THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 215

Copyright 2006 Heldref Publications

lanz begins his book Holocaust
Handbook for Educators by stat-
ing that The Holocaust, as a subject of
study, is somber, huge, significant, and
ultimately redemptive (2001, 3; empha-
sis in original). He could have added that
planning and implementing Holocaust
curricula is also complex and problemat-
ic because multiple pedagogical concerns
plague the teaching of the event, leading
Wieser to state, Teaching it [the Holo-
caust] can be like trying to find ones way
through a minefield (2001, 62). These
concerns affect both the content presented
in Holocaust units as well as the peda-
gogy used to teach that content.
Totten lists twenty-five historically
inaccurate concepts frequently found in
Holocaust units, noting such erroneous
statements as All death camps were
located in Germany, Jews were the sole
group of victims during the Holocaust,
and Jews are a race (2002, 61, 62, 66).
In this article, I consider eight pedagogi-
cal approaches that often cause problems
in teaching the event. I state each
approach positively, identify the negative
paradigm associated with that approach,
discuss the problems inherent in the neg-
ative approach, and offer a summary
statement of the positive approach.
The care that must be employed in
designing and implementing Holocaust
curricula should be emphasized because
learning about the Holocaust, if taught
with due concern given to content and
pedagogy, can civilise and humanise
our students and perhaps more effec-
tively than any other subject can sensi-
tise them to the dangers of indifference,
intolerance, racism and the dehumanisa-
tion of others. But if taught badly, it can
titillate, traumatise, mythologise and
encourage a purely negative view of all
Jewish history, of Jewish people and
indeed of all victim groups (Landau
1992, 12; emphasis in original). The
positive and negative perspectives
applied to the various pedagogical
approaches examined in this paper illus-
trate Landaus imperative.
The Vast Numbers Associated with
the Event Must Be Accompanied by
Personal Stories
Many teachers believe that the Holo-
caust can be taught effectively through
an emphasis on numbers. As a result, six
million deaths is often the first fact
presented to students as they begin
studying the event. Memorials are based
on the number (like the six pillars at the
Holocaust memorial in Boston), and
well-meaning teachers create projects in
which students collect six million
paperclips or soda can tabs to symbolize
each life lost. Many textbooks focus on
numbers in their Holocaust sections,
causing students to view the topic as an
aggregate event rather than as a circum-
stance that affected individual people
(Wilkins 1996).
The Holocausts scale, however, is
beyond most peoples cognitive or
affective ability to comprehend. Can
one really understand what it means to
eliminate millions of people through a
systematic program of annihilation? As
a result, a focus on the Holocausts
magnitude results in a sense of detach-
ment from the events reality (Wilkins
1996). To counter this and to establish a
foundation on which successful Holo-
caust curricula can be based, Totten
posits that the study of the event should
be personalized so that it moves from a
welter of statistics, remote places, and
events, to one that is immersed in the
personal and the particular (1987,
63). Personalization thus helps teachers
Guidelines for Teaching
the Holocaust: Avoiding
Common Pedagogical Errors
DAVID H. LINDQUIST
DAVID H. LINDQUIST is an assistant pro-
fessor in the School of Education at Indiana
UniversityPurdue University Fort Wayne in
Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he teaches
courses in social studies, education, curricu-
lum, research methods, and teaching the
Holocaust.
G
overcome the problem of the num-
bers, the incomprehensibility that
comes from being asked to understand
an event whose scale falls outside the
parameters of the imagination.
This view does not imply that no ref-
erence should be made to the magnitude
of the loss that occurred during the
Holocaust. The scale of annihilation
must be discussed if students are to
develop an accurate historical under-
standing of the event. However, any con-
sideration of that magnitude must be
enhanced by providing students with a
lens that allows them to see that indi-
vidual peoplefamilies of grandpar-
ents, parents, and childrenare behind
the statistics (United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum 2001, 6), thus
emphasizing the personal loss that was
central to the Holocaust. Personal
accounts found in such works as Elie
Wiesels memoir Night (1960/2006),
Vladka Meeds autobiography On Both
Sides of the Wall (1999), and Salvaged
Pages, an anthology composed of
excerpts from childrens diaries
(Zapruder 2002), bring the much-needed
personal dimension to the study of the
Holocaust.
The Story of Anne Frank Is Only
One Story within the Holocaust
The Diary of Anne Frank is the most
commonly included work in middle
school literature anthologies (Culbert-
son 2001), with few other Holocaust-
related works being found in such texts.
A virtually de rigueur inclusion of ancil-
lary sections about Anne Frank also
occurs in high school history textbooks,
and a wide range of materials about her
can be purchased from commercial
sources. As a result, Anne Franks story
is the Holocaust for many students.
This disproportionate attention given
to one persons experiences leads to sev-
eral negative consequences. First, Anne
Frank was only one of many victims of
Nazi tyranny, and each victims story is
meaningful, unique, and worthy of study.
Overemphasizing her story often comes
at the expense of considering what hap-
pened to other victims of the Holocaust,
especially those whose stories give read-
ers a window into the ghettos and camps.
Second, her story is often distorted,
becoming a sentimentalized tale in which
death is turned into a triumph of love
over hate (Langer 1995, 7). Third, the
diary does not establish the historical
context that surrounds what happened to
Anne Frank and the others in the Secret
Annex (Culbertson 2001) and, in fact,
should not be expected to do so. Thus,
studying the diary without first teaching
the historical period in which it is set
leads students to develop inaccurate
views of why Anne Franks story hap-
pened as well as what was happening in
the world around her.
Fourth, the diary limits educators in
fulfilling their mission to provide a
glimpse of the world that was lost, to
show how actions by responsible indi-
viduals can make a difference, to
empower students to believe that they
do make decisions in their lives that
affect them and those around them
(Culbertson 2001, 65). Fifth, antholo-
gies often end their Anne Frank sections
with the entry that discusses her faith in
the goodness of people, causing Cul-
bertson to ask if a world that returns to
normal through the redemptive triumph
of forgiveness over hate should be por-
trayed when that world, in fact, did not
exist. Given Anne Franks experiences
in Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, how
do we know what her views might have
been had she survived?
Teachers must move beyond Anne
Frank as they plan Holocaust curricula.
The study of Anne Frank has a place
within Holocaust education, but that
study must be situated within a broader
historical context. In addition, studying
the experiences of others who endured
the Holocaust will give students a
broadened perspective of the event
while doing justice to the memories of
other victims of Nazi policy.
The Holocaust Must Be
Contextualized within Larger
Historical Frameworks
Many curricula present the Holocaust
as a stand-alone occurrence rather than
an event that could occur only within the
greater framework of World War II.
However, situating the Holocaust within
that context is critical if students are to
understand the how as well as the what
of the event. For this reason, Bergen
introduces her book War and Genocide:
A Concise History of the Holocaust by
stating, This book attempts to address
the enormity of the Holocaust by situat-
ing it within the context of World War
II (2003, ix). She adds that several
components necessary for the mass
annihilation of European Jewry and
related events could be made available to
the Nazi regime only through war. These
components included: (1) German con-
trol of the large Jewish populations of
eastern and southeastern Europe; (2)
German control of potential non-Jewish
victims (for example, Roma and Poles);
(3) the cover needed for the implementa-
tion of mass murder on a heretofore pre-
viously unimaginable scale; (4) the nec-
essary excuse for genocide, that is, that
those being murdered were enemies of
Germany and impediments to the Ger-
man war effort; and (5) perhaps most
important, a context in which death and
destruction became normalized. Given
this outline, it can be demonstrated that
the existence of the war was a prerequi-
site for the Holocaust.
Many texts, however, do not contex-
tualize the Holocaust within the war.
The failure to link these events to any
substantial degree (if, indeed, any con-
nection is made at all) occurs in well-
known general works about the war
(Keegan 1989; Lyons 1999; Willmott
1990). Alternatively, Weinberg notes
that Holocaust-specific works often
ignore the fact that the wars existence
was necessary before the evolution of
the event, at least that phase of the
Holocaust in which mass murder
became the norm, could occur. Wein-
berg adds, Certainly those in charge of
both the war and the Holocaust on the
German side had no doubts about the
connection themselves. No one needed
to explain to them that the overwhelm-
ing majority of the Jews they killed had
come into their reach only because of
the war (1998, 2627). Conversely,
care must be taken so that students do
not view the war and the Holocaust as
synonymous (Totten 2002).
216 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 THE SOCIAL STUDIES
The Holocaust must also be seen
within the context of the Nazi era and of
the host of critical historical trends
[anti-Semitism, racism, social Darwin-
ism, extreme nationalism, totalitarian-
ism, and the nature of modern war] that
one needs to be conversant with in order
to even begin to understand the Holo-
caust (Totten, Feinberg, and Fernekes
2001, 11). Students who do not know
about the antecedent events that led to
the Holocaust will develop faulty per-
ceptions about the event, even to the
point of seeing the Holocaust as a cir-
cumstance that developed within its
own vacuum.
Decontextualization is especially sig-
nificant when considering literature-
based Holocaust curricula, particularly
those taught at the middle and high
school levels. While exploring the
Holocaust through literature provides an
ideal opportunity for allowing students
to develop their abilities to ponder the
personal, social, philosophical, and the-
ological implications of the event
(Shawn 2001, 140), most students lack
the prerequisite historical knowledge
needed to understand such implications
(Drew 1991). That understanding must
be based on situating the Holocaust
within the framework of World War II
because, as a well-known phrase con-
tends, No war, no Holocaust.
The Holocausts Unique Dynamics
Must Be Observed while
Teaching the Event
Ravitch (2004) holds that the treat-
ment of most topics in high school his-
tory textbooks is generally dull and life-
less. I found that to be the case in
surveying the treatment of the Holocaust
in frequently used high school history
textbooks (Lindquist forthcoming). Of
critical importance is that no attempt to
identify the Holocaust as a seminal his-
torical event was found. Names, dates,
places, and occurrences are recounted,
mundane questions focusing on lower-
order thinking skills are found in end-of-
section reviews, and publisher-prepared
quizzes and tests reduce the assessment
of student knowledge to multiple-choice
or fill-in-the-blank responses. Those
critical-thinking questions that do
appear are generally simplistic and even
trivial. For example, World History:
Connections to Today asks students,
Based on the photographs [of concen-
tration camp survivors and crematorium
ovens], what do you think the Nazis
thought about camp inmates? (Ellis and
Elser 2005, 783). Because textbooks
form the core of most high school histo-
ry courses (Finn 2004), it can be sur-
mised that the subject is usually present-
ed to students at the same mundane level
as the other topics discussed in such
books. Likewise, many publishers of
educational materials flood the market
with workbooks that feature crossword
puzzles, word searches, and similarly
banal materials, thus trivializing the
events implications as well as its histo-
ry (Shawn 1995). The Web site teach-
nology.com, which describes itself as
the teacher online resource, includes
directions for completing an acrostic
using the letters from the word Holo-
caust; a cryptogram whose solution
will answer the riddle How many lives
did the Holocaust claim?; a Holocaust
word search; and a Holocaust maze in
which students help the man find his
way homebut which has no apparent
connection to the event.
Students must understand that the
Holocaust is, to some extent, an event
that goes beyond ones capacity for
understanding. Thus, Elie Wiesel says,
The Holocaust? The ultimate event, the
ultimate mystery, never to be compre-
hended or transmitted (Roth and
Berenbaum 1989, 3), adding that
despite his own experiences as both a
survivor and a scholar, The more I
know, the less I know, the less I under-
stand (Ward 1993). It should not be a
surprise, then, that Schilling (1998)
questions whether or not the Holocaust
can ever be really be comprehended.
This reality stands apart from the nor-
mal educational paradigm in which
knowledge leads to understanding, and
more knowledge leads to more under-
standing. But the Holocausts complex-
ity, the twists and turns inherent in any
study of the subject, demand that teach-
ers give their students opportunities to
delve into the whys as well as the
whats of this history (Totten, Fein-
berg, and Fernekes 2001), knowing full
well that a complete understanding of
the topic can never be developed.
Teachers Must Recognize
That Teaching the Holocaust
Can Be Controversial
Teaching about the Holocaust is an
inherently controversial undertaking,
and the mere inclusion of the subject in
the curricula of some education settings
may became the topic of intense institu-
tional and public scrutiny. For example,
Feldman (2001) describes problems she
encountered when trying to gain
approval to teach a Holocaust course in
her school, which has no Jewish stu-
dents and at which she is the only Jew-
ish staff member. School board mem-
bers asked, What interest could our
kids possibly have with these issues
its the past? and You people dont
know when to leave well enough alone
(emphasis added). Dawidowicz discuss-
es a minister of German descent who
objected to the inclusion of the study of
the Holocaust in the public schools in
his city because studying the event
might make students think that geno-
cide was a Teutonic phenomenon
(1990, 26). Pearl (1996) notes a case in
which a course that was to be taught by
an experienced Holocaust educator was
cancelled by a principal who had lost
family in Bergen-Belsen and who felt
that allowing the course to be taught
would lead to charges that he was forc-
ing his personal biases on students.
Such difficulties are not limited to
K12 situations. Lorenz (2000) describes
problems she faced when first offering a
Holocaust literature course through the
Department of German at the Ohio State
University. Some colleagues questioned
whether or not the course would be in the
departments best interest because it
might alienate students with a German
heritage, an important group within the
departments student population. Others
saw Holocaust studies as trendy or con-
tended that the course might be seen as
invading the history departments space,
a problem that had occurred previously
when German professors had focused
THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 217
course work on German culture. Some
suggested that Lorenz herself might
become the target of hostility. Students
questioned whether or not the texts being
studied were of sufficient literary quality
to warrant extensive consideration. Not-
ing these concerns, she contends that
teaching about the Holocaust before
achieving tenure would have been an
unwise career path to take.
Beyond the generally controversial
nature of including the Holocaust in
K12 curricula, several specific topics
studied within such curricula can be
especially sensitive, thus leading to the
possibility of difficult situations for
teachers. Three such topics are anti-
Semitism, the roles of various Christian
churches during the Holocaust, and the
actions of the U.S. government relative
to the event.
Dawidowicz (1990) studied twenty-
five high school Holocaust curricula
and found that the coverage of anti-
Semitism was absent from most of
them. She believes this omission
results from the fact that historical anti-
Semitism cannot be discussed accu-
rately without considering its Christian
roots. Doing so, however, is inherently
controversial because, as Dawidowicz
notes, Trying to teach adolescents
about the roots of anti-Semitism in
Christianity, however, even in the secu-
lar schools of the secular state, is like
leading a tourist party across crocodile
territory (1990, 27). The discussion of
the topic, however, is rich in its ability
to involve students in intense discus-
sion and debate while setting a histori-
cally accurate framework for the study
of the Nazi era and the Holocaust.
Similarly, examining the churches
role during the Holocaust involves
implicit difficulties, notably that students
may become defensive when the actions,
motivations, and beliefs of Christianity
in general or of churches of which they
may be members in particular are
brought into question. However, bringing
the churches actions into the study of the
event gives students an opportunity to
examine the fact that human behavior is
often the result of the interaction of com-
plex forces that are constantly in change
(Totten and Hines 2001).
By considering the role of bystander
nations, particularly the United States,
during the Holocaust, teachers can lead
students to substantive civic discourse in
the classroom, an important experience
for students who live in a democracy in
which controversy is a fundamental part
of daily life (Martorella, Beal, and Bolick
2005). Discussing the ambiguous nature
of Americas response (or, perhaps, non-
response) to the Holocaust can provide
students with an opportunity to appreci-
ate that Controversy over matters of
concern is one sign that our democratic
system is functioning properly (Mar-
torella, Beal, and Bolick, 264).
Although many teachers try to avoid
discussing controversial issues in their
classrooms, considering such topics
should be a normal component of the
educational environment. While directed
specifically toward social studies teach-
ers, Soleys rationale for the inclusion of
controversial subjects in the social stud-
ies also applies to other disciplines. She
states:
[S]ocial studies educators must hold tight
to the belief that teaching about issues
that are controversial is a cornerstone of
our professional responsibility. I believe
that the raison detre of the social studies
is to teach students the kind of substantive
knowledge that will promote a deeper
understanding of their social world. This
means instilling the capacities to make
thoughtful decisions and judgments,
encouraging students to sustain democra-
tic principles and participate in democra-
tic processes, and creating habits that will
fortify continued learning. The best way
to promote these goals is to provide con-
sistent opportunities for students to tackle
controversial issues. (1996, 9; emphasis
in original)
Teachers should thus welcome the
opportunity to include the discussion of
controversial topics in their Holocaust
units in order to do justice to the story of
the event while giving students valuable
experiences in the practice of living in a
democratic society.
The Selection of Appropriate
Methodologies Is Critical in
Developing Holocaust Units
In well-intentioned but ill-conceived
attempts to make the Holocaust real
for students, teachers often create simu-
lations in which students experience
the event. These teachers often note that
the effective use of classroom simula-
tions has been well documented. For
example, Ruben (1999) holds that expe-
riential-based learning activities such as
role-playing and simulations allow stu-
dents to engage in a teaching/learning
environment in which teachers and stu-
dents participate in high-interest learn-
ing activities. Pedersen (1995) believes
that such activities allow students to
examine controversial issues in a safe,
nonthreatening environment. Martorel-
la, Beal, and Bolick (2005) contend that
simulations are valuable because stu-
dents relate easily to the situations
involved, but they also admit that over-
simplifying those situations is likely to
occur.
However, several problems are inher-
ent in using simulations and related
activities to teach the Holocaust.
Terming the use of such exercises as
anti-intellectual and disingenuous, Tot-
ten notes that simulations may cause
unintended emotional responses in stu-
dents while diminishing the complexity
and horror of the event (2002, 114). In
addition, students are aware that the sim-
ulations impact is finite, that is, that they
will return to normal activities and a nor-
mal world when their class ends.
Beyond such factors, it is critical to
note that nothing students experience
during a Holocaust simulation can begin
to approximate what the Holocausts
victims endured. Totten notes:
For students to walk away thinking that
they have either experienced what a vic-
tim went through or have a greater under-
standing of what the victims suffered is
shocking in its naivet. Even more galling
is for teachers to think that they have pro-
vided their students with a true sense of
what the victims lived throughand/or to
think they have at least approximated the
horror and terror the victims experienced.
(2002, 122; emphasis in original)
Those who have not experienced the
Holocaust can ever really know what
it was like to be in the Holocaust. Thus,
the position of the United States Holo-
caust Memorial Museum regarding the
use of simulations to teach about the
Holocaust is clear: Even when great
218 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 THE SOCIAL STUDIES
care is taken to prepare a class for an
activity, simulating experiences from
the Holocaust remains pedagogically
unsound (2001, 8).
Many meaningful and appropriate
ways to present the Holocaust to stu-
dents are available to teachers. Substi-
tuting simulations and similar activities
such as the board game Gestapo for
pedagogically appropriate approaches
destroys the historical integrity of the
study (Shawn 1995) by trivializing the
event, dishonoring the memories of the
victims, and diminishing opportunities
for students to engage in viable, chal-
lenging learning experiences.
Graphic Images Should Be Used
Sparingly and Carefully
When Teaching the Holocaust
Teachers often use films showing
horrifying images in an attempt to bring
realism to their classrooms. Totten
holds that teachers use such materials
because they ostensibly allow them to
get through to their students, that is,
drive home the horror of the Holocaust.
Instead of capturing students attention or
inducing learning, however, such actions
may, paradoxically, achieve the opposite
effect. Whereas some students may sim-
ply turn away from the history, others
may become so numb that they cannot
focus on it. (2001b, 31)
As a result, we must ask, Do students
really need to be exposed to such graph-
ic and horrific detail? What do we gain
and what do we lose when we expose our
students to images of graphic horror?
These questions do not imply that stu-
dents should be shielded from such
materials completely. Rather, such
sources should be used only to the
extent necessary to achieve the objec-
tives of the lesson (United States Holo-
caust Memorial Museum 2001, 6) and
only after careful consideration has been
given to students emotional and intel-
lectual maturity. In addition to being
pedagogically unsound, using materials
because they have shock value is ethi-
cally inappropriate because teachers
have the responsibility to ensure that
classrooms are emotionally safe places
for students (Shawn 2001) and not
places where students emotional well-
being is sacrificed in order to drive
home some ill-defined ideas.
Graphic images from the Holocaust
(including literary selections as well as
photographs and films) can elicit
intense, even overwhelming, reactions
from students. However, as Shawn
notes, We fail our children when we
invite them to enter, unsuspectingly, a
world filled with inexplicable, painful,
harsh, and terrifying realities: great vio-
lence, utter powerlessness, loss of con-
trol, xenophobia, betrayal, isolation,
indignity, dehumanization, torture, mur-
der (2001, 144). Therefore, teachers
must find approaches that present the
Holocaust in ways that engage student
thinking without exploiting either the
victims memories or the students emo-
tional vulnerability (United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum 2001, 7).
Holocaust Education Is Appropriate
at the Middle School Level
and Above
The absence of the Holocaust as a
subject of study in both K12 and uni-
versity settings was common in the first
several decades after World War II
(Fleming 1999; Haynes 1998; Heckler
1994). As the inclusion of the Holocaust
in school curricula developed in the late
1970s, Friedlander (1979) warned that
the subjects validity as a topic of
unique importance could be destroyed if
it were to be taught, or perhaps over-
taught, without due care being given to
its special possibilities and limitations.
One such limitation concerns the
question of when the Holocaust should
first be introduced to students, because
concerns about developmental appropri-
ateness must be given careful attention
when dealing with such an emotionally
charged subject. The issue is important
because increasing numbers of elemen-
tary school educators now teach the
Holocaust to their students.
The opening paragraphs of Four Per-
fect Pebbles: A Holocaust Story use
such terms as gasps and moans, ever-
present stench of unwashed bodies,
and bodies taken away to be burned or
buried in mass graves (Perl and Lazan
1996, 12). The book is marketed to
elementary school-aged children. Hilde
and Eli: Children of the Holocaust
(Adler 1994) describes scenes in which
victims are chased with clubs and
gassed, and their bodies are burned. The
book is designed for children in the pri-
mary grades. Shawn states that a kinder-
garten teacher told her, I understand
that I have to water it down for my chil-
dren, so I teach them only two vocabu-
lary words: showers and camps
(2001, 143).
Regarding such situations, we must
ask what we gain and what we risk
when we expose young children to such
sensitive, potentially overwhelming
materials. Responding to these con-
cerns, Krauthammer posits that Teach-
ing the most wrenching social history to
the very young assaults their innocence
by deliberately disturbing their cozy,
rosy view of the world. . . . They live
only once, and for a very short time in a
tooth-fairy world. Why shorten that
time further? (1995, 80).
Two opposing views regarding this
subject are described by Sepinwall
(1999), who discusses ways the Holo-
caust can be introduced to children in
grades K4, and Totten, who introduces
several arguments in favor of Holocaust
education for K4 children and then
cogently refutes each such rationaliza-
tion. In so doing, he poses and then
answers a critical question:
Can something so complex as the Holo-
caust be taught to young children? . . . It
seems as if a resounding no is the answer.
This is so for three main reasons. First,
the history is far too complex for young
children to understand. . . . Second, with-
out a fairly solid understanding of the
aforementioned concepts, it is truly diffi-
cult for anyone to understand why and
how the Holocaust unfolded. Third, it is
simply and profoundly inappropriate to
introduce, let alone immerse, such young
children to the various horrors of the
Holocaust. (1999, 37, 38)
The critical element in determining
when to introduce students to the Holo-
caust should be their ability to compre-
hend the subject historically while deal-
ing with its emotional entanglements.
Michalczyk and Cohens comment that
any film about the Holocaust should be
used only if it is appropriate to the
THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 219
emotional and cognitive levels of their
[the teachers] students should be
extended to the study of the topic in
general (2001, 203). To this discussion
one can add the title of Tottens (1999)
article, Holocaust education for K4
students? The answer is no!
A strong argument can be made that
students should first be exposed to the
Holocaust no earlier than the middle
school years. Even at that level, the sub-
ject must be approached with care and
with due consideration given to the
wide range of maturity levels found in
early adolescents. As students mature,
they can participate in increasingly
complex examinations of the event,
with such examinations necessarily
including the consideration of topics
that are emotionally and intellectually
challenging. Such challenges should not
be presented to children in the elemen-
tary and primary grades.
Suggested Sources on Teaching
the Holocaust
Many excellent resources on teaching
the Holocaust are readily available.
Among them are Teaching and Studying
the Holocaust (Totten and Feinberg
2001); Teaching Holocaust Literature
(Totten 2001b); Holocaust Education:
Issues and Approaches (Totten 2002);
and Holocaust Handbook for Educators
(Glanz 2001). In addition, Teaching
about the Holocaust: A Resource Book
for Educators (United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum 2001) is available in a
print version and may also be found on
the museums Web site (http://www
.ushmm.org). This book includes Guide-
lines for Teaching about the Holocaust,
Suggested Topic Areas for a Course of
Study on the Holocaust, an excellent his-
torical overview of the event, a detailed
chronology, and an annotated bibliogra-
phy and videography. An online teacher
workshop may also be accessed from the
Web site, as may many brief survivor tes-
timony (oral history) video segments.
Conclusion
Teaching the Holocaust is a complex
undertaking involving twists and turns
that can frustrate and even intimidate
educators who teach the Holocaust.
This complexity involves both the
events history and its pedagogy. That
complexity, however, leads to intellec-
tual and personal growth in students to
whom pedagogically sound Holocaust
units are presented. Therefore, educa-
tors who teach the Holocaust must be
cognizant of the task they face and the
burden they accept. Beyond that, teach-
ers must understand that students who
are not familiar with the Holocaust will
lack critical knowledge and under-
standing about the world in which they
live. Teachers must, therefore, be will-
ing to accept the imperative to teach the
Holocaust and to teach it well for, as
Sydnor writes, How can you bear to
study the Holocaust? How can we not?
(1987, A52).
Key words: Holocaust pedagogy, Holo-
caust teaching strategies
NOTE
1. Information taken from a posting to the
United States Holocaust Memorial Teacher
Listserve by M. Feldman on March 18, 2001.
REFERENCES
Adler, D. A. 1994. Hilde and Eli: Children of
the Holocaust. New York: Holiday House.
Bergen, D. L. 2003. War and genocide: A
concise history of the Holocaust. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Culbertson, E. 2001. The diary of Anne
Frank: Why I dont teach it. In Teaching
Holocaust literature, ed. S. Totten, 6369.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Dawidowicz, L. 1990. How they teach the
Holocaust. Commentary 90 (6): 2532.
Drew, M. A. 1991. Merging history and lit-
erature in teaching about genocide. Social
Education 55:12829.
Ellis, E. G., and A. Esler. 2005. World histo-
ry: Connections to today. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Finn, C. E., Jr. 2004. [Foreward]. In D. Rav-
itch, A consumers guide to high school
history textbooks, 56. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Fleming, D. B. 1999. Genocide in world his-
tory textbooks. In Encyclopedia of geno-
cide, volume I, ed. I. W. Charny, 2067.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Friedlander, H. 1979. Toward a methodolo-
gy of teaching the Holocaust. Teachers
College Record 80:51942.
Glanz, J. 2001. Holocaust handbook for
educators. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Haynes, S. R. 1998. Holocaust education at
American colleges and universities: A
report on the current situation. Holocaust
and Genocide Studies 12:282307.
Heckler, E. 1994. An analysis of the treat-
ment of the Holocaust in selected Ameri-
can and world history textbooks. EdD
diss., RutgersThe State University of
New Jersey.
Keegan, J. 1989. The Second World War.
New York: Penguin.
Krauthammer, C. 1995. Hiroshima, mon
petit. Time 145 (13): 80.
Landau, R. 1992. The Nazi Holocaust. Lon-
don: I. B. Taurus.
Langer, L. 1995. Admitting the Holocaust:
Collected essays. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Lindquist, D. H. Forthcoming. The treatment
of the Holocaust in high school world his-
tory textbooks: Problems of topical cover-
age, accuracy, and interpretation.
Lorenz, D. C. G. 2000. The difficulty of
breaking the silence: Teaching the Holo-
caust in a program of German literature
and culture. In Shedding light on the dark-
ness: A guide to teaching the Holocaust,
ed. N. A. Lauckner and M. Jokiniemi,
5976. New York: Berghahn.
Lyons, M. J. 1999. World War II: A short
history. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Martorella, P. H., C. M. Beal, and C. M. Bol-
ick. 2005. Teaching social studies in the
middle and secondary schools. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Meed, V. 1999. On both sides of the wall.
Washington, DC: United States Holocaust
Memorial Museum.
Michalczyk, J., and S. Cohen. 2001.
Expressing the inexpressible through
film. In Teaching and studying the Holo-
caust, ed. S. Totten and S. Feinberg,
20322. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Pearl, L. 1996. Internal battle results in can-
celed Holocaust course. Jewish Bulletin
of Northern California, August 16. http://
www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/
displaystory/story_id/4235/edition_id/77/
format/html/displaystory.html (accessed
October 3, 2006).
Pedersen, P. 1995. Simulations: A safe place
to take risks in discussing cultural differ-
ences. Simulation and Gaming 26:2016.
Perl, L., and M. B. Lazan. 1996. Four per-
fect pebbles: A Holocaust story. New
York: Greenwillow.
Ravitch, D. 2004. A consumers guide to
high school history textbooks. Washing-
ton, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Roth, J. K., and M. Berenbaum. 1989. What
if the Holocaust IS unique? In Holocaust:
Religious and philosophical implications,
ed. J. K. Roth and M. Berenbaum, 18.
New York: Paragon House.
Ruben, B. D. 1999. Simulations, games, and
220 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 THE SOCIAL STUDIES
experience-based learning: The quest for
a new paradigm in teaching and learning.
Simulation and Gaming 30:498507.
Schilling, D. G. 1998. Introduction. In
Lessons and legacies, volume II: Teaching
the Holocaust in a changing world, ed. D.
G. Schilling, 39. Evanston, IL: North-
western University Press.
Sepinwall, H. 1999. Incorporating Holocaust
education into the K4 curriculum and
teaching in the United States. Social Stud-
ies and the Young Learner 11 (3): P5P8.
Shawn, K. 1995. Current issues in Holocaust
education. Dimensions: A Journal of
Holocaust Studies 9 (2): 1518.
. 2001. Choosing Holocaust litera-
ture for young adolescents. In Teaching
and studying the Holocaust, ed. S. Totten
and S. Feinberg, 13955. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Soley, M. 1996. If its controversial, why
teach it? Social Education 60 (1): 914.
Sydnor, C. W., Jr. 1987. How can you bear
to study the Holocaust? How can we
not? Chronicle of Higher Education 34
(3): A52.
Totten, S. 1987. The personal face of geno-
cide: Words and witnesses in the class-
room. Social Science Record (Special
Issue) 24:6367.
. 1999. Holocaust education for K4
students? The answer is no! Social Studies
and the Young Learner 12 (1): 3639.
. 2001a. Incorporating fiction and
poetry into a study of the Holocaust at the
secondary level. In Teaching and studying
the Holocaust, ed. S. Totten and S. Fein-
berg, 15693. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
. 2001b. Teaching Holocaust litera-
ture. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
. 2002. Holocaust education: Issues
and approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Totten, S., and S. Feinberg, eds. 2001.
Teaching and studying the Holocaust.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Totten, S., S. Feinberg, and W. Fernekes.
2001. The significance of rationale state-
ments in developing a sound Holocaust
education program. In Teaching and
studying the Holocaust, ed. S. Totten and
S. Feinberg, 123. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Totten, S., and R. Hines. 2001. Using prima-
ry documents in a study of the Holocaust.
In Teaching and studying the Holocaust,
ed. S. Totten and S. Feinberg, 81106.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
2001. Teaching about the Holocaust: A
resource book for educators. Washington,
DC: United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum.
Ward, J. 1993. The Holocaust: In memory of
millions. Motion picture. Alexandria, VA:
Discovery Channel.
Weinberg, G. L. 1998. The Holocaust and
World War II: A dilemma in teaching. In
Lessons and legacies, volume II: Teaching
the Holocaust in a changing world, ed. D.
G. Schilling, 2640. Evanston, IL: North-
western University Press.
Wiesel, E. 1960/2006. Night. New York: Hill
and Wang.
Wieser, P. 2001. Instructional issues/strate-
gies in teaching the Holocaust. In Teach-
ing and studying the Holocaust, ed. S.
Totten and S. Feinberg, 6280. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Wilkins, S. L. 1996. Witness to the Holo-
caust: History from a first-hand perspec-
tive. In New perspectives on the Holo-
caust: A guide for teachers and scholars,
ed. R. L. Millen, 15965. New York: New
York University Press.
Willmott, H. P. 1990. The great crusade: A
new complete history of the Second World
War. New York: Free Press.
Zapruder, A., ed. 2002. Salvaged pages:
Young writers diaries of the Holocaust.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
THE SOCIAL STUDIES SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 221
Copyright of Social Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.