A few days late, but certainly not too late

I have been in horrified awe of World War 2 for as long as I can remember.

I could have seized an opportunity to go to Poland on an educational trip that included a visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau when I was in high school. The reason that I ultimately did not pursue the trip was that I didn’t think I could walk through the death camp’s gate. I believed the complete overwhelm of Arbeit macht frei would flatten me, and the history and the extant evil would consume me.

File: Eingangstor des KZ Auschwitz, Arbeit macht frei (2007).jpg by Dnalor 01 is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

So when I read this article this week, headlined:

“Survey says more young Canadians believe the history of the Holocaust is exaggerated” 

I felt my throat tighten.

No.

I know “more” (as in, more young Canadians) is not all.

But, still. NO.

I recently watched the 2023 movie The Zone of Interest. Like many, at first watch, I couldn't decide how to take it.

It wasn’t the wallop of Schindler’s List. I was 13 when that was released, and watched the three-hour and fifteen-minute movie twice before returning the rental. At such a young age it devastated me, and I didn’t want to look away.

The Zone of Interest is very different. 

If you have not seen it, in short: it depicts the life of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss and his family who live beside the concentration camp, separated from it only by a wall. 

My (predictable) first reaction to the movie was, “Do I really need to see this point of view?” 

But I have come around to thinking that it may have a particular importance now. For this time.

What we see of Hoss' day-to-day (none of which occurs in the camp) is portrayed plainly and so is the family's. The ordinariness of the actions on screen can even make moments veer towards boring. If you were watching it on mute, you could just take in everything within the confines of that part of the movie's world. And since we don't go there as viewers, take everything we can't fully see on the other side of the wall as mere backdrop (even the chimneys billowing smoke) - as nothing to be concerned with.

But what we see is not the only thing in the movie. There's also the inescapable sound. 

Sounds. Though rarely loud, they loom large.

There is an ongoing thrum throughout - the crematorium. There are intermittent screams and gunshots. Dogs erupt in angry barking.

While we watch, we unavoidably hear these sounds from the other side of the wall at a near-background level. The obscene contrast is unsettling. The banal sights versus the terrible sounds convey the disparate everyday experience of the people on either side - and all of it is just carrying on. As if all of it is ordinary. All of it, fine.

Monday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and marked the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Aljazeera published this article that day, and I read, re-read, and then re-read again this:

“The Nazis, driven by their ideology of racial supremacy and territorial expansion, established more than 44,000 camps that served a range of purposes across Germany and its occupied territories from 1939 to 1945.”

44,000 camps.

Not all purpose-built death camps but all designed, implemented, and used to help achieve the Nazis’ ends. Such organization, systematization, intention, and horrific action.

So, back to the survey: "Exaggerated".

Exaggerated?

My mind can’t follow that word down any path that would take the perspective further.

I am, however, buoyed by the survey’s revealing that 46% of all respondents reported being “interested in learning more about the Holocaust”, with the greatest interest amongst the youngest cohort.

***

The best university course I took was fourth-year History of Psychology taught by Andrew Winston. 

Winston grabbed a firm hold of my attention and interest starting in Intro to Psychology. With a sea of first-years he seized his opportunity to, amid many other essential foundational teachings, lean into research-based criticisms of IQ tests overall and the ways they have been wielded by bad actors through history for nefarious purposes. 

Winston also passionately railed against J. Philippe Rushton and his research. Rushton was at the time (the early 2000s), and for years after, a tenured professor at another university "just down the highway from us", as Winston would say.

To quote a statement issued just five years ago (eight years after his death) about Rushton by that university’s Department of Psychology, “...much of his research was racist, and attempted to find differences in intelligence between racialized groups and to explain them as caused by genetic differences between races.” 

And that research was “... supported by the Pioneer Fund, a foundation formed in 1937 to promote eugenicist and racist goals. The fund was headed by Rushton himself for many years (2002-2012)."

And finally, “Despite its deeply flawed assumptions and methodologies, Rushton’s work and other so-called 'race science' (currently under the pseudonym of “race realism”) continues to be misused by white supremacists and promoted by eugenic organizations.”

The 2020 statement finishes with an exhortation that, “...the notion of academic freedom is disrespected and abused when it is used to promote the dissemination of racist and discriminatory concepts. Scientists have an obligation to society to speak loudly and actively in opposition of such abuse.”

But, see, Winston did that at the time. In real time. He spoke out loudly and actively. Oh, he opposed. 

And yet Rushton remained as faculty until 2012. He was just carrying on.

Back to that fourth-year class. In some hands, it would be tedium. With Winston at the helm, it was enthralling. It was a semester of diving into why we know what we know about psychology (and a lot more as a result). Contextualizing and exploring whose ideas got pushed forward at which times and why.

We spent some of the time understanding eugenics, and how some pockets of the field of psychology helped build the power and influence of the Nazi party. It was sobering. It was scary. It made clear how important it was that Winston was speaking out so strongly, rationally, and consistently against Rushton (and others) touting some similar views in the name of psychology and science.

Winston didn’t just carry on when such destructive forces were right there. Right here.

Among the many other ways he pushed back, he engaged and urged us - young Canadians - to entirely pay attention. To look, listen, and investigate so that we may grasp the horrific potential within such nefarious work and understand the risk of allowing it to just carry on.

***

I felt a full-body chill when I read the news of that survey result about "exaggeration" that I mentioned above, (so) many words ago.

It is imperative that the work of the Winstons of the world continues to push against the efforts of the Rushtons in our midst.

And it is essential to preserve and explore the historical record. So all generations understand the facts and are emboldened to propel the truth forward against any tides of time passing-induced skepticism and inclinations towards dangerous revisionism. To ensure remembrance to help prevent recurrence.