Reliquias y relatos, conceptos de la Historia, desde el Materialismo Filosófico


Estudiando los relatos y reliquias de que disponemos acerca de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y centrando ese estudio en torno al Holocausto Judío, vamos encontrando que existe un movimiento en que historiadores negacionistas van tejiendo su interpretación de esas reliquias y relatos.
Desde el Materialismo Filosófico el hecho de que existen situaciones alfa y beta operatorias cuando operamos con los términos de los campos categoriales de las ciencias, nos mete de lleno en el problema de la Historia como ciencia beta operatoria en la cual el sujeto operatorio no puede construir un cierre categorial por estar inmerso él mismo en las operaciones. Lo cual nos lleva a la cuestión de las conexiones emic/etic en torno a la gnoseología que hemos de relacionar con la ontología en el caso de los hechos que se dieron durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial

FUENTE http://www.vho.org/aaargh/espa/actualidad/hobsbawm.html
Cuando la pasión ciega a la Historia

Publicado esta semana en Italia, el presente artículo del gran historiador inglés abrió la polémica entre los estudiosos. Tres historiadores argentinos lo analizan y se preguntan por nuestro pasado reciente.

ERIC HOBSBAWM. Historiador
hace unos días concluyó en un tribunal británico un caso legal muy importante para los historiadores. David Irving, autor de numerosos libros sobre la Segunda Guerra y el nacionalsocialismo, demandó por difamación a la académica estadounidense Deborah Lipstadt y a su editorial, Penguin Books. Irving sostiene que, al definirlo como mentiroso y “negador del Holocausto”, la profesora Lipstadt y su editorial dañaron su credibilidad como historiador y sus posibilidades de ganarse la vida.

Irving no sólo rechazó las acusaciones que se le hicieron, sino que sostuvo que la versión acerca de los orígenes, la naturaleza y los alcances de la llamada “solución final del problema judío”, enunciada por la profesora Lipstadt y otros exponentes de lo que él denomina “la industria del Holocausto”, es históricamente insostenible.

A diferencia de Irving, ella, de hecho, no se basó en documentos originales, ni siquiera en un conocimiento adecuado de cómo funcionaba el sistema alemán.

Esta fue la cuestión discutida durante semanas en una sala de audiencias de la Justicia londinense. El juez todavía no se ha manifestado y naturalmente pronunciará su fallo sobre dos cuestiones que son separables, por lo menos para la ley británica: 1) si las declaraciones de la profesora Lipstadt difamaron al señor Irving y 2) si realmente fue así, cuál es el alcance del daño que sufrió como resultado de tal difamación. La segunda consideración no nos interesa aquí pero la primera era y es una cuestión de fundamental importancia para los historiadores. Tiene que ver con la compleja relación entre la investigación histórica y la opinión política, entre el juicio histórico y el político. Porque esta no es una controversia de pura erudición, ni para el señor Irving ni para la profesora Lipstadt ni para quienes comparten sus opiniones. Al contrario, ambos están apasionadamente empeñados en sostener sus respectivos puntos de vista sobre bases no académicas.

Es cierto que realmente son pocos los historiadores que comparten las opiniones políticas representadas por David Irving. El no hace ningún esfuerzo por ocultar sus simpatías por el nacionalsocialismo alemán, por la extrema derecha de la posguerra y su antisemitismo. Además, instintivamente, muchos de nosotros estamos de parte de Deborah Lipstadt porque es imposible no horrorizarse ante lo que les sucedió a los judíos en Auschwitz y en otras partes. Por eso es necesario, para los simpatizantes nazis, tratar de negar directamente que haya ocurrido. No obstante, es claro que también las opiniones de Lipstadt representan una posición política defendida apasionadamente, a tal punto que quienes la sostienen están dispuestos también a negar las críticas factuales. David Irving demandó ante la Justicia a sus críticos. Pero Daniel Goldhagen, que (en Los verdugos voluntarios de Hitler) escribió una interpretación judía del Holocausto rechazada casi en forma unánime por los historiadores en la materia, trató de silenciar a sus críticos y lo mismo hicieron sus defensores. Es significativo que el mismo historiador Christopher Browning haya sido convocado por la defensa tanto en el caso Irving como en el de la controversia sobre Goldhagen.

En realidad, mucho antes del juicio Irving-Lipstadt yo traté de explicar su naturaleza. Permítaseme una autocita: si faltan las pruebas o si los datos son escasos, contradictorios o sospechosos, es imposible desmentir una hipótesis, por improbable que sea. Las pruebas pueden mostrar de manera concluyente, contra quienes lo niegan, que el genocidio nazi realmente tuvo lugar, pero aunque ningún historiador serio dude de que la “solución final” fue querida por Hitler, no podemos demostrar que verdaderamente él haya dado una orden específica en ese sentido. Dado el modo de actuar de Hitler, una orden escrita semejante es improbable y no fue encontrada. Por lo tanto, si desbaratar la tesis de M. Faurisson no resulta difícil, no podemos, sin elaborados argumentos, rechazar la tesis enunciada por David Irving.

Esa es la esencia del problema. Habría sido más cómodo que Irving pudiera ser acusado simplemente de negar Auschwitz o de mentir sobre Hitler. Pero él no lo hizo. Sostuvo que Hitler no quería, o no era responsable del Holocausto, porque no existe un documento escrito por Hitler que ordene la eliminación de los judíos, y las argumentaciones de Irving, basadas en un conocimiento notable de la documentación, obligaron a gran parte de los historiadores a reconocer, aun a regañadientes, que no existe semejante documento. Con razones óptimas, el consenso que prevalece entre los historiadores individualiza en Hitler al responsable de la “solución final” pero su argumentación modificó la interpretación histórica del Tercer Reich. Además, él no niega que millones de judíos perecieron entre 1941 y 1945. No niega tampoco que un gran número de judíos fue deliberadamente exterminado, y no sólo víctima del cansancio, el hambre o enfermedades. Lo que hace más bien es concentrarse en sembrar la duda respecto de muchos de los “lugares comunes” acerca del Holocausto -lo que podríamos llamar la retórica pública, o la versión hollywoodense del Holocausto, gran parte de la cual no proviene de los historiadores serios que indagaron sobre ese terrible tema. Y por ende algunos de ellos, como bien sabe cualquier especialista en esta área, tienen una postura de apertura respecto de las críticas.

Podríamos preguntarnos: ¿cuál es la relevancia del caso jurídico “Irving contra Lipstadt” para los historiadores? Ninguno de los protagonistas es un típico exponente de la profesión histórica. El señor Irving es un cruzado de su causa. Si no se hubiera identificado con la causa de la Alemania hitlerista, las familias de las personalidades nazis no le habrían dado acceso a los documentos que antes habían negado a otros estudiosos o que les habían ocultado. De este modo se volvió un experto en la materia. La señora Lipstadt no es una historiadora profesional y su reputación en este campo es modesta. No se puede pasar por alto que optó por no declarar en el juicio y no exponerse al interrogatorio de su adversario.

En efecto, muchos de los nombres importantes en la historiografía sobre el Tercer Reich y la destrucción de los judíos europeos estuvieron ausentes del caso. Es improbable, obviamente, que apoyaran a Irving pero también es improbable que aceptaran la excesiva simplificación del libro de Lipstadt. Y sin embargo, su ausencia o reticencia es preocupante. No se puede permitir que el debate público sobre materias de una importancia tan grande se desarrolle esencialmente entre defensores de causas políticas.

Pienso que el silencio de los estudiosos expresa las pasiones y las contradicciones que asaltan a los historiadores que abordan temas sobre los cuales para muchos de nosotros la neutralidad es imposible aún hoy, en el momento en que escribimos. Esto es más que evidente en el caso del régimen o de los regímenes que produjeron el Holocausto. Permítaseme repetir lo que escribí en otra oportunidad a propósito del “Historikerstreit” (controversia entre historiadores alemanes) de 1980: “En la polémica se planteaba si toda postura histórica con respecto a la Alemania nazi que no fuera de absoluta condena no implicaba el riesgo de rehabilitar un sistema profundamente infame, o no mitigaba, en todo caso, las acciones nefastas… la fuerza de un método así es tal que, mientras expreso estos conceptos, con cierto malestar me doy cuenta de que podrían ser interpretados como el signo de cierta “morbosidad hacia el nazismo” y por lo tanto se vuelve necesaria alguna forma de rechazo” (“De Historia”, 275-6). Estos sentimientos siguen siendo fuertes hoy y pueden incluso ser reavivados por el retorno a la vida pública, incluso a veces al gobierno, de políticos o partidos identificados con el pasado nazi, o descendientes del mismo, como sucedió hace poco en Austria.

El caso “Irving contra Lipstadt” tiene que ver con la más emotiva de todas estas cuestiones, la llamada “negación del Holocausto”. Y sin embargo, la misma expresión pertenece a una era en que la condena moral reemplazó a la historiografía. Justamente como el debate, si es que se lo puede llamar así, sobre el que debe decidir un tribunal británico. Dicho debate pertenece a la esfera de la parcialidad política. Más allá de las incertidumbres que rodean el tema, no es posible, y nunca lo fue, negar la evidencia del genocidio de los judíos (y los gitanos) perpetrado, mientras estuvo en condiciones de hacerlo, por la Alemania nazi. Ningún historiador que lo sea habría considerado necesario impedir la publicación de intentos evidentemente vanos de negar lo innegable o de crear un delito de “negación del Holocausto”, como sucedió en Alemania. Por otra parte, ningún historiador serio negaría que hay lagunas o imprecisiones -en cuanto a los hechos, números, lugares, motivos, procedimientos y muchas otras cosas- que rodean la historia del genocidio.

El estudioso serio del tema, por lo tanto, trata el genocidio como un área de estudio donde desacuerdo y discusión, aun acerca de los aspectos más indecibles -por ejemplo el número de las víctimas, o la naturaleza y el alcance del uso del gas Zyklon-B son naturales e indispensables-. No puede reducir su función esencialmente a la denuncia o a la definición y la defensa de una versión aceptada de la verdad. Y sin embargo, ése es justamente el peligro en algunas lecturas del Holocausto sostenidas apasionadamente, sobre todo las versiones que, a partir de los años 60, fueron transformando cada vez más la tragedia del pueblo judío de la Europa continental durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial en el mito legitimador para el Estado de Israel y su política.

Como a todo mito legitimador, la realidad lo incomoda. Además, cada crítica del mito (o de las políticas por él legitimada) está destinada a ser calificada de algo similar a la “negación del Holocausto”. Los historiadores serios del Tercer Reich, que son de una calidad poco común, no tienen tiempo ni para Irving ni para Lipstadt. Nunca hubo dudas sobre el hecho de que rechazan el intento de Irving de distanciar a Hitler de la “solución final”, o el intento nazi de minimizar o mitigar, por no decir negar, el genocidio. Por otra parte, como bien lo prueba su casi unánime reacción a la publicación del libro de Goldhagen, también rechazaron lo que Ian Kershaw llama “una interpretación simplista y desviada del Holocausto”. Y sin embargo, cuando los abogados de los asesinos enfrentan a los abogados de las víctimas, qué difícil es, aun después de más de medio siglo, condenar con equidad los errores de ambos, aunque por diferentes razones. El silencio es más fácil. Claramente, algunos eligieron ese camino.

¿Estoy acertado? ¿O tenían razón aquellos pocos estudiosos que decidieron aceptar la invitación de la defensa, sobre todo para desacreditar las afirmaciones de Irving, aunque indudablemente conscientes de las carencias de Lipstadt? Estas preguntas no pueden hallar respuesta en tanto no se publiquen todas las actas del proceso. Serán, seguramente, la base de uno o más libros. Mientras tanto, la reticencia de los buenos historiadores dejó la impresión de que la única crítica pública a la falta de criterios profesionales en gran parte de la difusión del Holocausto proviene de un admirador de Hitler.

En todo caso, estas son cuestiones que demandan un juicio político, que puede estar en conflicto con el juicio histórico. Este es el tema sobre el cual quiero atraer la atención. La profesión del historiador es inevitablemente, y algunos dirían por su propia naturaleza, política e ideológica, aunque lo que un historiador dice o puede no decir depende estrictamente de reglas y convenciones que requieren pruebas y argumentos. Y sin embargo, convive con un discurso aparentemente similar acerca del pasado en el cual estas reglas y convenciones no se aplican; y donde se aplican por el contrario solamente las convenciones de la pasión, de la retórica, del cálculo político y de la parcialidad. Pero el siglo XX fue un siglo de guerras religiosas, durante el cual fue normal para los historiadores considerar que debían juzgar en base a los criterios de su profesión o en base a los de su propia fe.

El caso que traté es típico de un período así. Y no es el único. Las pasiones de esta era se debilitaron pero todavía no desaparecieron. ¿Cómo deberían comportarse los historiadores? Las reglas de nuestra profesión deberían vedarnos decir lo que sabemos que es erróneo o sospechamos profundamente que lo es, pero la tentación de refrenarnos de decir lo que sabemos que es cierto sigue siendo muy grande. Aun los que nunca tomarían en consideración la “suggestio falsi”, pueden encontrarse vacilando en la pendiente que lleva a la “suppressio veri”.

No existe posibilidad alguna de que en cincuenta o incluso cien años la memoria del Holocausto pueda morir, pero esto no se deberá de ninguna manera al caso al que acabo de referirme. Espero realmente que los historiadores que se topen con el caso “Irving contra Lipstadt” en sus investigaciones lo consideren como una exposición perteneciente a un museo de antiguedades intelectuales olvidadas desde hace tiempo.

Pero para los historiadores de hoy, todavía plantea serios problemas de juicio profesional y moral. Aún nos queda un poco de camino por andar para emanciparnos de la herencia intelectual de la era de las guerras religiosas que dominó el siglo XX. Tal vez debamos hacer el intento de acelerar nuestra emancipación.

(c) La Repubblica y Clarín, 2000. Por Eric J. Hobsbawm.
Traducción de Cristina Sardoy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clarin, Buenos-Aires, Domingo 02 de abril de 2000

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Vease Actualidades de Inglaterra : El proceso Irving

un pobre cristiano mira el gueto. Poema de Cezlaw Milozs, en lectura audio ( español )

http://www.culture.pl/web/english/multimedia-cppp-full/-/eo_event_asset_publisher/9jWj/content/gomez-and-sanchez-gijon-read-milosz-audio

el pensamiento cautivo: Milosz, poeta polaco, Justo entre las Naciones


Ceslaw Milozs
http://www.bogota.polemb.net/index.php?document=201

Un cristiano pobre observa el Ghetto
Por Czesław Miłosz

Las abejas erigen alrededor de rojas vísceras,
las hormigas alrededor del negro hueso.
Ha comenzado: el desgarro de las sedas pisoteadas con desprecio.
Ha comenzado: la ruptura del vidrio y la madera, del cobre y el níquel,
de la plata y el estuco, de las láminas de hierro, de las cuerdas del violín,
de las trompetas y el follaje, de las vasijas y cristales.
¡Puf! El fuego resplandece desde los muros amarillos,
abrasa el pelo animal y el cabello humano.

Las abejas erigen sobre el panal de los pulmones,
las hormigas sobre el blanco hueso. Destrozan papel, caucho,
sábanas, cuero, lino, fibras, tejidos, hilos, alambre y forros de sierpe.
El techo y las paredes se derrumban entre llamas
y el fuego consume los cimientos.
Ahora sólo queda la tierra, pedregosa y yerma,
con un solo árbol deshojado.

Lentamente, excavando un túnel, un centinela clandestino se hace paso,
con una pequeña linterna roja atada sobre su frente.
Toca los cuerpos sepultados y los cuenta, avanza,
reconoce las cenizas humanas por su luminoso vaho,
las cenizas de cada hombre distinguibles por la intensidad de sus matices.
Las abejas erigen alrededor de una roja huella.
Las hormigas, en el vacío dejado por mi cuerpo.

Tengo miedo, tanto miedo del centinela clandestino.
Tiene los párpados hinchados, como un Patriarca
que se ha sentado tenazmente a la luz de los cirios
para leer el gran libro de la especie humana.

¿Qué le diré, yo, un judío del Nuevo Testamento,
que ha esperado dos mil años por el regreso de Cristo?
Mi quebrantado cuerpo me llevará hasta sus ojos
y él me contará entre los cómplices de la muerte:
el incircunciso.

Varsovia, 1943

ARTICULO DE GRACIA NORIEGA SOBRE MILOZS
http://www.ignaciogracianoriega.net/mds/20111117.htm

entrevista a Tomás Pérez Vejo: mitos que fundaron naciones. Iberoamérica y las guerras de independencia


http://www.prismatv.unal.edu.co/nc/detalle-serie/detalle-programa/article/tomas-perez-vejo-un-mito-que-creo-naciones.html

segundo video clase de Carlos Fazio sobre religiosidad y laicismo en América Latina

http://livestre.am/17E9b

clase de Carlos Fazio sobre religiosidad y laicismo en el presente

http://cdn.livestream.com/embed/camena?layout=4&clip=pla_aa503ff3-d591-4eb4-a6f7-4f1c5cf0a2a7&height=340&width=560&autoplay=false

Watch live streaming video from camena at livestream.com

Holocaust Lesson plan for High School students

link sobre derechos humanos http://www.eycb.coe.int/Compass/en/chapter_1/1_2.html

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/activity/HighSchl.htm

Ejemplo : Ana Frank

The Truth About Anne Frank

Twelve Hour Class Outline

By Daniel T. Barkowitz: Copyright 1992 All Rights Reserved.
Please contact the author with any questions: email drwitz@attbi.com
143 Langdon Street
Newton, MA 02458

Created for use in High School Programs (8th to 12th grades) at Temple Shalom, Newton and Temple Israel, Boston. It is divided into a twelve week class outline, each class lasting one hour. Approximately 17 printed pages.

Week 2 || Week 3 || Week 4 || Week 5 || Week 6 || Week 7 || Week 8
Week 9 || Week 10 || Week 11 || Week 12 || Homework || Bibliography

Week 1

1. Have students list the names of all the people that they know from the period of the Holocaust on the board (Anne Frank, Adolf Hitler, etc). Ask students why Anne Frank’s name is so recognizable? Isn’t it amazing that one 13 year old girl could be that well known? (10 min)

2. Talk with kids to determine what they know about the Anne Frank story (brief synopsis). Have students describe why Anne went into hiding, how long there, what happened to her. Use point and talk method — point to one student and have her/him start the story; at some point while s/he is talking point to another student and have them continue the story. DON’T CORRECT ANY MISTAKES IN THE STORY!!!! (15 min)

3. Discuss that sometimes people who are well known are surrounded by myth. Ask what kind of myths, legends, etc, students have heard about currently famous people (Madonna, Michael Jackson, etc.). Ask where these myths came from (television, movies, articles written by people who may or may not know the person, stories heard from friends, gossip, etc). Discuss that the Anne Frank story is also surrounded by some myths, and that the class will attempt to show these myths and what is true about Anne. Explain that the only way to do that is to look at what is true (actual Diaries straight from Anne’s mouth [maybe], and compare that to movie version, play version, ballet version, things written about Anne, and what we already think we know about Anne) define primary versus secondary source. (15 min)

4. For first myth, ask why kids think Anne wrote Diary? Did she plan on having the diaries published? After class has given their responses, provide background from “The Diary of Anne Frank”: The Critical Edition (pages 59, 60, and read the quotes while providing historical background for each quote. Explain that although Anne had already begun writing the diaries by this point (as there were more than one diary), this radio address caused her to start editing the old diaries for publication (changing the names of the people to protect them, streamlining text, making it more interesting). (15 min)

5. Pass out homework assignment saying that for homework, students should buy book, “Diary of Anne Frank”, and should read diary entries from June 14, 1942 through July 11, 1942. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 2

1. Take attendance, review homework, and collect it. (5 min)

2. Ask if all the names in the diary are the real names of the people involved? Discuss name changes that Anne made in the diary. (van Pels to van Daan, etc., pages 61 to 62 in “The Critical Edition”). Why do students think she changed people’s names? (5 min)

3. Ask if German children were taught to hate Jewish people? How? Show photograph on page 8 and caption and photo on page 11 of “The End of Innocence: Anne Frank and the Holocaust” and have students share feelings about the propaganda. (5 min)

4. Ask students if they know what Kristallnacht was? For a little historic background read the third complete paragraph on page 15 in “Innocence”. Anne referred to Kristallnacht in her diary (see entry from Saturday 20 June, 1942). Perform a class reading of the dramatization of Kristallnacht on pages 57-62 in “Innocence”. Let kids react to reading after it is done. (30 min)

5. Ask kids if the governments of the US and of other “free” countries around the world (1) knew what was going on in Germany and (2) were willing to help. Explain about the meeting in Evian, France (info on page 15 in “Innocence”) and have kids read countries response to meeting on pages 55 and 56 explaining that these words are close to the actual responses of the people at the conference. (10 min)

6. Pass out homework for next week and review instructions.

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 3

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return last week’s homework, and review the homework. (5 min)

2. Explain that today we are going to watch the first portion of the movie “The Diary of Anne Frank”. Explain name pronunciation (Crawler, Anna, Frawnk, Pater, Margot, etc.). Also explain that the movie is based on the play which is based on the Diary, so this is pretty far away from the original. Stop during for whatever comments are appropriate. Watch for 25 minutes. (30 min)

3. Discuss videotape adaptation of story with students. Let them discuss differences between movie and text (Margot and Peter interested in each other, Anne gets diary while in hiding, hiding above a spice factory, etc.). Ask if students like adaptation of movie (corny music, black and white, etc.). (10 min)

4. Discuss Anne’s relationship with her mother. Do students feel it is a productive, healthy relationship. What did the movie seem to indicate? (5 min)

5. If time read first two scenes from the play (“The Diary of Anne Frank”) to give another adaptation of the story (assign people to play characters and change them around!). Discuss with students the differences between the play and the movie. (10 min)

6. Pass out homework for next week. Review instructions with students.

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 4

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return last week’s homework, and review the homework. (5 min)

2. Discuss importance of Hanukkah in life of the Frank family. Was it an important part of their life? Using text from the diary as back up, discuss St. Nicholas day; why did Frank family celebrate both and which did they consider more important? Read pages from “The Critical Edition” (pages 424-426) to give a more complete idea of St. Nicholas poems. Pass out Act I, Scene 5 from play. Assign parts to students and read the scene aloud. (15 min)

3. Discuss scene from the play. Why is it so religious? Inform students that had the original version written for the play been produced it would have been more Jewish (Orthodox Jewish, that is!). Have students discuss how they feel regarding dilemma: inform audiences about Judaism and Jewish practice; or present accurate story which says that no matter how religious or non-religious one was, one could not escape persecution. (5 min)

4. Watch “Dear Kitty” and discuss film. (30 min)

5. Announce homework for next week. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 5

1. Take attendance, return last week’s homework. (5 min)

2. Homework for the week was to read two sections of the diary (Wednesday, 5 January, 1944 [p. 115-117], and Sunday, 16 April, 1944 [pp. 189-90]). Discuss the students responses to these sections. Why do they feel the way they do. These were originally left out of the diary when printed. Do the kids understand why? Do they think these sections should have been left out of the diary? (15 min)

3. Discuss Kinsey’s study of human sexuality in which he discusses the ratio of human sexual preference in the context of what we just read in Anne Frank’s diary. Good source for Kinsey information can be found in p. 142 of “Loving Someone Gay” and p. 370 of “Any Other Name”. (PLEASE NOTE: the objective of this discussion is to relate to the kids that these passages from the diary show us a more complete Anne, and that just because she had these experiences she is no more or less “normal” than they are. If you as a teacher feel uncomfortable with this section, you should not teach it!!!) (15 min)

4. Ask kids if any Jews fought back during the Holocaust. Pass out sheet from “End of the Innocence” (page 77-78) and have kids read it. Then discuss. (10 min)

5. Watch “The Anne Frank Ballet” for 7 min. After the section is over talk with kids about comments (music is Jewish music, etc). (10 min)

6. Pass out homework for next week and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 6

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return any past homework. (5 min)

2. Ask if people helped the Jews in countries where Nazis were in control. Obviously, yes, since Miep and Mr. Kraler helped the Franks. Using sheet from “End of the Innocence” (page 82-83), review how people helped. Talk about other times when people have helped each other in times of persecution (slaves smuggled into North in pre-Civil War U.S.A., etc.) If students were put into situations like these, would they help? When? In what conditions. (10 min)

3. Talk about homework assignment, and what came up with feelings about question #1. Have students discuss what it must feel like if they were in that kind of situation and how they would react. Pass out Act II Scenes 1 and 2 and have kids read the parts. After the reading, discuss the sense of despair and monotony and anger in the text, and also the sense of Anne’s relationship with Peter. (40 min)

3. Pass out homework for next week and review instructions with students. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 7

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. In the section you just read for homework, Anne talks about her friend Lies several times. We first read about Lies early in the diary (reread entry from Monday, 15 June, 1942). Now Anne visualizes her several times. Read Saturday, 27 November, 1943 (p. 107), Wednesday, 29 December, 1943 (p. 113-114), and Thursday, 6 January, 1944 (p. 119). It is ironic that Anne sees Lies in such desperate circumstances. We will read later (in several weeks) that Anne and Lies did meet up again, in the concentration camps, and it was Lies who was able to help Anne. (10 min)

3. Anne Frank has had a great impact on people throughout history. Most recently, a young girl in Sarajevo wrote a diary of her experience living in war-torn Bosnia. We will read some of “Zlata’s Diary” now. Read excerpts from Zlata’s diary and discuss (especially March 30, 1992 and August 2, 1993). Does Zlata sound like Anne? Does Zlata draw her inspiration from Anne? (30 min)

4. Read first two paragraphs from Anne’s diary entry of July 9, 1942 (p. 14). Anne says that people were unwilling to help her family. Do we have a responsibility as a bystander to help? Read poem by Elie Wiesel from “The End of the Innocence” (p. 74), discuss, and examine our roles as bystanders today. Do we have a responsibility to help in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, etc. (15 min)

5. Pass out homework for next week, and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 8

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. In the section you read for homework, Anne complains about their food situation (Tuesday, 14 March, 1944, p. 155-157). Show chart showing food rations from “End of the Innocence” (page 79) to show how little food the Jews were receiving. The title “Jews” on this chart refers to registered Jews. Where were Jews in hiding getting their food? What does this mean for the people who were helping these Jews? (5 min)

3. We are now going to watch a section of a movie about the Anne Frank family from a different perspective, that of Miep Gies, the woman who helped hide them. Watch 40 minutes of “The Attic: the Hiding of Anne Frank.”

4. Compare this version of the story with the diary, and with the play/movie version of the diary. (5 min)

5. Pass out homework for next week, and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 9

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Now we are going to read some more of the play. Pass out sheets for Act II Scenes III (c) V. Read and discuss. Now that they have read most of the play and most of the diary, which do they find more enjoyable? Which seems more factual? What are the differences? (50 min)

3. If the discussion doesn’t last the whole period, ask students to take out pencil and paper and ask them to do something creative regarding Anne Frank and/or the Holocaust (drawing, poem, prose).

4. Pass out homework for next week, and review instructions. (5 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 10

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Was Anne’s diary the only diary which was written or published about the conditions of living through the Holocaust. Of course not; in fact, there were so many diaries about the Holocaust written by Jews so that there would never be a doubt about the actuality of the experience they faced. We are going to look at several now. The first was kept by a Rabbi who hid in a monastery; read p. 240-241 from “Fifty Years Ago: Revolt Amid the Darkness”. For the second, read pages 65-70 to read of living in a Ghetto (from “Revolt”). The third is from a person who lived for a while as a Sonderkommando in Auschwitz (read pages 133-134 from “Revolt”). Would you want to keep a record of such horrible things? Why did people feel a need to keep diaries? (20 min)

3. Some people expressed themselves through poetry. Read poems from “Revolt” written by the children of Terezin (pp. 291-292). Discuss. (10 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 11

1. Take attendance, collect homework, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Today we are going to concentrate on the arrest of the Franks. Summarize information from “Critical Editionf pages 21-26, or — alternatively — have students read it. State that this is the only record we have of what actually happened when the Franks were arrested. Point out timeline of the final days of those in the Attic, pp. 92-3 of “Innocence”. (30 min)

3. We are now going to read what the transport to Auschwitz was like. Read page 85 from “Innocence”, section on transport. (5 min)

4. Now we will discuss what life was like in the camp where Anne was originally sent (September 5). Read the rest of page 85. (10 min)

5. Now we will read from people who actually spent time with Anne in the last couple of months at the Concentration camp she was transferred to. (read page 27-29 of “The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank” testimony from Lies Goosens, childhood friend of Anne’s; 103-105 person who was in Bergen-Belsen as well). If time, read poems from “End of The Innocence” pages 86-87 as closing piece. (10 min)

6. Announce no more homework for the rest of the course as there is no more record of Anne’s diary to comment on.

Go to the Top of the Page

Week 12

1. Take attendance, return completed homework. (5 min)

2. Discuss the betrayal of the Frank family. Who was it that betrayed them? Van Maaren? Follow the discussion from the “Critical Edition” for guidance. (pp. 28-46) Also discuss the claims of forgery of the Frank diary. Discuss the test of authenticity that was done (pp. 84-65). (15 min)

3. Read and discuss the paragraphs and questions on pages 40-41 of “End of the Innocence”. Let students reflect and have a chance to share their own opinion. (35 min)

Go to the Top of the Page

Homework and Questions for the Curriculum

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 2

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

For this class, you need to purchase a copy of Anne Frank’s “The Diary of a Young Girl” ($4.50 in paperback, 258 pages) at your local bookstore. Once you have the book, please read the diary entries from June 14, 1942 through July 11, 1942 (Preface, Introduction, and pages 1-19). After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. Name five things that you didn’t know before about Anne Frank that you found in the reading.

2. The diary was written by Anne Frank almost exactly 50 years ago. If Anne Frank had survived, she would have been 63 years old right now. Does Anne Frank’s language sound”old” to you or does she write like a “regular” teenager would today?
Give an example to defend your answer.

3. Pretend you were given a diary for YOUR BIRTHDAY PRESENT. Write your first entry in it below describing your day (please write at least six sentences — remember Anne’s first diary entry was 13 sentences long!)
The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 3

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

Read from August 14, 1942 to October 29, 1942 (pages 19 through 38) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following question:

1. Name 5 things you didn’t know before about Anne Frank that you found in the reading.

2. What do you get from the text about Anne’s opinion of her mother, her father (Pim), and Mrs. Van Daan? Back up your thoughts with specific examples or quotes from the text.

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 4

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

1. Please read the Diary entries for the following days: Monday, 7 December, 1942 (pp. 51-52), Wednesday, 3 November, 1943 (p. 102), and Monday, 6 December, 1943 (pp. 108-109). Does the fact that the Frank family celebrate St. Nicholas Day and Hanukkah surprise you?

Why or why not?

2. Please read from Saturday, 7 November, 1942 to Wednesday, 13 January, 1943 (pages 39-58). Does Anne seem depressed to you in these pages?

Why?

Try to imagine what life would be like living inside for, so far, over 6 months. Would living in hiding depress you?

Why?

3. If you had to live in hiding, and could not make a sound from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. everyday (except Sunday), and had no electronic toys to entertain yourself, what would you do? Make up a daily schedule from one of your days by filling out the time blocks below.

MY DAY — WEDNESDAY

9:00 am

10:00 am

11:00 am

12:00 noon

1:00 pm

2:00 pm

3:00 pm

4:00 pm

5:00 pm

6:00 pm

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 5

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

Please read the diary entries from Wednesday, 5 January, 1944 (p. 115-117), and Sunday, 16 April, 1944 (pp. 189-190). These passages were removed from the diary when it was originally published, but they reveal important information about Anne. What is your feeling about these diary entries (YOUR ANSWERS ON THIS QUESTION WILL NOT BE SHARED IN CLASS!!!)?

Why do you feel this way?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 6

Teacher: _____________

Name: __________________________________

Please read from Saturday, 30 January, 1943 to Monday, 9 August, 1943 (pp. 58-91) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. Have you ever had a friend spend the week or weekend over at your house? How have you felt after that weekend was over? Like you never wanted to see that person again since they “got on your nerves” during the weekend? Imagine, like Anne, you had to spend two years of your life in hiding with seven other people. How would it make you feel?

How does it make Anne feel? Support your answer with the text.

2. Two weeks ago you filled out a schedule for me as to what your daily activities would be if you had to live in hiding. In Anne’s diary entries from Wednesday, 4 August, 1943 through Monday, 9 August, 1943 (pp. 86-91), she describes her”average” day in hiding. How would you feel if you had to live on a schedule like that?
The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 7

Teacher: _______________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Tuesday, 10 August, 1943 to Wednesday, 16 February, 1944 (pp. 92-140) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. On Thursday, 6 January, 1944, Anne says “Whatever you do, don’t think I’m in love with Peter — not a bit of it!” (page 119). Do you think Anne is in love with Peter when she writes this or do you think she is not in love with Peter at this time.

Why do you feel that way?

2. In this section, the family hears hopeful rumors several times. What did these rumors involve?

Why do you think the Frank family was so hopeful about these rumors and wanted to believe them?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 8

Teacher: _______________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Friday, 18 February, 1944 to Wednesday, 22 March, 1944 (pp. 140-67) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. On Tuesday, 7 March, 1944, Anne says “If I think of my life in 1942, it all seems so unreal. It was quite a different Anne who enjoyed that heavenly existence from the Anne who has grown wise within these walls” (page 151). Read the rest of this entry to see what she means. Now that you have read more than half of the diary, do you agree with Anne’s assessment? Is she changing? If so, how and in what ways? If not, what remains the same about her?

2. On Thursday, 16 March, 1994, Anne complains about having to share her room. She says that only in the attic, and with her diary can she be herself “…for a while just a little while” (p. 159). Do you have a place where you can be yourself “…for a while just a little while” Where is this place, and what makes it so special? Describe how you feel when you are all by yourself.

3. Read the letters that Margot and Anne write to each other about Peter (Monday, 20 March, 1994 and Wednesday, 22 March, 1944, pages 163-167). After reading these letters, how do you think Margot really feels about Peter?

How does Anne really feel about Peter?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 9

Teacher: __________________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Thursday, 23 March, 1944 to Tuesday, 11 April, 1944 (pp. 167-187) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. In the diary entry from Thursday, 23 March, 1944, Anne writes how both Peter’s and her parents don’t understand them: “they seem to take us seriously, if we make a joke, and laugh at us when we are serious” (p. 168). Do your parents understand you? Give an example of a time when they did or didn’t understand what you were feeling.

2. On Tuesday, 4 April, 1944, Anne writes “I want to go on living after my death!” (p. 177) Do you believe that Anne Frank will be remembered forever as an example of a person who lived in the time of the Holocaust? Or will the memory of her fade as time goes on?

Why do you feel this way?

3. Read the Diary entry from Tuesday, April 11, 1944 (p. 179-187). Towards the end of this entry, Anne talks about the Jewish people. Do you agree with her views (as expressed in the paragraphs beginning “Who has inflicted….” and “Be brave….”)?

Why or why not?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 10

Teacher: ______________

Name: ____________________________________

Please read from Friday, 14 April, 1944 to Thursday, 11 May, 1944 (pp. 187-210) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. In this section of the diary, the romance between Peter and Anne certainly seems to bloom (read Friday, 28 April, 1944 and Tuesday, 2 May, 1944 (c) pages 195-200). What impact do you think the war (and living in hiding) had on the blooming of their relationship?

Do you think Peter really is as fond of Anne as she think he is?

2. Read the diary entry from Wednesday, 3 May, 1944 (pp. 200-202). Anne discusses that she feels that “There’s in people simply an urge to destroy…” Do you agree with her statement about the essential evil in people?

In your opinion, what will it take for humankind to cure itself of the urge for war, murder, and rage? Or are we doomed to always repeat the cycle of war and peace?

In the entry from Saturday, 15 July, 1944 Anne seems to contradict herself by saying that “…in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart” (p. 237) Can someone believe in the basic evil and good of humanity? How do you explain her belief in both of these things?

The Truth About Anne Frank
Due: Week 11

Teacher: _________________

Name: _________________________________

Please read from Saturday, 13 May, 1944 to Tuesday, 1 August, 1944 (pp. 210-241) in “The Diary of a Young Girl”. After reading, please answer the following questions:

1. On Friday, 26 January, 1944, Anne writes a paragraph that begins with the words “Again and again I ask myself…” (page 218). Read this paragraph. How do you think Anne was feeling when writing this paragraph?

Why do you think she felt that way?

Now read the diary entry four days later (Tuesday, 6 June, 1944, pp. 219-221). Describe what you think Anne was feeling when writing this entry.

Why do you think she felt that way?

2. Now that you have read most of the Diary, how do you think Anne, a typical teenager of the time, reacted to the nontypical situation of the Holocaust? Was Anne an eternal optimist, did she hope for what would never occur? Or did she realize that she would never survive the war? Give me your feelings about Anne and the Diary in several sentences below.

Go to the Top of the Page

Suggested Bibliography

Materials Contained in the Lesson Plan:

The Anne Frank Ballet (video). Choreographed by Adam Darius. Producer Piers Hartley / Kulter. 1986.

The Attic: The Hiding of Anne Frank (made for television movie). By William Hanley. With Mary Steenburgen, Paul Scofield, and Lisa Jacobs. Lifetime. Aired 24 Aug. 1993 (original air date 1988).

Clark, Don, Ph.D. Loving Someone Gay. Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts, 1987.

Dear Kitty (documentary). Producer Wouter van der Sluis. Anne Frank Center, 106 East 19th Street, New York, NY 10003; (212) 529-9532

The Diary of Anne Frank (movie). Director George Stevens. 20th Century Fox, 1959.

Filipovic, Zlata. Zlata’s Diary: A Child’s Life in Sarajevo. New York: Viking, 1994.

Frank, Anne. The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition, prepared by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. New York: Doubleday, 1989.

Frank, Anne. The Diary of A Young Girl. New York: Pocket Books, 1972 (or any later edition).

Goodrich, Frances and Albert Hackett. The Diary of Anne Frank (play). New York: Random House, 1956.

Hutchins, Loraine and Lani Kaahumanu, eds. Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out. Boston: Alyson Publications, 1991.

Lindwer, Willy. The Last Seven Months of Anne Frank (a collection of oral interviews). New York: Anchor Books (Doubleday), 1992.

Shawn, Karen. The End of the Innocence: Anne Frank and the Holocaust. New York: International Center for Holocaust Studies, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, 1989.

United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Fifty Years Ago: Revolt Amid the Darkness. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1993.

Other Reference Materials:

Abels, Chana Byers. The Children We Remember: Photographs from the Archives of Yad Vashem. The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority, Jerusalem, Israel. New York: Greenwillow Books, 1986.

Anne Frank Stichting. Anne Frank in the World, Nel Mondo 1929