Jewish community for many years. Beginning in 1981, he has served as co-chairman of the Community Alliance Project/Maitland Campus Expansion/Development; chairman of CAP Management Committee/JFGO; vice president of JFGO; chairman, United Jewish Appeal Drive/Greater Orlando; chairman, “Long Range Facilities Program” of JFGO; co-chairman of Jewish Senior Housing Council of Greater Orlando; co-president of AIPAC, Orlando; and is presently chairman and co-founder of Jewish Capital Alliance of Central Florida, Inc.

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2024

Rendered 03/18/2024 12:04