Holocaust Comparison

Words: 1350
Pages: 6

Comparison is an essential part of human thinking: something familiar serves as the standard by which we evaluate an unfamiliar topic. The Holocaust is seen as a paradigm of human-induced suffering and mass injustice. It is thus inevitable that in processing tragic events, the Holocaust is often used as a frame of reference. Despite the prevalence of Holocaust comparison, it remains a contentious issue. Those who disapprove raise concerns about Holocaust trivialization and the possibility of such comparisons blocking the articulation of other tragedies. I argue that evoking Holocaust memory through comparison does not obscure other instances of violence, but rather sheds light on them and develops a moral framework for dealing with future conflict. …show more content…
Another theme that the literature discusses is the pivotal role of emotion in understanding and interpreting the Holocaust. Rachel Baum argues that there are certain “obligatory emotions” attached to the Holocaust. Obligatory emotions are the expected emotional response to particular visuals, enforced by social standards. Holocaust imagery tends to produce emotions of “horror, sadness, sympathy, and pity” (Baum). These obligatory emotions are the basis of all Holocaust comparisons; the person drawing the comparison is trying to make people feel the same way about their cause as they do about the Holocaust. Baum asserts that, at least in a classroom setting, Holocaust memory should be connected to contemporary events (Baum). In other words, Baum argues for increased Holocaust comparison on the grounds that the emotion students feel towards the Holocaust shapes their view of present events. Thus, future injustices can be prevented by Holocaust …show more content…
Essentially, Whigham is arguing that since people can be taught to feel a certain way about collective memories of trauma due to their dynamic nature, comparison can be instrumental in preventing future tragedies. Whigham’s argument has a much broader scope than Baum’s. He is arguing for comparison of all collective memories of trauma, rather than just Holocaust comparison. However, both arguments rely on the existence of obligatory emotions of empathy towards persecuted groups to produce a productive comparison. Whigham and Baum agree that historical comparison, including Holocaust comparison, is positive in that it helps establish a moral framework for dealing with future conflict. The final key theme discussed in the literature is the idea that memory is dynamic rather than static. Michael Rothberg defines memory as “the past made present” and argues memory changes over time in response to outside influences. He rejects the idea that collective memories are unique and unaltered articulations of history. He instead claims that different collective memories interact in the public sphere, and shape each other