Social Injustices Name Possible Answers (65 points)__
Mr. Wadley
Schindler’s List: Questions For Discussion and Reflection
CHOICES
Examine the following case study:
Tadeusz Pankeiwicz, the Krakow ghetto pharmacist, described the actions of a Jewish woman who wanted to accompany her mother standing in line for deportation:
In the space between the pharmacy and the ranks of
the SS men walked a woman with a slow majestic stride. She was a pretty, nicely dressed young lady,
wearing a light green cape… He (the SS
man) said something, she replied, and suddenly the German started to beat
her… The woman bent her head slightly
and remained motionless, rigid as a statue.
She volunteered for deportation to be with her mother, and this aroused
the fury of the SS men. She did not
moan or cry, she did not beg. The
German could not break her – he could not force her to plead for mercy… She stood next to her mother; they did not
exchange a word. The SS men left, she
wiped her face with a handkerchief; her mother patted her on the head. Moments passed. The German approached her again, and said something. I did not see her respond. The German grabbed her by her hair, pulled
her out of the line and screamed viciously, indicating with his truncheon
(club) in which direction she was to go.
She was not permitted to remain with her mother; she was spared. This was the will of the SS. The woman left, she went slowly, helpless
against the overwhelming power. The
mother’s gaze followed her for the last time.
(1) What choices did the
young woman have? Leave earlier to avoid the beating
Press the issue and possibly die
Let
her join her mother
Do
nothing
(5) Using examples from
the film, trace the development of dehumanization of the Jews as it leads to
demonization.
Star of David badge, cutting the
Hasidic Jew’s locks, “Good-bye Jews”, townspeople throwing things at Jews
during deportation, Jewish homes being given to Aryans, ghettoization,
liquidation of the ghetto: killing, ransacking, random shootings; selection for
work/extermination while naked, burning the exhumed bodies, cutting the women’s
hair at Auschwitz
(3) Why did the Jews not
flee?
Fear, disbelief, sense of
cooperation toward the Nazis, seeing others shot, collective responsibility,
“we are useful – why would they kill their workforce?”, physical weakness
Consider the following two speeches and the choices they represented for the listener:
Today is history.
Today will be remembered. Years
from now, the young will ask with wonder about this day. Today is history, and you are part of
it. Six hundred years ago, Kasimierz
the Great so-called told the Jews they could come to Krakow. They took hold. They prospered. In
business, science, education, the arts.
They came here with nothing.
Nothing. And they
flourished. For six centuries, there
has been a Jewish Krakow. Think about
that. By this evening, those six
centuries are a rumor. They never
happened. Today is history. – Amon Goeth
Just as daylight was
breaking, the men arrived at the village of Jozefow and assembled in a
half-circle around Major Trapp, who proceeded to give a short speech. With
choking voice and tears in his eyes, he visibly fought to control himself as he
informed his men that they had received orders to perform a very unpleasant
task. These orders were not to his
liking, but they came from above. It
might perhaps make their task easier, he told the men, if they remembered that
in Germany bombs were falling on the women and children. Two witnesses claimed that Trapp also
mentioned that the Jews of this village had supported the partisans. Another witness recalled Trapp’s mentioning that
the Jews had instigated the boycott against Germany. Trapp then explained to the men that the Jews in Jozefow would
have to be rounded up, whereupon the young males were to be selected out for
labor and the others shot.
Trapp then made an
extraordinary offer to his battalion:
if any of the older men among them did not feel up to the task that lay
before him, he could step out. Trapp
paused, and after some moments, one man stepped forward. – Christopher Browning, from Ordinary Men
(1)
What does Browning mean when he writes, “After Jozefow, nothing else seemed so
terrible?”
Once
the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 had killed, subsequent “actions” became
easier to perform – the bar had been raised.
(2)
Would Amon Goeth agree? Would Major
Trapp?
Goeth
would agree. Trapp would not, although he did continue to lead the battalion.
(2)
How do you account for the differences in these two speeches?
Goeth
had no conscience – he firmly believed in the task that lay before him. He had absorbed the Aryan ideals. Trapp, on the other hand, may have believed
in his order (he did carry them out), but found it difficult to stomach the
work.
(2)
Browning writes of two men who took part in the murders. One said that he had not wanted to be
considered a coward by his comrades.
Another – more aware of what truly required courage – said quite simply,
“I was cowardly.” Contrast these
statements.
The first man is focused solely on himself and his
relationship to his comrades. He is concerned for his rank and status within
the group.
The second man is able to focus on
his relationship to morality (even possibly to God). He understands that he has violated the sense of community and
human decency, too.
POWER
In the scene where Goeth and Schindler are speaking, and Goeth is obviously drunk, he tells Schindler, “The more I look at you – I watch you – you’re never drunk.” As Schindler stares, the commandant continues, “Oh, that’s, that’s real control. Control is power. That’s power.”
Schindler is not so sure. He wonders, “Is that why they fear us?”
To Goeth, the answer is easy. He argues that “they fear us” because “we have the power to kill.”
Schindler disagrees. “They fear us because we have the power to kill arbitrarily. A man commits a crime, he should know better. We have him killed, and we feel pretty good about it. Or we kill him ourselves, and we feel even better. That’s not power, though. That’s justice. That’s different than power. Power… is when we have every justification to kill… and we don’t.”
When Goeth says he does not understand, Schindler expands on
the idea, “That’s what the emperors had.
A man stole something, he’s brought in before the emperor, he throws
himself down on the ground, he begs for mercy.
He knows he’s going to die. Then
the emperor… pardons him. This
worthless man. He lets him go. That’s power, Amon. That… is power.”
Goeth roars. He mockingly gestures like a Roman emperor and laughingly says, “I pardon you.” Yet the next day, Goeth seems taken by the notion and even practices “pardoning” prisoners, particularly Lisiek, the young Jew responsible for cleaning his bathtub. But in the end, he returns to his old ways and the shootings begin again. His first target is young Lisiek.
(1) What is power to you?
The ability to control others,
situations; the ability to effect events in one’s own life
(2) What did the word
mean to Goeth? To Schindler?
Goeth: to do whatever one wants, or whatever necessary.
Schindler: it is the ability to
make a decision based on a set of givens, and create a desired outcome.
(2) Why did Schindler
distinguish between “the power to kill” and “the power to kill arbitrarily?”
Power to kill: power to distinguish, to decide, to satisfy
a goal.
Power to kill arbitrarily: random abuse of power; no purpose, no impact.
(2) Is there a
relationship between power and goodness?
-- evil?
Yes on both counts. In either case, it is the ability to make
thoughts become reality, to either build up or tear down.
(2) Support or deny the
following statement, citing examples from the film if possible: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power
corrupts absolutely.”
Schindler was corrupted by economic
power – he bought friends, contracts, sex, and workers – all for his personal
satisfaction. Goeth, in his ability to
determine a man’s life or death, became drunk with that and lost all sense of
himself as a human being – he destroyed his own relationships as well as the
sense of human community.
OBEDIENCE
Concerning the Stanley Milgram experiments on obedience, John P. Sabini and Maury Silver noted:
When the learner makes his first error, subjects are
asked to shock him. The shock level is
15 volts. A 15-volt shock is entirely
harmless, imperceptible. There is no
moral issue here. Of course, the next
shock is more powerful than the last.
The quality of the subject’s action changes from something entirely
blameless to something unconscionable, but by degrees. Where exactly should the subject stop? At what point is the divide between the two
kinds of action crossed? How is the
subject to know? It is easy to see that
there must be a line; it is not so easy to see where that line ought to be.
Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University, focused on the behavior of those who refused to obey:
The question to ask of Milgram’s research is not why
the majority of normal, average subjects behave in evil (felonious) ways, but
what did the disobeying minority do after they refused to continue to shock the
poor soul, who was so obviously in pain?
Did they intervene, go to his aid, did they denounce the research,
protest to higher authorities, etc.?
No, even their disobedience was within the framework of “acceptability”,
they stayed in their seats, “in their assigned place,” politely,
psychologically demurred, and they waited to be dismissed by the
authority. Using other measures of
obedience in addition to “going all the way” on the shock generator, obedience
to authority in Milgram’s research was total.
(2) What encourages obedience? Is it fear of those in power? A desire to please authority figures? A belief in authority? Peer pressure? A need to conform – to go along with the group?
[All of the above are possible with
explanation. Respondents will come to
this from differing reference points]
(2) What is the difference between
obedience and conformity?
Obedience satisfies the self’s
perception of personal negative consequences to predetermined rules.
Conformity is going along with what
is perceived to be the majority opinion, regardless of outcome or moral
obligation.
(2) Why do you think it
is difficult to harm someone we touch?
Why is it easier to inflict harm upon a person we only see at a distance
and easier still on someone we only hear?
The degree of personal interaction
necessary is tremendously impactful.
Depersonalization makes doing what is outside morality easier.
(2) Does this explain why it is quite easy to be cruel towards a person we neither see nor hear? Explain.
Yes. The “desk murderers” in the Nazi regime had no conscience in their actions. However, when looking at the outcomes for men involved in direct shooting of a victim who they saw face-to-face, the level of disgust at their actions, or at least the extent to which their nerves were affected, rose sharply.
SYMBOLS
Tom Keneally, the author of the book, Schindler’s List casts light on why one particular event influenced Schindler. Schindler described the March Aktion in the Krakow ghetto this way: “Beyond this day no thinking person could fail to see what would happen. I was now resolved to do everything in my power to defeat the system.
(1) What is the
significance of the girl in the red coat?
She is depicted in such a way as to
stand out from the crowd. The use of
color in the black-and-white scene shows contrast in Schindler’s previous
perception of his world, and the new journey on which he would soon
embark. She might represent innocence,
and/or hope. Her death pushes Schindler
to rescue completely.
(5) What are some symbols
of power in the film?
Nazi pins, military insignia,
money, weapons, one’s occupation, uniforms/clothes, food, sex, Goeth’s house,
orders that are followed, cars, watch, jewelry, cigarette case, the gold ring
(the power to save).
(2) How important are
they to the various bearers of those symbols?
Do symbols come with power, or are the symbols irrelevant if the
individual has real power?
Symbols do not make power. They suggest power – how the bearer uses the
symbol, or supports it, determines their ability to affect others.
RESCUE
Keneally quotes Schindler as having said, “A life is not worth a pack of cigarettes”. Yet Schindler risked his own life.
(1) Why?
When Schindler saw the March
Aktion, he was removed from it – he viewed it from a distance. Prior to that, he was merely a part of the
bigger picture, only able to see it from within.
When Schindler was asked why he did what he did, he at one time replied, “There was no choice. If you saw a dog going to be crushed under a car, wouldn’t you help him?”
Another time, he replied, “The persecution of Jews in occupied Poland meant that we could see horror emerging gradually in many ways. In 1939, they were forced to wear Jewish stars, and people were herded and shut up into ghettos. Then, in the years ’41 and ’42 there was plenty of public evidence of pure sadism. With people behaving like pigs, I felt the Jews were being destroyed. I had to help them. There was no choice.”
(2) How are the quotes
similar to each other?
He says “there was no choice’;
regardless of his initial perception, he arrives at the same conclusion.
(1) How are the quotes
different from one another?
The first quote seems to speak of a
knee-jerk reaction, whereas the second speaks to the evolution of the realization
that the Jews were in trouble.
(2) Which one do you
think most accurately explains Schindler’s reason for assisting the Jews? Explain.
In the first statement he compares
the Jews to animals, a pet. In the
second, the people perpetrating the crimes against the Jews are the
animals. It is this second response
that speaks more to Schindler’s heart.
Ervin Staub, a Holocaust survivor from Hungary and a scholar on altruistic (helping, selfless, kind…) behavior, has written, “Goodness, like evil, often begins in small steps. Heroes evolve; they aren’t born. Very often the rescuers make only a small commitment at the start, to hide someone for a day or two. But once they had taken that step, they began to see themselves differently, as someone who helps. What starts as mere willingness becomes intense involvement.”
(2) Does Staub’s argument
apply to Schindler? How?
Yes. At first, Schindler only helped Stern. Later, his heart was melted by the girl in the red coat as well
as the young lady who asked him to rescue her parents. He then interviewed Goeth’s housekeeper as
to Goeth’s true personality. As he is
drawn deeper into the realities of the Holocaust, he is drawn deeper into right
morality (as opposed to situational ethics, which he had exhibited prior).
(1) When do you think
Schindler made the decision to rescue Jews?
He was first truly aware of the plight of the Jews after he witnessed the ghetto liquidation. The decision to rescue comes after the young lady asks him to employ her parents. He becomes immersed in it after witnessing the little girl whom he’d seen in the ghetto aktion.
(1) When does he take the
first step?
When he does not immediately fire the one-armed machinist. Later, when he tells Stern to add the woman’s parents to his list of slave laborers. Still later, when he and Stern meet about the “list”.
Jonathan Dresner, one of the Schindlerjuden (Schindler’s Jews), has said that Schindler “was an adventurer. He was like an actor who always wanted to be center stage. He got into a play, and he couldn’t get out of it.”
Luitgard Wundheiler, a psychotherapist, has investigated Schindler’s behavior during the Second World War. His theory is as follows:
In
Nazi-occupied Krakow, Schindler found himself in a position to assist those who
were in a precarious state: the
Jews. They had been dehumanized. They were on the verge of destruction. Any act of humanity (a job, a kind word, a
place to stay) was received with exaggerated but understandable
appreciation. “Vain and insecure”, with
little family life to speak of, Schindler was moved by the attention a
desperate people bestowed upon him.
Initially, Schindler was motivated by friendship to individual Jews (specifically, it would seem, to Stern). But gradually the Nazi industrialist won a reputation as a kind and compassionate man. He was “a savior”. His factory was “a haven”. The Jews working in his factory became “his Jews”, the Schindlerjuden. Schindler began to glory in his reputation as a kind and compassionate man. He liked the role he was playing. It made him feel good. It filled a psychological vacuum in his life. This self-definition was a motivating factor.
Wundheiler argues that Schindler, “being defined by others as a compassionate and caring man,” began to see himself in the same light. As a result, he acted in line with that idea, which in turn reinforced others’ views of him as a humanitarian, and it spiraled.”
(2) In your opinion, did
Schindler rescue the Jews to please others or did he rescue Jews out of a
subconscious desire to please himself?
[Either choice is acceptable if
supported]
The issue of Schindler and self-interest is an important one for you to consider. It demonstrates that a person can be a scoundrel yet can still be capable of selfless acts. Emilie Schindler described her late husband as a “saint of the devil”.
Keneally observed that Schindler and the sadist Amon Goeth may have been two sides of the human personality: “The reflection can hardly be avoided that Amon was Oskar’s dark brother, was the berserk and fanatic executioner Oskar might by some unhappy reversal of his appetite, have become.”
It must be emphasized that Schindler came to Krakow as a war-profiteer. At no point in his early life did Schindler demonstrate a hint of the altruistic behavior for which he is now so widely acclaimed. He became involved with the Jews when he realized that it made economic sense to employ them in his factory (formerly a Jewish factory). His early efforts helping the Jews, it might be argued, were efforts that he made to assure the continuation of his profits. In June 1942, he rescued Jews from a transport on its way to a death camp. In the film, he asks Stern, “Where would I be?” if the train had departed? Stern, of course, might have asked the same question about himself and the other Jews.
(3) What examples are
there in the film of Itzhak Stern nudging Schindler in the direction of rescue?
Hiring the one-armed machinist,
compiling the list of workers, letting it get out that the factory is a “haven”
In the film, Schindler sits down with Stern and proposes a toast to the factory’s success. With the Nazi destruction of Jews taking place outside of Schindler’s factory and throughout Poland, Stern in not interested in a toast. “Pretend, for Christ’s sake,” Schindler pleads. “I’m trying to thank you, and acknowledge I couldn’t have done it without you.” Stern replies, “You’re welcome.” But he does not lift his glass.
(1) How does this
exchange influence Schindler?
It shows Schindler that Stern does
not share his enthusiasm for the factory venture. Stern’s attempt at staying alive, his knowledge that he is a
victim in this larger unfolding drama preoccupies his every thought.
(1) How does Stern,
overall, influence Schindler?
Stern remains stoic in the face of tremendous
adversity. Stern represents the
helpless, the victim. He is the
antithesis of Schindler’s power, persuasion, and freedom. For Schindler, life was what he wanted it to
be. For Stern, all the rules of life
had changed, and he became a model of that for Schindler.
It is as if Schindler is backed into the role of being a rescuer, almost against his will. These scenes provide an opportunity to discuss the ways in which humans respond to moral expectations of those around them. In this sense, morality is a social product. A society’s values are sustained by mutual expectations. If we expect people to act decently, they will discover the decency in themselves.
In a 1973 documentary for West German television, Emilie Schindler said that Schindler had done nothing astounding before the war and had been unexceptional since. He was fortunate to have in that “short fierce era met people who summoned forth his deeper talents.”
Schindler developed a strong relationship with the elder Stern that continued after the war. The relationship has been described as one of a “father and son”. When Stern died in 1969, Schindler attended the funeral and wept uncontrollably at the grave.
NOTE:
Material in this hand-out was based on or lifted from the following
sources:
Facing History and Ourselves, A Guide To the Film
Schindler’s List
The Southern Institute For Education and Research at
Tulane University, Schindler’s List: Student Discussion Questions
(http://www.tulane.edu/~so-inst/slguid8.html)