Review of "A Ghost Story"

I ended up seeing "A Ghost Story" today at Sundial in St. Pete. Guys, it's good. It's not horror or action -- it is seriously drama and metaphysical ideology. I'm a para-snob, apparently, because I can't take the horror of most movies which are designed to induce fear. I dislike feeling fear -- life is too short for that. This movie is not fearful -- it's human. It's artistic. It's intriguing. It's worth seeing.

Be aware, though that "A Ghost Story" is intense, even though it's "only" 93 minutes long. You do have to pay attention but it's not a laborious task. I do know that the entire theater was incredibly quiet -- no one spoke and even the slightest rusting could be heard. Try not to fidget too much -- remember that the film relies on sounds and acting, weaves together a variety of experiences, and creates a really decent plot.

For a paranormalist, the most interesting part was that of the ghost. He does not really speak so everything is pretty much inferred by movement, observation, and action. The ghost is in the liminal state to the truest level of the definition. It perceives time very differently than we do. It kind of explains how ghosts are active at times and not at others -- this ghost is intent on a task that draws his attention for part of the movie. Time is fluid around him and certainly shifts faster as the film goes on.

Visually, the film is not complicated. The ghost walks around in a sheet, like the old Charlie Brown Halloween specials show. There is at least one other ghost in the film -- pay attention to her. I think the covering or "skin" of the ghost is an interesting statement. Items that are touched upon include telepathy, contact, the brush between the living and the dead, telekenesis/poltergeist activity, time loops, death of a ghost, and release.

It will seem to get a little long in parts (I think we are so trained for action/adventure/bad plots/explosions that the gentle plots are tedious). I left the theater completely unstressed (which is great and not always the case). Seriously....it is worth a visit to watch it. I'd say maybe once, no more than twice, but it's worth it. I was really pleasantly surprised.

Sam Gross Summer Institute at the Florida Holocaust Museum Day 4

Day 4

Today we studied human rights and concepts of genocide with Dr. Edward Kissi.  After the Holocaust, the UN attempted to define human rights.  The list is fairly nebulous (right to marry, right to be happy and not in fear, right to….).  However, this document gets to be a bit of a problem because it is nebulous.  It also gets conflicted with the overlay of culture.   Human rights are to protect the individual and nations that formed after 1945 implemented a list of human rights into their constitution.  With controversy, the only way that these can be sorted through is by the court system.  It works with ethical conduct issued through education and empathy.

Genocide:  How do we determine that a genocide has happened?  Attack of a specific people, numbers do not matter; intent differs.  Lempkin came up with a definition in 1933 and presented in 1944.   His definition was too broad for the UN Genocide conference (1948).  They narrowed it down to people against race, ethnic, religions, nation/citizenship.  The difficult part of this is documenting intent which must be done on a case by case basis.  The aspect of Genocide cannot be retroactively determined (hence Native Americans and African Americans are not a part of this). 

Rwanda:  As an African culture, it contained three ethnic people – the Hutu (soil), Tutsi (cattle) and Twa (hunters).  In Africa the ethnicity is usually determined by job or location.  In Rwanda the Tutsi were in charge, though they were only 14% of the population.  When Europeans came in they determined that an organized African society must not be natural – the Tutsi were from outside of the community.  They created a false history that the Tutsi must be linked to Ethiopia or to Egypt.  This was even taught through the school system.  Eventually, Tutsi was considered to be foreign.  With a tip in power from when the colonial period ended in the 1960s the Hutu took over.  They eventually perpetuated the idea that the Tutsi should “go home” to North Africa and began to take land and property.  In the 1970s the government was overthrown by militant Hutu who believed that the genocide was going too slowly.  By the 1990s tensions continued to exist.  The Tutsi had moved out of Rwanda to neighboring lands, but even there they were seen as foreigners.  The Tutsi had a desire to return to where they came from.  They started their own militant group that attacked the borders.  The Hutu grew angry (particularly the peasant class that was under attack) and in retribution attacked the Tutsi who remained in the land.  This was also spurred by radio and newspaper, plus a long simmering cultural dislike.  It got worse when the Rwandan president, under the guidance of the UN and US, was returning to Rwanda and his plane was shut down.  The retribution was intense and by the end 800,000 Tutsi (up to 1.2 million with supporters of the people) were killed.  This was an aspect of group think that proved deadly.  Because of the massive amount of people who were involved in this there is no trial.  Those who are serving time are mostly word of mouth criminals – survivors who pointed out what they had done. 

Cambodia was another scene of genocide.  The Khmer Rouge came into power in April of 1975.  With this, they brought in communist ideas and the notion that the peasant farmer was the ultimate existence.  They attacked minority populations and rounded up city dwellers, Chinese, and Vietnamese (again, a long running hatred), as well as Buddhist monks, and marched them into the fields.  Issues of anti-capitalism also ran rampant (the US bombed the borders of Cambodia out of fear of communism).  People were forced to work with no food, no tools, to cultivate the land.  They also attacked to get more land awarded to other countries after the World War.  Over 2 million (of a country of 7 million) died.  It has taken 30 years (or more) for these individuals to come to justice.

The final session of the class was that with Sophia Leng Stagg.  She was a survivor of the Khmer Rouge forced march.  She and her family one of the very few who survived in tact – most everyone lost a loved one.  She described starvation, disease, beatings, hatred, isolation, loneliness.  Re-education camps told children to hate their parents, that they were worthless, and that they should prove themselves.  It was a very tragic situation.

It is interesting to see that modern genocide still exists.  However, the law courts seem to dicker over genocide and human rights violations.  This indicates that we need a much clearer and cleaner definition of what is going on.  However, I have often believed that if humanity simply stopped killing itself that the world’s problems would diminish somewhat.  Then comes the harder part – respecting one another.  The challenges are still there. 

And we have almost made it to the last day.

Sam Gros Institute on Holocaust Studies Day 3

June 12, 3013

Day 3 

Today we continued on our journey through the 1940s and the Holocaust.  It was a short day and I must say I am feeling the exhaustion of an intense workshop.  However, I must say that this workshop continues to excel in its presentation and the sheer quantity/quality of the materials covered.  We discussed the best and the worst in humankind today – but focused more on the best than the worst.

For the negative category, we did talk briefly about those who would stand outside the ghetto and blackmail Jews trying to slip out in order to smuggle food in.  (Be aware that the Germans did not provide much in the manner of food rations and often supplied older food to the ghettos.    It was not uncommon for Germans to use circumcision against the Jews – they worked the blackmail scheme more on men than women.  To prove a Jewish man they simply had to pull down his pants, which apparently they did.

My questions on America and the Holocaust have some answers.  There are two conflicting theories as to why America did not react sooner, or bomb some of the Holocaust camps.  To boil down a 2 hour lecture, it seems that there was simply not enough information to determine the camps, there wasn’t enough air support (to bomb meant moving operations from other parts of the war), and there was a fear of retaliation.  There were also issues that the technology would not allow target-specific bombing and that greater harm would come to those they were trying to save.  Americans were sympathetic to the Jewish plight and newspapers published it.    America also had a bad taste from World War I when there was a lot of anti-German propaganda that was circulated that was not true.  An interesting aside is that America had a greater dislike for the Japanese (Pearl Harbor) than the Germans. 

We met a child survivor of the Holocaust today.  It is interesting because of what her mother did to save them.  Her mother was worried when her pregnant sister was taken away and never seen again.  Her father was also taken to a camp and never returned.  With this in mind, her mother opted to move away from the small town in which they lived and head to a larger city.  While she worked she left her daughter with poor farming families in the nearby village.  She opted to pay a family to care for her daughter and even had her practicing Catholicism to protect her.  Surviving the war they moved to Paris where this survivor, Halina, first learned that she was Jewish.  The way she found out was that her mother felt a bit fearful that Poland was hostile to Jews.  She opted to move to Paris and told her daughter the night before that they were leaving.  As a child, Halina wanted to go to Mass as not attending was a sin.  Her mother explained to her that they were Jewish.  Halina was truly stunned because in listening to the locals she believed that Jews were dirty and hairy.  However, she accepted her religion over a period of time and they continued on their way, eventually settling with a stepfather in Canada.  From there they moved to America.  She also married a fellow Holocaust survivor.  In an interesting twist, she did not want to marry a survivor and it seemed to be a part of her life that she wanted closed.  However, she did note that they identified well with one another. She had children that they raised Jewish and currently has several grandchildren. 

We then had speakers from children of Holocaust survivors.  These speakers also shed light on questions that I have had for quite some time.  I understood that Jewish generations were also impacted by the Holocaust and I knew that some had switched to Christianity but I wasn’t entirely sure why.  Some Jewish writers stated that the loss of belief (where was God during the Holocaust?  How could this happen) proved to be too much and hence the switch to Christianity.  It seems that it was deeper than that.  Jews who survived the Holocaust had great fear left in them, even when they came to America.  To protect their children they brought them up Catholic or did not reveal their Jewish heritage. 

One person described a program where she met with second generation children of Nazi parents.  After several tense days, they finally started to reveal their stories.  The children of the Nazi parents were very scarred – their parents came home and were often abusive to them as well.  There were stories of suicide when they got older due to shame of what their parents did.  Granted, this is a second hand story but these were the perceptions of this individual who was, herself, very surprised at what the meeting revealed. 

One theme that constantly shows up in this course is the dislike and distrust of the Holocaust deniers.  There are new websites that are professionally made which deny the Holocaust.  It is surprising, though I suspect that the denial that came out from World War II (remember that people didn’t believe the information and thought it was propaganda) is likely used as a source.  How they can deny journals, witnesses, locations, and military reports is amazing.  (Then again, there are conspiracies that we have not landed on the moon and that aliens have contacted us, etc., so I suppose that these fringe elements do exist).  I am please that they utilize education as a way to combat ignorance (as this fits with my own philosophy).

Off to Day 4 next….

Dr. Peter Black of the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC.

Florida Holocaust Museum, Sam Gross Summer Institute 2013 Day 2

June 11, 2013

Today’s session was certainly much heavier than yesterday.  The first lecture was presented by Dr. Black and focused on the rise of the ghetto.   While I knew of the use of the Jewish Quarters and have discussed the aspect of Venice and the Jewish population, I did not realize that the Renaissance was the origin of the term ghetto. 

The remaining lectures wove together and bring up issues of declining conditions in the ghettos and the rise of the Final Solution.  The (wrongful) idea of race and Social Darwinism was alarming.  The idea that an individual is bound to their race to produce thoughts and ideologies seems so foreign, but it does fit with the context of studies of the time.  Darwin was taken as a springboard for many radical ideologies.  The intentional deprivation of food, the horrible living conditions, the struggle to find food, the need to work to get rations and avoid deportation … all of it is quite startling.  It does appear that these conditions were introduced slowly in Germany but more rapidly in countries that Germany conquered. 

As with yesterday’s museum tour, a section of today’s presentation reminded us of the individuals in the Holocaust.  All too often we tend to lump tragic events into a single term, to discuss it and move on to the next subject.  We forget that the people who died in the Holocaust, as well as other genocides, were individuals with loves and hates, sense of humor, and a sparkle of personhood that should not have been extinguished. 

Two other events culminated in what we did today.  We met a survivor of Auschwitz.  A frail older woman came in and gave her story in strong words.  She grew up in Hungary.  When the Germans arrived the Hungarians embraced them and the Nazi ideology happily.  They gave up the Jews.  Our speaker, Judith Szentivanyi, was taken with her mother and 6 year old sister onto a train.  They arrived at a factory where they worked for a time.  The people who worked there were expected to give up their valuables.  Four to five individuals per day were removed and interrogated for information on treasures.  Those who failed to give a response were beaten severely.  From there, she and 95 others were put into a box car.  She arrived in Auschwitz after a 4 – 5 day train ride.   She was separated from her mother and sister who were lined up on one side.  Both were executed.  (Judith did explain that the camps would separate mothers with small children and execute them together in order to avoid a dramatic scene.  If there was a grandmother, the mother would be spared as the child would be placed with the older woman and executed.  Many mothers had to live with that guilt).  She was moved again to walk steps with blocks – with the sole purpose of trying to work people to death.  She went back to the death camp and they did nothing all day but line up into rows.  Daily the Nazi would inspect them and execute anyone that they didn’t think looked right.  She was again selected for factory work and moved to a place where they made airplane parts.  Finally, the Russians arrived to liberate the camp.  They moved into the town and the soldiers raped the women; the survivors were so weak and sick that they left them alone.  They would throw food into the survivors and whoever got it could eat it.  After months of starvation, many could not handle the sugar and starchy foods given to them; they died trying to eat.  She was eventually removed to a hospital where she recovered.  She later married but Hungary was given over to Stalin and the USSR.  After another period of oppressive rule, she, her husband, and her child fled to America. 

She added some quick notes to her presentation that I hadn’t thought about.  People in the camp were stripped, shaved, and given a single dress to wear.  There was no underwear for them.  It was bitterly cold and there was little food.  She described life at her final factory stop as eating watered down soup and a single slice of bread a day.  Food rations were short and forced laborers were low on the list of food.  Some gave away bread for cigarettes and those individuals died (she thought they were very foolish to do so). 

A snippet of her interview as posted through the Florida Holocaust Museum website: http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/exhibits/permanent/survivor-testimonials/judith-szentivanyi-nee-szasz-describes-selections-at-auschwitz.aspx

Lastly, we discussed the US role in dealing with Jewish refugees.  The US was certainly grasped in a wave of immigration reform, fear of otherness (other than the white northern European standard) and isolationism.  Disgusted by The Great War they didn’t want to get involved with European problems again.  Yet, the fear of Jews was amazing.  America may have been slow to act as they also dealt with their own minority issues concerning African Americans and the implementation of Jim Crow laws (a shameful chapter in our history). 

Overall, I have to say that today was a much harder day.  Listening to the very intentional attempt to wipe out others is incredible.  To hear logic warped into such a horrific scenario and to have that sold to a people hungry to feel dominant over someone….tragic.  It is a lot to absorb for a single day and perhaps the hardest part of the Holocaust to deal with.  I still feel a bit of outrage that the US did not do more….and that I hope to work out as we continue through the seminar this week. 

One of the pieces remembering the Holocaust.  This used to be outside but due to vandalism it had to be brought inside.  It now resides in the Museum stairwell.

 

Florida Holocaust Museum, Sam Gross Summer Institute 2013 Day 1

I am pleased to note my acceptance to the Sam Gross Summer Institute 2013.  It is a fabulous workshop that I am taking this in conjunction with the University of South Florida St. Petersburg course EDG 6931.  It is an interactive week-long look at the Holocaust, Genocide and Human Rights held in the Holocaust Museum itself.  Included are materials for reflection, tours, academic lectures, and speakers who are survivors of the Holocaust.

June 10, 2013:  Today was the first day of the event. Reading materials were sent to the students a month in advance to contemplate and work through.  I have often marveled at the abilities of humankind.  We have such potential and as a professor of Religious Studies and Humanities I see the greatness within our species every day.  Yet, there remains a darkness within us that I have never understood:  the urge to hurt each other.  I have taught various courses on the human experience for most of my adult life and find one unifying idea:  we all want to be happy.  The second commonality is that life is unpredictable and difficult.  Things happen to us, but if we hold onto the anger and resentment it eats away at us until we are no longer human.  The Holocaust, and the various other genocides that we are studying, is that darkness magnified million fold.  What happens to allow such events?  What has the United States done in dealing with genocide?  (Based on the readings, this is the question that nags at me the most).  What can we do to prevent it from happening again?  (The course materials do note that there are several other horrific events that have happened since the Holocaust worldwide.  In Florida alone there are several human rights violations found with human trafficking and the recent rediscovery of the Dozier reform school for boys).   

Today we learned about the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.  Much of it I have heard and taught before, but hearing it in the context of our speaker, Dr. Peter Black, I learned a new level of humanism.  A series of events, political issues and guffaws, and odd happenstance worked together to create the momentum needed for the Nazis to gain political control.  Germany dealt with a poor economy, unemployment, a fractured government (perhaps too many political parties), fear of communism, a rise in feminism and sexual awareness, and questions of moral purity.  The Germans were demoralized by their own sense of powerlessness from the Versailles Treaty and angry that the blame for World War I fell to them.  Though not an excuse for the things that happened it served to show how history is shaped when negativity is allowed to fester. 

We also met and listened to Lisl Schick, a Jewish woman who was raised in Vienna.  She was there when the Nazis came in to Austria and she described how quickly Jewish families were targeted by the law.  She had an amazing story of misfortune and fortune.  Though her grandfather was a recognized war hero, his status did not save the family from the isolation of prejudice.  Her father lost his job, her friends abandoned her, she lost her home.  In a moment of desperation her parents sent her and her brother on the Kintertransport into England.  She was 11 years old and her brother was 7.  She sat on a train with children marked with numbers to indicate what country in which they would resettle.  They went to England where they experienced life in something akin to foster care.  Of the 10,000 children taken through the system only 1,000 would reunite with their parents.  She and her brother were of the later group.

Her father was sent from Austria by his former employers (a bank who did relocate some of the Jewish ex-employees out of the country).  He came to England where, with no money, he worked what jobs he could.  He saw his children weekly until England, out of fear of German spies, rounded up the immigrants and put them into camps. Her father, again, had the good fortune to go to the Isle of Mann where the prisoners got better treatment than those sent to Australia.  Their mother had a remote contact, friends of a cousin, in America who agreed to sponsor her immigration to this country.  She worked for years as a maid and garment maker.  Only after 6 years had passed did the family come back together in New York to live in their mother's one bedroom apartment.  She later met and married her husband, a fellow Holocaust refugee who came to America.  He went from janitor to doctor, and was the first radiologist on staff at a local Clearwater hospital in the 1960s.

Though her life had a horrific start she was more fortunate than many.   Her uncle and her grandparents lost their lives in Austria; her grandparents were shot to death and the uncle died under forced labor.  Yet, she remains optimistic and upbeat.  A woman in her 80s, she explains that she does not harbor hate because that negativity only harms.  She talks about bullying and how harmful it is.  She smiles when she describes her own grandchildren and how she spoils them.  Most of all, however, she is emphatic about how prejudice and hate must be eradiated.  She wants no one to suffer the uncertainty she felt as a child.   She wants the phrase "never again" to be a reality. And she knows that only by talking about it can we educate the generations to become better and more loving than those before. Her experience has allowed her to see what I see in more graphic details:  the horrors that humanity can inflict upon itself and the loving care of upstanders defying that darkness to allow compassion to shine through.

Reflections Upon the NEH workshop

As I sit in the airport, frustrated that I still can’t get a cell phone signal, I look back at an afternoon of contemplation. In the footsteps of Thoreau, I spent time walking, reading “Waldon” and contemplating the self and the community on my last day in Concord. These are the results of my contemplation.

I loved the communal time that I spent in Concord. Perhaps this was my own Brook Farm -- the community of educated philosophers who came together for a common cause. The group was delightful -- a wide range of individuals, each of whom had an impact on me. Two community leaders, Martha and Rick (though I prefer to think of him under the more dynamic name of Sterling), kept us moving. The obvious care and dedication they held for the program showed. Like Brook Farm, there was a bit of intellectual scatteredness -- vegetarian or non-vegetarian, schedule shifts, and new information on payments that popped up -- but these were all minor and certainly did nothing to lessen the experience. The community simply went with the flow in a very Transcendental sort of way.

Martha and Rick heralded us through the experience with a subtle gusto that was impressive.The speakers were a dynamic set of individuals who were not pretentious or unapproachable. I had lunch with an Alcott expert, discussed a Buddhist/Christian wedding with a scholar of women, and walked through the ruins on a guided tour with a Brooks Farm fan. The knowledge that they imparted wove together the histories of the time -- I have never had such a wonderful study of the 1820s- 1880s before. They tied together so many loose ends that it allowed for a whole new humanistic insight into US history -- stripped of the streamlined propaganda of standard educational settings. I feel as if I know Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, and even the Alcotts -- as if I had met them and lived among them for even the briefest of times.

As for my fellows, what a remarkable group. Historians mixed with humanities, literarians with social studies, and I found a cousin in the philosophical set. Transcendentalism, always a bit enigmatic, seemed much more attainable though it may be due to my studies in the past 10 years with Eastern religions. The sense is heightened with similarities I found to my own state of living within a globalizing world order. My essay was accurate -- we relive some of the fears and anxieties of our ancestors from this time. I am pleased that my philosophy linking past and present holds -- we still walk in the footsteps of our ancestors. I wonder, now, if there will be a Neo-Transcendentalism out there, or if the movement is already born in the fringe society of the 21st century.

I was pleased to be a part of a group of people who worked so well together. We each brought to and complimented the community around us. Each day led to new revelations and new meetings; friendships were forged.

I learned so much from the workshop, its leaders, and my comrades, that leaving was a melancholy event. This sensation started on Friday evening and was dispelled for a time by transcribing notes, reading Waldon with an entirely new understanding, and sitting over dinner with some of the folks I had met. I was, I believe, the last of our group to leave on Saturday and I empathize with Ripley as to how this must have felt to end the Brooks Farm experiment. People started to congratulate each other and said goodbye. The first few left. During the day, as I walked through Concord, read the rest of Waldon and waited for my own appointed time to depart, I spoke with people as they, too, lingered to leave. I saw a few people as they left town, boarding shuttles, walking to trains, and driving out of town. For each passing face, whether they slipped out seen or quietly departed, the sadness occurred. I realized that I would truly miss them -- even though I had know this community but a week.

Now as I sit on the plane preparing to depart, I have from my learning a new experience: transcendental musings. I cannot give enough thanks to those individuals who allowed this great experience. This has been a life changing event that shall never be forgotten. Perhaps one day, someone will thumb through my musings as I thumbed through Thoreau’s, and a new idea of Transcendentalism will spring forth. If this is the case, then the community is not dead but perpetually springs forth through the ages -- inspired by scholars and devotees into new heights of self-understanding and wonderment.