http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0902-8555
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the Examining the Holocaust gallery in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, a national museum in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. It provides an overview of the iterative process by which conceptual plans for the gallery developed, leading up to the approach ultimately adopted for the Museum's inauguration in 2014. This approach aims to balance the particular specificity of the Holocaust itself and the universality of human rights, through the interrogation of themes that speak to both. The article concludes by discussing how this approach is manifest in the gallery's inaugural exhibits.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Jeremy Maron is a Researcher-Curator at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. He holds a PhD in Cultural Mediations from Carleton University, where his dissertation explored the treatment of the Holocaust in Canadian cinema. He has published in Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies, Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History, and the film journals CineAction and Offscreen. He also co-edited Stages of Reality: Theatricality in Cinema (University of Toronto Press, 2012), to which he contributed a chapter on Roberto Benigni’s Life is Beautiful.
Clint Curle is presently Senior Advisor to the President, Stakeholder Relations at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Before joining the Museum in 2010 as a researcher, Clint was, in turns, a university professor, director of a human rights NGO, and a parish pastor. His educational background includes a PhD in political science, Masters degrees in law and theology, and an LLB. He currently holds adjunct positions at Carleton University and the University of Winnipeg’s Global College.
ORCID
Jeremy Maron http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0902-8555
Clint Curle http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5914-2562
Notes
1 The authors have been directly involved in reflections on this question as members of the Canadian delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), ‘an intergovernmental body whose purpose is to place political and social leaders’ support behind the need for Holocaust education, remembrance and research both nationally and internationally’ (https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/about-us, accessed 18 December 2017). Towards this end, IHRA brings together experts and policy-makers from around the world to encourage and determine best practices in Holocaust commemoration, education, and research. In particular, the authors are representatives on IHRA’s Committee on the Holocaust, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, where this question has been discussed in detail, and explored through such avenues as a working paper on what is meant by ‘comparison’ in approaches that compare the Holocaust to different atrocity crimes, as well as a global survey of organizations that adopt comparative approaches involving the Holocaust (available at https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/media-room/stories/matter-comparison, accessed 18 December 2017).
2 Each of these two viewpoints is of course not monolithic, and is comprised of a multiplicity of perspectives with different areas of focus and emphasis. It is thus difficult to distill the concerns that inform the impetuses to resist or embrace comparison of the Holocaust and other human rights atrocities. For instance, some that are skeptical of a comparative approach may be wary of universalizing the Holocaust in a manner that can potentially obscure its specific history in order to prioritize the illumination of similarities between distinct historical phenomena. Those more open to comparison may view the desire to retain a singular (or primary) focus on the Holocaust as implying a ‘hierarchy’ of suffering. But again, there are many other reasons and concerns that inform these different perspectives on the issue of the Holocaust and comparison, and summarizing each ‘side’ is beyond the purview of this article. For a full-length collection devoted specifically to the issue of the Holocaust and comparison, see Rosenbaum, Is the Holocaust Unique. The authors that make up this collection take a number of different approaches to this question of whether to compare or not compare the Holocaust to other genocides or atrocities; but almost all of the analyses hold in common the fact that they position the Holocaust as a primary object of study (understandable, given the focus of the collection), either in its own right as a ‘unique’ (i.e. incomparable) case, or as an object of comparison. In other words, both sides of the debate tend to centralize the Holocaust in their approaches, as do most Holocaust education and commemoration initiatives, regardless of whether they adopt a particular or comparative stance.
It is also important to note that these different perspectives (to compare or not compare) operate within a broader discourse on the Holocaust, human rights, and comparative genocide. A related but distinct approach to the question of the Holocaust and comparison is taken up by some that are critical of a tendency to start with the Holocaust, even in approaches that ultimately tend towards the comparative. One scholar that offers such a critique is A. Dirk Moses, who views the very centrality of the Holocaust in both the ‘to compare’ and ‘to not compare’ camps as eliding or ‘hiding’ other examples of genocide whose characteristics do not align with the Holocaust paradigm (such as, from Moses’ perspective, genocides of Indigenous peoples). One object of Moses’ study is the Canadian Museum for Human Rights’ inclusion of a specific gallery on the Holocaust. See Moses, “Does the Holocaust Reveal or Conceal Other Genocides?” 21–51.
3 Examining the Holocaust is one of ten permanent galleries in the CMHR. The Museum is designed as a journey upward, which passes through the galleries on the way to the Israel Asper Tower of Hope at the top. The journey begins with an introductory gallery that looks at a variety of perspectives on human rights in different cultures and throughout history, a gallery that explores human rights and responsibilities from the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples in Canada, and then proceeds up through a suite of galleries on Canadian struggles for human rights and the Canadian system of human rights legal protections. This is followed by another set of galleries, which includes Examining the Holocaust, that address human rights in a more international/global context (including both historical and contemporary events), and ends with a gallery that invites visitors to take action in promoting human rights today. For brief descriptions of the permanent CMHR galleries, see https://humanrights.ca/galleries (accessed 18 December 2017). There are also two additional galleries that hold temporary exhibitions.
4 Jeremy Maron is a Curator at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR), and has overseen content development in the Museum’s Examining the Holocaust gallery since 2012. Clint Curle is currently the CMHR’s Senior Advisor the President, Stakeholder Relations, and was formerly the lead Researcher for the Examining the Holocaust gallery, from 2010 to 2012.
5 Canadian Museum for Human Rights, “Mandate and Museum Experience.” CMHR’s mandate can also be found in Section 15.2 of the Museums Act at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-13.4/page-3.html#h-12 (accessed 18 December 2017). There is content related to the Holocaust in other CMHR galleries as well. But it was in relation to the Examining the Holocaust gallery specifically that the question of how to best approach the Holocaust through a human rights lens was at the forefront of discussion.
6 Our use of ‘particular’ refers to a consideration of the Holocaust as a historical event that took place in a specific time and space. It is not intended to imply an exceptionalist reading of the Holocaust. Our use of the term ‘universal’ refers to an approach to interpreting the Holocaust which illuminates commonalities shared by the Holocaust and other discrete historical or contemporary events. Human rights themes can provide a vehicle by which such commonalities can be explored.
7 Belle Jarniewski, email to authors, 2 January 2015. Jarniewski had also been very generous in making time to discuss the Examining the Holocaust gallery during its development process.
8 Rabinovitch, “A Fine Balance.”
9 Canada, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Law and Government Division, Legislative Summary, Bill C-42: An Act to Amend the Museums Act.
10 The Asper Foundation, “Human Rights and Holocaust Studies Program” and Newman and Levine, Miracle at the Forks, 9–19.
11 The Asper Foundation, “Human Rights and Holocaust Studies Program – About the Program.”
12 Initially participation in the Human Rights and Holocaust Studies program was limited to students from Joseph Wolinsky Collegiate, a Jewish school in Winnipeg; it then expanded to include Jewish and non-Jewish students from across Canada. See Love, “Asper Foundation program draws participants from across Canada.”
13 Newman and Levine, Miracle at the Forks, 33.
14 The issue for most of those critical of a dedicated gallery on the Holocaust in the Canadian War Museum – including veterans groups – was not with a Holocaust gallery per se. Rather, the purported problem was one of location – that the national museum dedicated to Canada’s wartime experiences and efforts was not an appropriate place for a Holocaust gallery, given that, as the National Council of Veteran Associations (NCVA) indicated in their recommendations to a Senate subcommittee tasked with studying the issue, ‘There [was] no direct relationship between the feats of arms carried out by the Canadian Military and the horrendous suffering of Holocaust victims.’ See the Canadian Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, “Annex 2: Recommendations of the National Council of Veteran Associations.” For examples of media coverage of this debate, see Samyn, “War at the War Museum,” 16, Walton, “Veterans Group Holds Back Donation,” A5, and Elliot, “Setback for Holocaust Museum in Canada,” A6.
15 While the impetus for the CMHR grew out of the Asper Foundation’s Holocaust and Human Rights Studies Program, and Izzy Asper had conceived the Holocaust to be an important aspect in the project, he always envisioned the project to be much broader in scope than a ‘Holocaust Museum,’ even if some media reports or responses to them implied otherwise. See Newman and Levine, Miracle at the Forks, 33, 38, 40.
16 For instance, see Newman and Levine, Miracle at the Forks, and the CMHR publication From Darkness to Light.
17 See, for example, Chatterley, “Canada’s Struggle with Holocaust Memorialization,” 189–211, which includes an overview of how the discussion/debate over Examining the Holocaust played out in the media. Another article about the history of, and debate over, Examining the Holocaust is Ball and Anders Rudling, “The Underbelly of Canadian Multiculturalism,” 33–80.
18 Similarly broad mandates are included in the Museums Act in relation to other Canadian national museums. For instance, the mandate of the Canadian Museum of History is ‘to enhance Canadians’ knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada’s history and identity, and also to enhance their awareness of world history and cultures.’ See http://www.historymuseum.ca/about/the-corporation/#tabs (accessed 18 December 2017). For some other examples of national museum mandates, see http://nature.ca/en/about-us/museum-corporation/mission-mandate (the Canadian Museum of Nature, accessed 18 December 2017), and https://www.pier21.ca/about (Pier 21 Canada’s Immigration Museum, accessed 18 December 2017). For the entirety of the Museums Act, see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-13.4/index.html (accessed 18 December 2017).
19 Canada, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Law and Government Division, Legislative Summary, Bill C-42: An Act to Amend the Museums Act.
20 In addition to the Asper Foundation’s program, there are many other initiatives that bring together Holocaust education and human rights education. For instance, the educational organization Facing History and Ourselves references the importance of the Holocaust in their mission:
Our mission is to engage students of diverse backgrounds in an examination of racism, prejudice, and antisemitism in order to promote the development of a more humane and informed citizenry. By studying the historical development of the Holocaust and other examples of genocide, students make the essential connection between history and the moral choices they confront in their own lives. (https://www.facinghistory.org/about-us, accessed 18 December 2017, our emphasis)
As the Holocaust is one of the most extensively documented historical events, it is one of the most effective subjects for an educational and critical examination of basic moral and social issues. A structured and critical inquiry into the Holocaust will provide many insights into contemporary issues of human rights and democracy in ethnically, culturally, and religiously diverse societies. (http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/multic/holocaust.html, accessed 18 December 2017, our emphasis)
21 Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Content Advisory Committee, Content Advisory Committee Final Report.
22 Moyn, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” 374. For examples of scholarship that suggests such a causal relationship between the Holocaust and human rights, see Morsink, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry.
23 Some examples of analyses that challenge a causal relationship between Holocaust and the UDHR include Burgers, “The Road to San Francisco,” 447–77; Waltz, “Reclaiming and Rebuilding the History,” 437–48; Mazower, “The Strange Triumph of Human Rights,” 379–98; Moyn, The Last Utopia; and Duranti, “The Holocaust, the Legacy,” 159–86.
24 Novick, The Holocaust and Collective Memory, 110.
25 Moyn, The Last Utopia, 7.
26 United Nations, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
27 The CMHR still contains content on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, primarily in our Turning Points for Humanity gallery, which explores the growth of international human rights agreements, laws and social movements since World War II. However, within Turning Points, the UDHR is framed as a response to the barbarous acts of World War II more generally than a specifically focused response to what we now call the Holocaust. The previous link in Examining the Holocaust that positioned the UDHR as a direct result of the Holocaust was removed, thus allowing our visitors to explore the Holocaust and the UDHR on their own terms, without implying an ahistorical or anachronistic link between the two.
28 Chatterley and Curle, “Must Read.”
29 As mentioned above, it is worth reiterating that similar discussions and revisions were taking place in relation to other Museum galleries around this time; the content of the Examining the Holocaust gallery was not being developed in a vacuum. As content was becoming clearer for all the galleries throughout the Museum, in addition to accuracy and authenticity, renewed focus was being paid to ensure that all content corresponded with our mandate, and would be presented in a manner that offered a sense of consistency and flow between the galleries as a whole (rather than viewing each gallery as a discrete unit).
30 We also felt that it was important to retain a sense of chronology along the perimeter walls, in that the first two walls focus on 1933–1939, and the third wall on 1939–1945.
31 This is also a story that touches on the theme of ‘rescuers’ (Carmela Finkel’s neighbors). While stories of rescuers and those that spoke out against the Nazis in different ways are referenced in Examining the Holocaust, it was decided that the gallery would not include an exhibit devoted specifically to ‘rescuers.’ While this decision may be surprising to some, given that it seems to offer a clear human rights connection, it was intentional. Given that there was a limited amount of exhibit space in the gallery, we were wary of placing too much emphasis on stories of rescuers, as we felt it might leave visitors with the impression that such efforts were more common than they were during the Holocaust. Of course, instances of rescue (and other actions against the Nazis) are important human rights stories, and some are included in the gallery (again, such as Carmela Finkel’s neighbors). But during the Holocaust, such actions were the exception not the rule, and the sporadic presentation of ‘rescuer stories’ in Examining the Holocaust aims to capture their importance while also manifesting their rarity.
32 Love, “Toronto Students Impressed” and Torres, “The power of individual stories.”
33 See Abella and Troper, None is Too Many.
34 Canadian Museum for Human Rights, “When Rights Are Denied.”
35 Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Lemkin’s ‘Preface’ to this book, which includes a definition of genocide, is dated 15 November 1943, which is why we date his coining of the term in 1943, rather than 1944 when the book was actually published. See page xi in Preface.
36 Lemkin made this reference in a speech delivered at a commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the famine-genocide. It has been published as Lemkin, Soviet Genocide in the Ukraine. See page 11 for reference to the context of Lemkin’s speech.
37 Lemkin was never able to publish this comparative history, but his notes/papers are available in the archives of the American Jewish Historical Society (http://digifindingaids.cjh.org/?pID=109202, accessed 18 December 2017). There have been several scholarly pieces written about and informed by this unpublished work, which have helped bring to light Lemkin’s evolution in his reflections on the concept of genocide. See for example Curthoys, “Raphael Lemkin’s ‘Tasmania’,” 66–73 and 74–100, and McDonnell and Moses, “Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas,” 501–29.
38 Lemkin, Axis Rule, 79.
39 Levi, Survival in Auschwitz, 11.
40 Steiman, “The Canadian Museum of Human Rights.”
41 Visitor feedback (in person to staff), Canadian Museum for Human Rights, 24 July 2017.
42 Sanders, “Diplomat Saved Thousands from Hitler.”
43 For an overview of some of the responses critical of a gallery devoted to the Holocaust, prior to the CMHR’s opening, see Chatterley, “Canada’s Struggle with Holocaust Memorialization.” The Museum has continued to occasionally receive similar reactions through visitor feedback. For instance, on 8 August 2017, two visitors indicated in-person to CMHR staff that they were not pleased that the content on the Holocaust was more extensive than some of the content on other genocides.
44 Moses, “Does the Holocaust Reveal or Conceal Other Genocides?” 21–51.