One more thing about Sachsenhausen

There is one thing I forgot to mention about this camp that I thought might offer some historical craic to others...

In the back of the camp there is a large memorial that, I want to say, the Germans put up in remembrance of those who suffered at the camp. It's a fairly large memorial that can be seen from all over the site.

When you walk up close, you notice that there are three human statues at the memorial's base. They are: an American soldier (i believe), and a Soviet soldier helping a prisoner walk. I thought this was quite nice. But then I looked at the prisoner more closely. The prisoner statue was of a strong and muscular young man which I thought was quite odd for a concentration camp victim. SO, I decided to ask the tour guide about it. In his response, he gave out an awkward laugh and said "they thought it was more realistic".

misrepresentation perhaps?

“Wait Tiff! Get my ANTM pose in front of this pole thing! ...Eat your heart out Tyra!”

I’d like to think that the popularity of my blog is what pulled you to my page but I’m betting it has to do with the title. You either know what ANTM stands for and wanted the inside scoop on the next season. OR you’re thinking: what does ANTM stand for and how does it relate to history? (for those of you who don’t know what ANTM is, it’s the acronym for a TV show called America’s Next Top Model) Well, Curious George! I’ll tell you. It’s about an issue I had while travelling and visiting historically-sensitive sites and photography etiquette.

This past year I decided to travel to Berlin, which is arguably one of the best cities in Europe. There is so much to see and do that I feel the need to go back again this summer. I spent the day with a few Aussies but soon realized that they just wanted to go shopping and I wanted to go see the many historically significant sites. (Surprise surprise for a historian!) I mean, how can you be in Berlin and not want to see anything related to the World Wars or the division of East and West Berlin? SO, I decided to venture around Berlin on my own just to make sure I didn’t miss a thing! It was a hot summer day and the streets were packed. Tourists were everywhere and taking pictures of everything, which is fine because I was one of them.

I was only in Berlin for 3 days so I had to be picky about what I wanted to see. (Something I wish I could’ve changed) So I decided to spend at least one of these days at the Sachsenhauzen Memorial and Museum, which was a major concentration camp located just outside of Berlin. This camp was suppose to be the template for all the other camps that were set up around Europe. It looked as though only 20 percent of the original camp was preserved and I must say, the owners did a good job at maintaining the original buildings.

This heritage site did not provide tours around the camp so I joined an independent guide who was very knowledgeable about its history. I really appreciated how much information this man could provide the group without anything there to help him. I was enjoying the tour and learning all these news things until we came across the camp’s internal prison. (this was where they kept the big name prisoners. IE. political opponents.) I had ventured through and, at the other end of the building, came across a large pole with a steel rod hanging out. I started looking at this pole and thought: ‘I wonder if that was used for what I think it was used for.’ Eventually, the guide came out with the rest of the group and explained what it was. He said it was used to torture prisoners to reveal information. They used to tie their hands behind their back and throw them up on the pull. (Basically, they were hung from the steel rod with their hands behind their back and if they refused to reveal information, the guards would pull on their legs.) This is arguably one of the worst ways to torture prisoners. It’s absolutely disgusting. Everyone listening made a sound of disgust as he explained its significance and we soon move on.
At that moment, as the group started to walk away, I looked at the pole once more only to discover a young woman getting her picture taken in front of this device with a huge smile and posing with one arm held up along the pole.

Personally, I was SHOCKED. My first thought was: Did she not hear a word our guide just said about how this was a brutal torture device? I was tempted to say something like; “did you seriously just take a picture like that in front of a place where people were tortured and eventually died? Do you have no respect?” You see, I can understand maybe taking pictures of the artefact itself but posing ANTM-style? I just don’t get it.

Nevertheless, it got me thinking. What is the photography etiquette for historically sensitive artefacts? Is it ok for tourists to get pictures with items that were involved in a touchy subject? I really don’t know how to answer my own question here. Am I wrong for thinking this was completely inappropriate? Is it ok to take pictures of yourself in front of a torture device involved in the holocaust?

Tell me. What do you think?

Over the Top

Nothing is better at engaging a kid’s attention like a video game. Some of the most popular ones these days simulate war experiences. So when a museum wants to try and engage kids in history, they try their best to be cool and create its own game too! I was first introduced to the game “Over the Top” by my fourth year university professor, Graham Broad. This game, which is located on the Canadian War Museum’s website, is aimed at educating young kids about the unpredictability of war. Essentially, the player is a soldier named Terry Wilson during the First World War. Terry (you) is faced with a variety of difficult decisions that may or may not affect his life. As the game introduction puts it: “Your goal in Over the Top is the same as that of thousands of Canadians who served in the trenches during the First World War: merely to survive.”

Now, this game obviously isn’t like other video games kids play these days. It’s simply an interactive game that includes historical information and terminology of the time. Unfortunately, they don’t get to shoot anyone. (at least I’ve never lived long enough to do that) They also don’t get the crazy animations that you find in regular video games. However, they do learn about a soldier’s experience with rats, the general practices in the trenches and the danger and illusions of no man’s land.

It’s really an interesting game! Each obstacle you face could mean the difference between life and death. Do you volunteer to get the communication wire or do you stay put? Do you answer the call of injured men in no man’s land? Do you volunteer in a covert operation to the enemy trenches? All these questions come down to one thing. Do you live or do you die?

I think this game, is an excellent way to get kids interested in the history of WWI. It’s fun and you’re still learning at the same time. However, I think it’d be even better if they could create a game like this to be used on N64, Playstation or Wii. Let’s give the kids a ‘cool’ game to play with but sneak in educational parts without them even realizing it! Forgive me if there’s already a game out there like this. (if some historian has beaten me to it!) I don’t play video games too often. BUT, if not, and some big video game creator reads this and is interested, let me know! I’m down!

So now, head out in the shoes of dear Terry Wilson and play your chances on surviving the Great War! Let me know how far you get!

FYI- last time I tried to play this game, the interactive pictures/video weren’t working. So you may have to do the text version, which is just as interesting but it lacks the visuals that most kids want. Sometimes I wonder if the interactive visuals were cancelled because of parental discretion. This game can be a bit too descriptive for some players. For example, when I tried to grab a pack of cigarettes from just over the top of the trench, this is what I got for my selfishness: “Your fingers slowly grasp the lid when, out of nowhere, the crack of a rifle rings out and a bullet buries itself deep in your skull, killing you instantly” (in my defence, if I would have gotten those cigarettes, I would have been a God in the trenches!)

Good Luck!

Fictional History

So I read this article a while ago and then forgot about it. But it just came back into my mind tonight as I caught up on a missed episode of the Tudors. Yea I like the show, what of it? Now, the Tudors is a good show and it's based on real events!
ok ok I know you're all saying "but Sarah, it makes up a lot of things" and maybe you're all right. But I still like it!

Anyways, back to my point. I read this article in the Toronto Star called "Survivor of Holocaust made up love story". Let me give you a synopsis.
So here it goes: This 79 yr old man Herman Rosenblat, and his wife, Roma made everyone believe that they had met at a concentration camp in Buchenwald. The story went that Herman was imprisoned in the camp and Roma used to sneak apples and bread to him at the wired fence. Once he was released they married. This is a pretty interesting love story, I'll give him that. People enjoyed this story so much that Herman was suppose to have it published with the title 'Angel at the Fence'.

Now. Reality Check: Herman and Roma actually met on a BLIND DATE in NEW YORK!! How funny is that! This couple was able to keep this story going for everyone they knew for 50 years! They even convinced Oprah! The BIG O! So, of course, his book was cancelled.

On one side, you're thinking: oh what a shame, that could have been a good book. BUT as a historian, you think...oh man! that's crazy! ...but not surprising...
Being a historian is all about looking at things with a critical eye.
It's really hard to believe stories without some sort of evidence to back it up and we always need our evidence! Despite the publishers, the movie directors, and the BIG O, scholars were able to push them to understand that his story just didn't make sense. (I don't know the details but just the simple idea that a woman could sneak up to a heavily guarded concentration camp fence without detection seems a bit strange to me.)

The downside of all of this is what the public as a whole will think. Are they going to be more skeptical of people's stories? Will it take away from the hope we have when they hear something good came out of something bad? Are all historical stories going to be looked upon with such harsh skepticism? It's all very interesting.

The funny thing is: Herman was right when he said "I brought hope to a lot of people. My motivation was to make good in this world." Nice stories like his always make even the hardest historical events bearable. But that's the thing about history. Not everything is as perfect as we want them to be.

Lets just hope that not every great story we've heard about the past is a fake.

Bunratty Lessons

This past year I was living in Cork, Ireland. It was probably the best thing I could’ve done for myself and I highly recommend the European experience to anyone. (even if you have to go alone, which I initially did) I must say, the best part about Europe is, obviously, the fact that the evidence of their history is still in existence today. Maybe the reason I’m so marvelled by this is that Canada is a fairly young country and so our history does not dig as deep into the ground as our European friends. I mean living in Ireland was amazing. They have so much history and a lot of physical evidence for you to investigate. Seriously guys, Ireland has ruins like North America has mini- malls! You can quote me on that. It’s absolutely ridiculous! On a weekend off, my boyfriend and I would rent a car and head out on their alley-like highways to see what we could find. We would drive until we saw little signs that said something like ‘Dunguare castle’. Then we’d swerve off searching for these old ruins, sometimes finding ourselves in the middle of a field riddled with cows just to see remnants of a church or castle. (no joke!)

Well the one day we set off to Galway and found ourselves at Bunratty Castle. It was located in a small town (which is not rare in Ireland) and consisted of not only a castle but also little villages from different eras. This castle was one of my favourite places to go in Ireland. Most of the castles or forts that you see are empty or broken down a bit, which can also be fun because you can do some investigating to see what you can figure out about the place. However, this 800 year old castle is different. It was threatened to be demolished in the 1950s but was thankfully rescued and is now taken care of by Shannon Heritage. One of the most appealing features of Bunratty castle is the collection that is held within its walls, which range from the years 10 000 BC to the 20th century.


The item that I became most interested in was the Armada Table. The ornate legs of the table were, as 16th century sources say, salvaged from a Spanish ship that sank off the coast in 1588. This massive oak table was amazing to see. It was absolutely stunning. The one part I liked about it was that our tour guide said how he was in charge of cleaning it and looked forward to it every year. He would sit down on a little stool, with his special kit (which probably has Q-tip like instruments!) in order to preserve this 8 x 3ft piece of history. Now that’s dedication to preservation!

Part of the point I wanted to make about this was that, being in that castle, with some of the most amazing artefacts, really makes a person feel a part of history. I know some historians get annoyed with stuff like this but I seriously think that in order to get history across to people, they must be able to feel it. Now don’t get me wrong. I do see the benefits of digitizing history and I do agree with the steps taken towards it. I know it’ll make it easier for historians to see and read historical documents from all over the world. (which is amazing in itself). BUT what is going to happen with these artefacts that can’t be digitized. I doubt there is a historian out there that doesn’t get that excited, overwhelming feeling when seeing the artefacts in person. It’s the feeling like you’re immersed in history that, as far as I’ve seen, an online photo can never truly give you. So what’s the solution?

Well, I’m not sure there is one. Museums and archives will have to continue to upload photos of their collection on the internet. However, if a historian, or the public, wants to get the feeling that they are in the presence of history, I guess they’ll have to take the time to travel and see it! (at least until now!)

Digitized Heritage?

Every morning, when I wake up, I grab my coffee and cheerios and head to my computer to read the daily news. My home page has always been the Globe and Mail because no matter how busy I am, I can always keep myself informed. One thing that caught my eye is a documentary piece they’re doing on World War II correspondence, called Dear Sweetheart. This correspondence is focused on love letters between a Canadian soldier, David K. Hazzard, and his wife, Audrey. At first glance I was quite interested and impressed by what this documentary had to offer. It also made me reflect on the interaction between history, heritage and the digital world.

This documentary has put a spotlight on WWII in a way that is very attractive to mainstream Canadians. It is romanticising the war to the umpteenth degree, which, some may argue, generates a lot of interest in history. Readers can, as the Globe site puts it, “follow the epic love story through the Second World War correspondence of a Canadian soldier to his wife”. This sounded a bit cheesy to me initially but when reading a few of the comments posted I realized that people ate this story up. In addition, the site has a link that allows others to share their WWII stories or letters online. This gives Canadians the chance to feel a connection with each other that may not have been possible through other historical venues. The Globe was essentially able to create a sense of connection and even a feeling of heritage between Canadians through this digital documentary. It was almost impressive.

The letters are really quite touching and help the reader to get a sense of what the couples’ lives were like during the war. However, while reflecting on the weaknesses of Canadian heritage, I couldn’t help but think about the many cases of venereal disease that riddled the continent of Europe at this time. I know it’s bad and that comment probably ruined your heart-warming feelings from this love story but it was a reality then! It happened, whether you like it or not. It’s the interesting part of history that we rarely get to discuss. (maybe that’s why some people think history is boring; they never get to hear the crazy stuff!) To the shock of many today and back then, many soldiers during the war were diagnosed with VD. I’m not accusing Mr. Hazzard of anything. I’m only saying that it made me think!
It’s topics like this that always seem to be forgotten. Canadian Heritage (or any country for that matter) always seems to leave certain aspects of history out for the sake of nostalgia. (I’m saying this in general.) Isn’t that the dilemma between history and heritage?

Anyways, this documentary made me wonder about heritage and the digital age. I wonder if this online documentary (and the many other online documentaries out there) is the heritage of the future. We have heritage locations around the country but what about these history websites. Are they our heritage created into a digital format? With the creation of documentaries and online exhibits, supplemented by thousands of digitized primary documents, I think we’ve in a sense created digital heritage for Canadians. Canadians can visit these websites, from the comfort of their home, and get the understanding and (possibly) the nostalgic feeling much like what they feel from visiting actual heritage locations. Maybe that seems a bit out there for some...but is this where the digital age is taking us next?

*I also wanted to mention that the Globe has the actual letters digitized in their Pictures section. However, they don’t have a zoom feature so you can take a better look. So basically you can look at them but you have to go to the documentary site to read the copied words. I wish that the Globe would have made the zooming feature available so that readers could take a closer look and examine these documents themselves. However, I do commend the newspaper for at least providing a digitized copy.

**Photo courtesy of the Globe and Mail Dear Sweetheart documentary site.

“So, we should, like, have our own hoser Wikipedia, eh? Beauty thinking, eh? ”

--Bob and Doug McKenzie ...or what I was thinking they would say. (For those of you who are unaware of these beer drinking fellows... For shame!) Clearly this quote is not from the Great White North hosers but the idea seems so simple I wondered if they would’ve thought of it. Well, the thought, perhaps, isn’t that simple but I certainly was shocked that the thought never crossed my mind. In the article we read a few weeks back by John Jordan ‘For a Canadian Wikipedia’ it was discussed how countries, namely Canada, should have their own Wikipedia so that they have their own historical perspectives recorded.

When I read the article, I realized that I never even thought about how Wikipedia is language-centered instead of country-centered. Some people may be thinking...well of course it’s language-centered Sarah! But ...how does that even make sense? Obviously each country has their own history or viewpoints on issues so why would Wikipedia assume that they should all be gathered into one language- centered wikipedia? In terms of history, each country has its own version. So the English language wikipedia is for many countries such as England, the US and Canada. But we all have different perspectives on our collective history. So how does the Wikipedia entry accurately present each side? (It can’t) Seriously, how has Wikipedia not even thought of this before? As Jordan points out these various perspectives are all merged into one Wikipedia description for all of the English language Wikipedia. So what’s the solution?

Initially, I thought we should have the different accounts together under one topic heading. It made sense because then the reader could make their own conclusion from the information. You know, like the War of 1812: then there’s the US opinion, then Canada (though they were British subjects at the time, I know), and the British. But then I thought, and as Jordan points out, there is a “lack of unanimity among historians even within one country”. For example, some historians (and mostly the public) love, and pride themselves on, Billy Bishop, our great Canadian hero of WWI. However, there are some historians that truly believe Bishop is a fake. His record hits were mostly from his own account and the German reports on planes shot down apparently don’t match up. So now what would Canada do? One topic might be changed numerous times or have so many entries that anyone (lets say those naive students that use it as their main source for essays), get confused. And so...I do agree with Jordan’s suggestion for a separate Canadian Wikipedia but I must add something to his idea. I think that the Canadian Wikipedia would have to be able to provide the various perspectives of each topic. (Instead of people changing it back and forth) Wouldn’t that make it easier for the reader to come to their own conclusion? Then, supposedly, there wouldn’t be any bias. Now the question is whether it’s possible or not. Will the Canadian Wikipedians be up to the task of preparing these Wikipedia entries? Can it be done properly; without any bias? Perhaps this is asking too much, but hey! It may be something to look into.