The dangers and benefits of remembering

- And why should she know? Cant we forget already? Cant we live like the others?
- No. We cant. [] Is that why we lived when the others didnt? Is that what we want for our
daughter? (Rebecca Goldstein, The legacy of Raizel Kaidish)
This brief exchange, which occurs between the parents of the short storys protagonist and narrator,
summarises one of the great questions related to the Holocaust: should we pass on the testimony, in
order to make sure that no atrocity be ever committed again? Or should we give new generations the
chance to live a happy life, free from the burden of past tragedies, having people already suffered
enough?
Marta, the protagonists mother, has raised up her daughter with the purpose of providing her with an
impeccable moral education by teaching her all that she had learned in the camps. Right from an early
age, Raizel has got used to listening to tales from the concentration camps, so that the images she has
in her mind of such places are even more vivid and detailed than the ones from her real life. This is
what we call family trauma, or inherited trauma. The result? A daughter who wishes she was born
from parents who were frivolous and happy and had no numbers burned into their arms. And who
feels all the more guilty for not being able to do everything to make it up to her [mother], since she
cant help but bear a great resentment toward her. I knew what no child should ever know: that my
mother had had me for some definite reason and that she would always see me in terms of this
reason, the reason being the responsibility Marta feels to pass on the testimony. Regardless of
whether Raizel is right about the reason why her mother has had her, what really matters is how she
feels, and that her whole life has been affected by her mothers trauma. Therefore, is it legitimate, or
useful, to pass on memory when remembering implies suffering? Raizels father point is that no, it
isnt. He, like Harry from A letter to Harvey Milk, doesnt have the strength to talk about such grievous
times. All they can do is try to forget the past, even though they know its impossible. Harry says, such
stories that I could tell her, shouldnt be preserved by nobody, the past is past, the dead are gone.
Better live for today. On the other hand, without knowledge of the past we wouldnt be able to build
our future, because only by remembering its mistakes can humanity avoid further failure and cope
with bad events to come. Therefore, one could argue that yes, we have the responsibility to remember
and that Marta maybe because of her sense of guilt has just done it the wrong way, by using
rationality as a lens through which to see something completely irrational, and by not realising that
she was not providing her daughter with a moral education, but rather with deep distress. Moreover,
you neednt describe every single detail from life in a concentration camp, do you? But then, wouldnt
omission or approximation be inadequate and unjust ways to talk about a historical event so tragic
and shameful that words fail to describe it? Therefore, how could you ever talk about the
concentration camps, but trying to be as faithful as possible?
Probably there isnt a right answer, but only a series of options, each with its positive and negative
sides. For instance, you can try to forget the past and start from scratch with a new life, but the trauma
will always be there, ready to be stirred up; or you can cling to memory and make a reason to live out
of it, thus feeling a little less guilty for being a survivor but inevitably compromising your happiness
and that of the people around you. Then again, how can the happiness of a Holocaust survivor not be
compromised?
Benedetta Giannini - 631966