Holocaust scholar discusses memory

Speaking in a crowded lecture hall last night, renowned Holocaust scholar Saul Friedlander explored the affect of memory on writings about the Holocaust. Friedlander's lecture in the Chemistry Building, "Writing the History of the Shoah: Some Old/New Dilemmas," was the first annual Rebecca and Joseph Meyerhoff Lecture in Jewish History. Sponsored by Herbert and Eleanor Meyerhoff Katz, the lecture series will bring prominent scholars of Jewish history annually to the University. The series adds to the extensive relationship the University already shares with the Meyerhoff family. David Ruderman, the Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Modern Jewish History, asked Friedlander to speak at the inaugural lecture because he is an "eloquent speaker and a remarkable person, and he seemed like a natural." During his introduction of Friedlander, Provost Stanley Chodorow praised the Meyerhoffs for introducing Jewish history subjects "into the mainstream." He added that the family is "woven into the fabric of this institution." A Jew born in 1932 in Prague, Friedlander emigrated to France in 1939 and then to Israel after World War II. The dilemma of memory holds particular relevance to Friedlander's own life as a Holocaust scholar. "How far does the memory of the Shoah? interact or interconnect with the writing of its history?" he asked. Friedlander emphasized that the number of "memories" about the Holocaust, such as diaries, analyses and individual histories, has grown greatly in recent years. "Instead of fading," the memory of the Holocaust "is growing with the passage of time." The problem with so many materials is one of "indeterminacy" and "individualization," Friedlander continued. "The millions of dead remain an abstraction that cannot be grasped," he said. Friedlander also discussed the connection between the Nazis as executioners and the Jews as victims. Venturing into theoretical historiography, Friedlander compared the two groups to Friedrich Hegel's famed master-slave dialectic. He compared the victims to "walking dead" who did not "know the rules of the game." The executioners, on the other hand, made "a constant attempt" to hide their murderous plans, he said. Audience members reacted with mixed enthusiasm to Friedlander's speech. College freshman Uriel Cohen said the lecture was an interesting insight into "the role of memory and how history works." At the same time, another listener felt the speech was abstract and "geared towards the intellectual community." History Professor Thomas Childers agreed that the lecture was "a very theoretical sort of speech" but added that Friedlander was speaking in front of a diverse audience of professors, undergraduate and graduate students and community members. "He was trying to do an awful lot of things in that talk and it may have worked on some levels and not on others," Childers concluded.