We will have the thankless task of proving to a world which will refuse to listen, that we are Abel, the murdered brother.
                      – Ignasy Shiper (historian, killed at Majdanek in 1943)

In his acclaimed book Survival in Auschwitz, Primo Levi recounts a recurring dream he and other inmates had in the Nazi death camp: that he returned home to his family and told them about it, but nobody listened. “The person standing in front of me doesn’t stay to hear, turns around and goes away,” he writes.

Levi’s nightmare became a reality for survivors in the immediate postwar years. Many made great efforts to bear witness to their ordeal under the Nazi yoke, to assure that the victims’ memory would not vanish into the abyss. They wrote testimonies, chronicles and other texts, many of which were never published. But few people were listening then. The meaning of the survivors’ testimony remained largely personal.

It was not until decades later that the witnesses were awarded a new social identity, that of survivors. They became the bearers of a singular and unique history – that of the Shoah – and also of fundamental moral and political lessons. They started talking to the media, in schools and at commemorative events. By sharing their stories they expanded their audience’s knowledge of the Holocaust but the primary functions of their testimony were to keep the Holocaust – not only the event in history, but also the potential for its repetition – before everyone’s eyes.

In a time when few eyewitnesses remain who were adults during the Holocaust, Primo Levi’s ghastly premonition could become an appalling reality again. As philospher Avishai Margalit has skillfully put it, the survivors have borne witness with the hope “that in another place or time there exists, or will exist, a moral community that will listen to their testimony.” The survivors of the Holocaust are leaving us, but their stories are preserved in oral history and video projects, museums, books, art and films. It is now our task as educators to ensure that new generations can become witnesses of the survivors’ historical experience and assume responsibility for the events that occur in the present. In other words, to remember the past but also to identify the warning signs and know when to react.

Alejandro Baer is the Stephen Feinstein Chair and Director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He joined the University of Minnesota in 2012 and is an Associate Professor of Sociology. 

The Bloomsbury Companion to Holocaust Literature

Edited by Jenni Adams

The Bloomsbury Companion to Holocaust Literature is a comprehensive reference resource including a wealth of critical material on a diverse range of topics within the literary study of Holocaust writing. At its centre is a series of specially commissioned essays by leading scholars within the field: these address genre-specific issues such as the question of biographical and historical truth in Holocaust testimony, as well as broader topics including the politics of Holocaust representation and the validity of comparative approaches to the Holocaust in literature and criticism.

A Conversation with Gabriel Gatti (Professor of Sociology, University of the Basque Country, Spain)

Due in large part to humanitarian law and transitional justice, the categories of detained-disappeared and forced disappearance are today well established – so much so that in some places like Argentina and Uruguay an intense social life has taken shape around them and in their wake. Victims mix with institutions, laws, and professionals (forensic anthropologists, social scientists, jurists, psychologists, artists, archivists, and writers), occupying intersecting positions and doing so with varied narratives, from the epic and heroic to the tragic and traumatic. Based on extensive fieldwork in Argentina and Uruguay, Gatti analyzes these worlds in an attempt to understand how one inhabits the categories that international law has constructed to mark, judge, think about, and repair horror.

Gabriel Gatti is Professor of Sociology at the University of the Basque Country, Spain. His research and teaching focus on contemporary forms of identity, in particular those constituted in situations of social catastrophe, rupture, and fracture. He is the author of Identidades débiles, Identidades desaparecidas, Les nouveaux répères de l’identité collective en Europe, and Basque society. His latest work, Surviving Forced Disappearance in Argentina and Uruguay: Identity and Meaningwas published in august of 2014. He is also a main researcher behind the Mundo(s) de victimas (World(s) of victims) a study of four cases that deal with the construction of the “victim” category in contemporary Spain.

Professor Gatti’s visit is part of the Reframing Mass Violence Collaborative Series. Sponsored by the Institute for Advanced Study, the Human Rights Program, the Department of Sociology, the Department of Political Science and the Department of Spanish & Portuguese.

When the National Football League’s Washington Redskins franchise traveled to the University’s TCF Stadium to play the Vikings, they brought with them a considerable amount of controversy. It has been difficult to avoid the debate surrounding the Washington team and their controversial moniker. This is not solely a Minnesota phenomenon; nearly all of the team’s away games have seen a significant amount of protest by both sides. The use of the redskin name has pitted advocates of a change to a more inclusive name against supporters of the football team and their more than eighty year history.  While fans of the franchise argue that the name does not reflect any racism, it is important to understand the origins of the term redskin and how it fits into the wider context of the Native American genocide.

The Washington Redskins are amongst the oldest NFL franchises, having been established in 1932. However, the origins of the term redskin run much deeper. Its first usage is uncertain, but the term entered American lexicon sometime in the late eighteenth century. In the 1840’s at the height of Manifest Destiny, racism towards Native people began to increase. Using redskin and other derogative language to describe Native people was used to differentiate them from ‘civilized’ European culture. This would make it easier for the influx of settlers migrating west to confiscate tribal lands.

By the 1860’s, we can find evidence of the term being used for bounties on Native Americans in Winona. Even beloved children’s author L. Frank Baum, who wrote the Wizard of Oz, used the term redskin while openly advocating for the elimination of Native American people. The usage of the term helped reinforce the us versus them mentality of the United States at the time, making it easier to initiate the American-Indian Wars, which totally destroyed Native American culture in the U.S. In 1915, Redskin Rimes was published. It included a direct rebuttal of James Fennimore Cooper’s (author of The Last of the Mohicans) assessment of the noble Native. By this time, the term redskin was firmly entrenched as a slur against Native people. With this historical understanding it is impossible to understand Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder’s claims that the team name honors Native communities.

In the months before the November 2nd game, the University made an attempt to block the use of the Redskin name, but agreements between the school, the Vikings and NFL restricted the university’s ability to dictate any changes, including the usage and display of the controversial team name. Before the game, thousands of protesters gathered outside TCF Stadium to vocalize their anger at institutionalized racism. It is easy to think of the 21st century as being far removed from the atrocities committed in the United States against Native American people, but the insistence on keeping the Redskins name is a stark, ugly reminder that progress has not come as far as we think. Until the National Football League and its Washington franchise agree to change its name, it will forever be stigmatized with an aura of ignorance and racism.

Joe Eggers is a graduate student at the University of Minnesota, focusing his research on cultural genocide and indigenous communities. His thesis project explores discrepancies between the legal definition and Lemkin’s concept of genocide through analysis of American government assimilation policies towards Native Nations.

One of the lasting effects of the genocide in Rwanda is that all African conflicts are always compared to Rwanda. The metric always seems to be whether or not they will be as bad as Rwanda if intervention does not occur. Rwanda has become a sign of guilt, a reminder that we as humanity did nothing to stop one of the more atrocious and rapid killings of peoples in an African country. Of course this ignores that the Democratic Republic of Congo has been embroiled in some variation of the same conflict for as almost as long as I’ve been alive (and I’m somewhat old enough to remember images of the late Mandela walking free from Robben Island holding Winnie Madikizela’s hand).

When the atrocities in Darfur first made international headlines several politicians and advocacy groups were quick to categorise it as a conflict pitting Christians against Muslims. There was a sense of déjà vu; a clearly identifiable group (Muslims/Arabs) was killing another discernable group (Christians/black African). Samantha Power,  (herself an advocate of intervention) would subsequently start working on raising awareness with a rising star in intervention advocacy circles- John Prendergast. Soon, celebrities like George Clooney (Sudan), Ben Affleck (DRC) and Don Cheadle (Genocide and the environment) had pet projects in African countries. Africa as a whole, and Sudan specifically, has provided the opportunity for foreigners to “find themselves” what scholars refer to as individuation.  As eloquently expressed by Alex Perry’s wonderful piece for Newsweek a few weeks ago, no place has suffered more from individuation than South Sudan.

As the conflict in South Sudan has raged on over the past several months one thing has become clear, president Kiir and his erstwhile deputy Dr. Machar appear to be in no hurry to solve the crisis. Despite numerous peace meetings, renewed hostilities seem to appear each day with both sides blaming each other.  What is frustrating is that the same voices that were keen on pushing for South Sudan’s independence appear content with issuing statements lamenting the humanitarian crisis.

You may ask, “shouldn’t the onus to stop the conflict be on the government of South Sudan?” Yes it should, however this question assumes that South Sudan had a proper functioning government to begin with. It assumes that the state apparatus was such that accountability and transparency were built-in from the get-go. The truth is that none of these things existed prior to this crisis and they certainly do not exist now. All the humanitarian help that was poured into South Sudan once it became a country never seemed particularly interested in this. Neither was president Kiir’s government ever held accountable.

The guilt of having not done anything to stop Rwanda in 1994 meant that a lot of humanitarians were willing to turn a blind eye to massive levels of corruption and lawlessness. They went as far as setting up a $526 Billion fund for infrastructure project (in a country with plenty of oil). Moreover, the impact of the Clooney-Prendergast type of intervention has meant that even South Sudanese government officials are willing to forgo their responsibility to protect if it means continued humanitarian intervention. No one epitomises this more clearly than South Sudan’s former ambassador to the US (on trial for treason) remarking, “George Clooney must get more engaged now to help shape the future of this country.”

And that is the complicated and incongruous nature of the relationship between humanitarians and conflicts in Africa.

Wahutu Siguru is the 2013 & Spring 2015 Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and PhD candidate in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. Siguru’s research interests are in the Sociology of Media, Genocide, Mass Violence and Atrocities (specifically on issues of representation of conflicts in Africa such as Darfur and Rwanda), Collective Memory, and perhaps somewhat tangentially Democracy and Development in Africa. 

This past weekend, Germany launched three days of celebrations marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, which led eventually to a reunified German state. The bright lights of the jubilee, however, may cast a shadow on other important events in German history that also took place on November 9, events to which the German post-war division can be traced back. On November 9, 1923, Adolf Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch marked the emergence of the Nazi Party as an important player in Germany’s political landscape. On the night of November 9, 1938, Nazis set hundreds of synagogues on fire throughout Germany and annexed Austria, vandalized Jewish homes, schools and businesses and killed close to 100 Jews in what became known as Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass.

Both pasts, the Nazi crimes and the partition of Germany, are connected. This twofold remembrance on November 9 may serve Germans as a counterbalance to the flood of self-congratulation that is engulfing the country during these days of celebration.

Alejandro Baer is the Stephen Feinstein Chair and Director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He joined the University of Minnesota in 2012 and is an Associate Professor of Sociology.

European Muslim Antisemitism: Why Young Urban Males Say They Don’t Like Jews

By Günther Jikeli

Antisemitism from Muslims has become a serious issue in Western Europe, although not often acknowledged as such. Looking for insights into the views and rationales of young Muslims toward Jews, Günther Jikeli and his colleagues interviewed 117 ordinary Muslim men in London (chiefly of South Asian background), Paris (chiefly North African), and Berlin (chiefly Turkish).

The researchers sought information about stereotypes of Jews, arguments used to support hostility toward Jews, the role played by the Middle East conflict and Islamist ideology in perceptions of Jews, the possible sources of anti-Semitic views, and, by contrast, what would motivate Muslims to actively oppose antisemitism. They also learned how the men perceive discrimination and exclusion as well as their own national identification.

This study is rich in qualitative data that will mark a significant step along the path toward a better understanding of contemporary antisemitism in Europe

Professor Vidal, who taught at the University of Minnesota from 1972 until his retirement in 2003, is widely known as an innovative, original, and productive scholar in the field of Latin American studies. The collective impact of his work and influence opened up new fields of intellectual inquiry to which he contributed through his high intellectual standards, independent spirit of inquiry, and unwavering commitment to human rights.

In the 1980s, Professor Vidal undertook a line of research that continued to expand the canon of literary studies and at the same time responded to the tragic reality of Chile, Argentina, and neighboring countries. He began to analyze subaltern or marginal literatures, and questions of authoritarian and military discourse, as they emerged and were answered in plays, songs, films, and other modes of popular culture, as well as in the practices which constitute and transform everyday life. This research resulted in the publication of several books, among them Dar la vida por la vida: la Agrupación de Familiares de Dentenidos Desaparecidos  [A Life for a Life: The Families of the “Disappeared”] (1982), El movimiento contra la tortura “Sebastián Acevedo”: Derechos humanos y la producción de símbolos nacionales bajo el fascismo chileno [The “Sebastián Acevedo” Movement against Torture: Human Rights and the Production of National Symbols under Chilean Fascism] (1986, with an updated version published by Mosquito Editores in Chile in 1996).

Professor Vidal linked, in a profoundly humanistic way, the practice of literary criticism with the defense of human rights. He will be greatly missed by the academic community.

Dr. Günther Jikeli is a research fellow at the Moses Mendelssohn Center for European-Jewish Studies at Potsdam University. He is the co-director of the International Institute for Education and Research on Antisemitism (IIBSA). He earned his Ph.D.at the Center for Research on Antisemitism in Berlin and has served as an advisor to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe on combating antisemitism. In 2013, he was awarded the Raoul Wallenberg Prize in Human Rights and Holocaust Studies by the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation and Tel Aviv University. 

Recent reports indicate that antisemitism is on the rise in most European countries. How do you explain the causes?

Historically, antisemitism has often come in waves and we are now witnessing a global rise. This has multiple, overlapping causes. Holocaust memory is stirring resentment against Jews, while at the same time the Holocaust is being diminished and equated to all sorts of incidents. Additionally, many people in Western Europe have developed an obsession with Israel, encouraged by a media that disproportionately focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and often disseminates a Manichean view upon it. A study from Germany showed that 90% of those who harbor hostile feelings against Israel also harbor anti-Semitic feelings. Another major factor for the rise of antisemitism in Western Europe is open hatred against Jews among large sections of Muslim minorities, which is all too often tolerated. In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, we can observe the rise of revisionist and ultra-nationalist parties, whose aim is to honor historical leaders of their country who fought against Stalinism. The problem with that is they were mostly Nazi collaborators and often directly responsible for the mass killings of Jews.

How do you distinguish between anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism? 

It depends what the “anti-Israel sentiment” is. If this is criticism of the Israeli government for a particular decision then there is a clear difference to antisemitism. If Jews, and only Jews, are denied a viable nation-state as a people, then it is hard not to see the bias. The dissolution of the State of Israel or a “one state solution” would seriously put all Jewish Israelis (and probably also Israeli Arabs) into danger. Willfully ignoring this threat can be seen as a form of assistance to anti-Semites.

Is the problem acknowledged by the institutions and the media?

No, it is usually ignored by the media. However, the wave of anti-Semitic incidents in summer 2014 in many European cities has led to strong condemnation by many political leaders and the media.

Is Germany facing similar problems? Is there more responsiveness to anti-Semitic manifestations?

There are no major differences in these questions between the authorities lets say in France and in Germany. The condemnation of antisemitism in all its forms is even stronger by French politicians. Manuel Valls, now French Prime Minister, has declared that anti-Zionism is antisemitism and should not be tolerated. No similar statement has come from leading German politicians (although, Chancellor Merkel should be praised for her firm stand on the issue). However, while antisemitism is condemned in general terms, the political will to combat it is effectively weak. In 2011 a German parliament commission on combating antisemitism recommended several actions that still have not been initiated and anti-Semitic Muslim groups are tolerated instead of condemned for their rhetoric.

Your scholarship focuses on antisemitism among individuals of Muslim background in Europe. What are the specific traits?

Muslim antisemitism is a major factor in the global rise of antisemitism we are witnessing today. It is estimated that in many European countries between 30 and 50% of perpetrators of violent anti-Semitic acts have a Muslim background (Muslims form less than 8% in any Western European country). Many anti-Semitic tropes that are popular among Muslims are also widespread amongst the general population, such as “Jews are rich”, “Jews control the media, the business world, etc…”In addition, many Muslims refer to Islamic scriptures and to a Muslim identity for their hatred of Jews. “Jews are Muslims’ enemies,” is a widespread belief among these Muslims. In some social circles, hatred of Jews has become the norm.

How do organizations like the International Institute for Education and Research on Antisemitism (IIBSA) combat antisemitism?

Combating antisemitism is important. Speaking out and not tolerating antisemitism- as well as encouraging people to act as anti-antisemites is of the upmost importance. Education is surely key and we find that younger people are often willing to reflect critically upon their prejudices (of which antisemitism is only one of many). Unfortunately, there are very few grassroots non-Jewish organizations that work in the field. There is the German association Heroes, which specializes in exploring prejudices and authoritarian structures within Muslim families and the IIBSA (with projects in Berlin, London, and Morocco) works both in research and education on these questions. Antisemitism at first targets Jews but what many people fail to realize is that it is also a threat to all democratic and civilized societies.

As a student studying genocide and mass atrocity in the media, I often wonder whether we as consumers of the news can only take one atrocity at a time or if the media only thinks we can handle one at a time?  Over the past year, I have watched as reporting on the atrocities in the Central Africa Republic, South Sudan and the campaign #BringBackOurGirls gain momentum only to lose it as quickly as it was gained.

Now, almost all the news sources are focused on the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and it appears that the watchful eye of the media has moved away from the other hot spots. Apparently the news outlets have come to a consensus that we the audience have suffered from what Susan Moeller calls compassion fatigue and have moved from the black (famine) and red (war) horses of the apocalypse, in CAR and South Sudan, to the white horse (often referred to as infectious disease) of the apocalypse in West Africa. Compassion fatigue dictates that the news will only report on stories that resonate with an American audience and thus a focus on West Africa fits this understanding since two recent Ebola patients were American and that another patient who is British were airlifted to the UK for treatment. The shift to the white horse of the apocalypse has also seen the Democratic Republic of Congo make an appearance in the news this month and not for the on-going hostilities.

This new focus, however, should not be conflated necessarily as a concern for what the disease is doing to Liberian families and rural populations. This focus has been, almost singularly, how Ebola may affect the U.S. Thus Ebola is not seen as dangerous because of its brutal effects on Liberian, Guinean, and/or rural west African populations, it is dangerous because it may show up on these shores which is a trope that has been accurately critiqued as not only misinformed but as inherently racist as well. As someone that studies representation of atrocities in Africa in the media, this type of sensationalizing is one that is familiar. The creation of a sensational story sells newspapers and increases circulation numbers-only one horseman at a time. All four will cause too much panic and eventual disengagement.

As the academic year begins, this column will continue to highlight the flash-points across the continent. There will also be updates on the positive actions being taken in these dangerous areas, such as the continued peace efforts by several countries to end hostilities in South Sudan. It is my belief that this year will mostly be one of improvements more than it will be about renewed hostilities. However, two countries need to be on our radars this fall. The first country to keep an eye on is Nigeria as it prepares for elections in the spring and reports of soldiers blatantly refusing to obey orders to deploy against Boko Haram due to its being outmatched (in terms of weaponry) by the group. The other is Lesotho, which seems to either have barely missed a coup (at best) or (at worst) the coup plotters were testing the waters and may attempt another coup later.

 Wahutu Siguru is the 2013 & Spring 2015 Badzin Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies and PhD candidate in the Sociology department at the University of Minnesota. Siguru’s research interests are in the Sociology of Media, Genocide, Mass Violence and Atrocities (specifically on issues of representation of conflicts in Africa such as Darfur and Rwanda), Collective Memory, and perhaps somewhat tangentially Democracy and Development in Africa.