Who Owns Auschwitz?
Who Owns Auschwitz?
复制标题
奥斯维辛集中营归谁所有？
DOI：
10.1353/yale.2001.0010
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Mackay
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Imre Kertész;J. Mackay
大屠杀幸存者将不得不面对事实：随着年龄的增长，他们越来越虚弱，奥斯威辛正在从他们手中溜走。但它属于谁呢？显然，对下一代，以及下一代，只要他们继续声称拥有它，当然。有一些令人震惊的模棱两可的嫉妒的方式，幸存者坚持他们的专有权大屠杀作为知识产权，好像他们会拥有一些伟大的和独特的秘密;好像他们保护一些闻所未闻的宝藏腐烂和（特别是）从故意破坏。只有他们才能通过记忆的力量来保护它不被腐烂。但是，他们如何应对其他人造成的破坏，应对其他人对大屠杀的挪用，应对所有的伪造和篡改，尤其是应对最强大的敌人，时间本身的流逝？每一本关于大屠杀的书的每一行，每一部提到大屠杀的电影的每一英尺，都有偷偷的目光。这种表述是否合理，历史是否准确？我们真的这么说，这么觉得吗？厕所真的就在营房的那个角落里吗？点名，饥饿，受害者的选择真的是这样吗？等等，等等。. .但是，为什么我们对所有尴尬和痛苦的细节如此感兴趣，而不是试图尽快忘记它们呢？看来，随着大屠杀的活生生的感觉逐渐消失，所有难以想象的痛苦和悲伤都作为一个单一的、统一的价值观而存在--一个人们不仅比任何其他价值观都更强烈地坚持的价值观，而且人们也会看到它得到普遍的承认和接受。这就是歧义所在。随着时间的推移，大屠杀要成为欧洲（至少是西欧）公众意识中真实的一部分，就必须付出不可避免的代价，以换取公众的恶名。因此，我们立即得到了大屠杀的风格化，这种风格化到现在已经发展到几乎无法忍受的程度
Holocaust survivors will have to face the facts: as they grow weaker with age, Auschwitz is slipping out of their hands. But to whom will it belong? Obviously, to the next generation, and to the one after that—as long as they continue to lay claim to it, of course. There is something shockingly ambiguous about the jealous way in which survivors insist on their exclusive rights to the Holocaust as intellectual property, as though they’d come into possession of some great and unique secret; as though they were protecting some unheard-of treasure from decay and (especially) from willful damage. Only they are able to guard it from decay, through the strength of their memory. But how are they to respond to the damage wrought by others, to the Holocaust’s appropriation by others, to all the falsifications and sundry manipulations, and above all to that most powerful of enemies, the passage of time itself? Furtive glances cling to every line of every book on the Holocaust, to every foot of every film where the Holocaust is mentioned. Is the representation plausible, the history exact? Did we really say that, feel that way? Is that really where the latrine stood, in precisely that corner of the barracks? Were the rollcalls, the hunger, the selections of victims really like that? And so on, and so on. . . . But why are we so keenly interested in all the embarrassing and painful details, rather than just trying to forget them all as soon as possible? It seems that, with the dying-away of the living sensation of the Holocaust, all the unimaginable pain and sorrow live on as a single, unified value—a value to which one not only clings more strongly than to any other, but which one will also see generally recognized and accepted. And herein lies the ambiguity. For the Holocaust to become with time a real part of European (or at least western European) public consciousness, the price inevitably extracted in exchange for public notoriety had to be paid.Thus we immediately got a stylization of the Holocaust, a stylization which has by now grown to nearly unbearable