Breaking Historical Silence through Cross–Cultural Collaboration: Latvian Curriculum Writers and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Fellows

Abstract

In response to the need for Holocaust curricula in Latvia, Latvians and Americans worked collaboratively to overcome the historical silence surrounding this event. During their project, Latvian curriculum writers worked with teachers and scholars at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This descriptive analysis of the Latvians' experience with Museum Fellows revealed opportunities to learn from each other the complexities of teaching the Holocaust in a country viewed by some as collaborators and still somewhat anti-Semitic. Findings included depth of guidance, values, and limits of innovative teaching methods, cross-cultural benefits, and continued collaboration. Recommendations for future efforts by post-Communist countries and American partners to develop curriculum on teaching a most complex and contentious aspect of history such as the Holocaust conclude the study.

Notes

Notes

1. The middle school document focused on the following themes: 1) justice and genocide; 2) diversity and genocide; 3) morality and genocide; and 4) the value of life and future of genocide or the impact of genocide on individuals and community. The secondary school document identified as major issues: 1) diversity and demographics; 2) individual choices; 3) resistance; and 4) the origins of the Holocaust.

2. The word Shoah (literal meaning “catastrophe”) is often used interchangeably with the term Holocaust. Many historians, especially those in Israel, prefer to use Shoah when referring to the destruction of the Europeans Jews. For a discussion of the relative meanings and uses of these terms, see Niewyk, Donald, and Francis Nicosia. 2000. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, 45, 240. New York: Columbia University Press.

3. From the Latvian perspective, the country endured three occupations beginning in 1940: 1) the Soviet occupation from June, 1940–June, 1941; 2) the German occupation from 1941 – 1944; and 3) the second Soviet occupation (or reoccupation) from 1944-1991. Emphasizing this view is the fact that an institution called The Museum of the Occupation opened in Riga in 2001.

4. This view was expressed in various forms and to differing degrees by the Latvian educators who participated in the research project that is the subject of this paper. Their comments indicated that many Latvians share these concerns and perspectives.