Education >
High School Humanities
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs Hitler over-emphasized and the Holocaust under-emphasized in schools?
Results so far:
| Yes | 51% | 223 votes | Total: 436 votes | |
| No | 49% | 213 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesTwo weeks ago we asked the question in my Advanced Placement World History class, "Why is the Jewish Holocaust referred to as 'The Holocaust''? My students were divided into small groups and debated this subject. The students did not mention Hitler's name at all, they referred to the Nazi party and Nazism movements across Europe. Their opinion is that the Holocaust is memorable in twentieth century history due to the destruction of over five million Jews, ninety-eight percent of the Gypsy population, homosexuals, and almost two thousand Catholic priests. Sometimes people do not realize it is more than Jews who suffered in this genocide and movement of ethnic cleansing. And in the same manner, people do not realize that it was a political party not just a man (Hitler) who ordered and executed these crimes against humanity.
Hitler comes across like the boogeyman. When people talk about The Jewish Holocaust, his name is mentioned like the evil and mysterious monster we are all suppose to be afraid of. Young people, and sometimes older people, as well, are fascinated by Hitler's beliefs and leadership. They do not realize Germany was embarrassed after World War I and suffering an economic depression and needed a savior. Hitler was a Populist and rose to power through legal means. His prejudices found an audience, and a feeding frenzy began with people who were insecure, poor, and humiliated at the snubbing of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. The S.S. soldiers and leadership had just as much hate inside them as their Furor. Why wasn't Hitler in these camps torturing these people? Where was he? His name is overused with the Holocaust, for he was the coward behind the scenes.
Hitler's name is synonymous with the Holocaust, but he was not the men in the trenches causing the deaths, torturing and tormenting the innocent, and wreaking havoc on Europe. Hitler was behind the scenes even though he was charismatic in his propganda speeches. The Nazi party was responsible for this tragedy, not a single man. People speak about him due to his looks (the small mustache), bazaar behavior and insecurities; and his suicide. History's fascination with him as a cult leader needs to end. The real tragedy is that an entire nation followed the ethnocentric mentality towards Jews, Gypsies, Catholic Priests, and homosexuals. The Holocaust needs to honor the memory of those who perished instead of a single man.
Learn more about this author, Morgan K. Reed.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
I have taught both topics in British schools for nearly 20 years and I am convinced that for children under the age of 14, and quite possibly 16 learning about the holocaust in anything other than a limited way results in totally inappropriate responses ranging from snickering, simplification and downright indifference. The more 'earnest' the teaching the less 'earnest' the response. I have seen perfectly decent, balanced and intelligent children simply laughing at the sight of the most horrific images.
This is not to say that we should not teach the holocaust at all. Beyond the age of 16 it can have a profound effect and no adult should be ignorant of the major episodes of genocide in recent history. Even before the age of 16 there is value in including a look at the holocaust, but not I would argue at the expense of the more accessible study of how and why things came to this point. Children can understand the effects of the great depression, or the first world war and they can easily understand history through individuals.
We must understand that teaching history to children is not the same as presenting history to adults. The young mind is not simply a miniature version of the adult mind. By definition they are still developing their cognitive skills and emotional responses. A few good examples may illustrate this point.
The first world war is a harrowing topic of truly global importance to understanding the modern world. Teachers may be forgiven for wishing to underline the horror by dwelling of the scale of the destruction. I used to do the same myself. However, I found that most children could not empathize sufficiently and quickly focused on the drama of the battles and the somewhat gruesome nature of certain injuries or perhaps the technology of war and the experiences of families on the home front. I no longer fight this tendency because I have come to realize that by developing an interest and an understanding I am creating the seeds of empathy when their minds are old enough to take it on board.
In Britain a popular topic for younger secondary students is to look at the bubonic plague of the 14th century. Some estimates suggest a third of the population was wiped out in this biblical style apocalypse. However most children love this topic taking great delight in stories of gore and suffering. Better still are pictures of open wounds and piled up dead bodies. The most earnest teaching runs completely counter to the instincts of children, in this case usually around the ages of 11-12. Does this mean these children are evil, inhumane or simply callous? Of course not. Children have to conceive of the world in this way, possibly because nature protects their minds from taking true horror on board least it damages them in the future.
Anyone who believes the holocaust can be understood by children under 14 in a way we would all want adults to understand it has got a very crude appreciation of children's minds. Teach history in a way children can engage with even if that means we emphasize topics in a very different way to the way we would for an adult audience.
Learn more about this author, Carl Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
