In 1946, a twelve-year-old Jewish woman named Krystyna arrived in New York Metropolis from Poland. Her survival had been unbelievable. Within the Warsaw Ghetto her mom had dressed her up in excessive heels and a kerchief in order that they might be taken for pressured labor collectively. Krystyna had recognized that deportation meant loss of life. She imagined her associates as having fallen right into a black gap.
Within the ghetto there was solely black and white. Seventy years later, Krystyna remembered wanting down from the bridge and seeing brightly-colored flowers at a market on the Aryan Facet. She remembered, too, the day that she and her mom escaped from the ghetto, and her stepfather’s aunt on the Aryan Facet who turned them away. She remembered the cruelty on the orphanage the place she stayed for a time, and the bombing of an condo constructing as she hid in its basement in the course of the Warsaw Rebellion.
In New York, in response to a classmate’s query, Krystyna started to talk about the conflict. A woman interrupted, and accused Krystyna of mendacity: nothing so horrific may have truly occurred in actual life. Krystyna didn’t defend herself. It made her really feel higher to know that her new classmates didn’t, couldn’t consider her – in any case, if what she had lived in Polish was untranslatable into this new language, if one thing so horrible couldn’t be imagined in America, maybe she had lastly come to a protected place.
In early autumn 2016, Krystyna, now eighty-two years previous, wrote to me: her breast most cancers had returned; she had determined to refuse therapy. She most popular loss of life to seeing Donald Trump change into president.
Krystyna died on 8 October 2016. A month later, in New Haven, Connecticut, I walked with my six-year-old son and four-year-old daughter to a neighborhood highschool to vote within the presidential elections.
On the faculty we stood in chaotic, snaking strains for 2 hours. College students circulated via the group, taking orders for espresso and muffins. These youngsters working the bake sale have been incomparably higher organized than the adults working the polling station. A Ukrainian political scientist pal got here to affix us, as a sort of anthropological area journey. An Americophile, he was excited to be in the USA for the election of the primary lady president. The dysfunction, and above all of the lengthy wait, surprised him.
‘I by no means thought I’d say this,’ he advised me, ‘however we do a greater job in Kyiv.’
Some fifteen hours later, I used to be shaken from my paralysis by a 1:30 a.m. Fb put up from a Slavicist pal: Everybody, cease consuming. It’s important to stand up in a couple of hours and clarify to your kids what has simply occurred.
Later that morning, as I used to be mendacity on the ground of my workplace at Yale, the primary particular person to name was Slava Vakarchuk, the Ukrainian rock star. He telephoned from Kyiv, providing his ethical help. He understood how I have to really feel, he mentioned: this was how he had felt in 2010, when he realized that Ukrainians had truly voted for Viktor Yanukovych, that that they had executed this to themselves.
Nobody I knew was pleased. Some have been extra hysterical than others, although. Many started to say: ‘That is very unhealthy, however we’ll get via it. Our democratic establishments are the strongest on the earth; we now have checks and balances. Thank God for checks and balances.’ Now ‘checks and balances’ grew to become a yoga mantra: Inhale. Checks and Balances. Exhale. Checks and balances…
Then there have been the neurotic catastrophists, together with many Slavicists like myself. I knew that there was no such factor as inborn liberalism, as if Individuals have been a priori inheritors of some divinely-bestowed immunity in opposition to an infectious illness. It felt absurd: we have been just like the folks on the Titanic insisting, ‘However our ship can’t sink!’ What I knew as a historian of japanese Europe was not what would occur. What I knew was what may occur. What I knew was that there was no such factor as a ship that would not sink.
In Greenwich Village I met Slavenka Drakulić, a Croatian novelist pal who had written concerning the bloody finish of Yugoslavia. Slavenka tried to reassure me: Don’t fear: it took Miloševič a couple of years to persuade us that we needed to kill each other. For now you’ll be able to chill out, we’ll have a glass of wine. You continue to have a while to get your children in another country. In Slavenka’s Yugoslav expertise, the bottom for mass atrocity couldn’t be made prepared instantaneously. Folks didn’t but know that they needed to kill each other. If you happen to have been a fascist dictator, you needed to first put together them.
Within the meantime, our home in New Haven grew to become a Soviet kitchen: vodka, tears, and the everlasting Russian questions: Chto delat’? Kto vinovat? ‘What’s to be executed?’ ‘Who’s in charge?’
Books got here into being in our kitchen. My husband, Tim Snyder, wrote On Tyranny, a resistance handbook: Defend establishments. Be cautious of paramilitaries. Take duty. Examine. Imagine in Fact. Our thinker pal Jason Stanley wrote How Fascism Works, a information to discerning indicators: Mythologization of the previous. The naturalization of hierarchies. Cults of victimhood. Insecurities about masculinity. A fictitious world. Social Darwinism. The rhetoric of Us v. Them.
Some amongst our colleagues protested the alarmism prompt by ‘the f-word’: as a result of the press remained uncensored; as a result of political prisoners weren’t being taken; as a result of we had checks and balances. The historian Helmut Smith identified that Gleichschaltung in Nazi Germany had taken place in a way more all-encompassing means: journalists and army generals alike have been quickly introduced into line; ‘civil society was shortly gutted, and areas for resistance quickly evaporated.’
What number of packing containers, then, did we have to verify with a purpose to justify utilizing the phrase ‘fascism’? Six out of twelve? Eight? Ten? Each single one?
Legislation professor Samuel Moyn argued that comparability with European fascism of the Thirties each obscured what was novel within the current and deflected our home duty. ‘Abnormalizing Trump disguises that he’s quintessentially American, the expression of putting up with and indigenous syndromes,’ Sam wrote. The comparability to the Thirties, it appeared to Sam, obscured the methods by which American democracy had lengthy co-existed with a darkish underside of war-making and help for terror overseas, and mass incarceration and excessive inequality at house.
The historian Peter Gordon, Sam’s pal, took a distinct place. ‘A few of my colleagues on the left stay skeptical concerning the fascism analogy,’ Peter wrote, ‘as a result of they really feel it serves an apologetic function: by fixing our consideration on the crimes of the present second, we’re blinded to longer-term patterns of violence and injustice in American historical past.’ Peter rejected the argument as specious – not as a result of the longer-term patterns weren’t actual, they have been actual, however slightly as a result of ‘the truth that issues have at all times been unhealthy doesn’t imply they can’t worsen.’
Jason argued that ‘fascist tendencies’ existed alongside a continuum. The Polish adjective faszyzujący, shaped from the current lively participle, captures the sense of ‘transferring within the path of’ or ‘inclining in direction of fascism.’ It’s distinct from the adjective faszytowski, which interprets as ‘fascist’. English (not like German) doesn’t have a phrase equal to faszyzujący; the restrictions of English grammar hinder the subtle-but-nontrivial distinction. ‘Fascist’ is commonly invoked, on either side of the argument, as if it had a talismanic energy to resolve ambiguity.
Arguments about who has the best to make use of ‘fascism’ and ‘focus camps’ (and ‘genocide’, a authorized time period) are about recognition. At stake is Anerkennung in G.W.F. Hegel’s sense, what the grasp within the master-slave dialectic desired from the slave: affirmation via recognition from the Different. Right now, recognition of struggling is commonly mediated via reference to the Holocaust. It serves as the required third time period. Do we want this phrase, this comparability to the Nazi camps – artwork curator Vera Grant requested in our zoom discussion – with a purpose to acknowledge the inhumanity on the American border in the present day?
‘I’ll level to a step Trump has taken – he’s utilizing ICE to spherical up kids, he’s surrounding himself with loyalists and generals, he’s utilizing the equipment of presidency to dig up grime on a political rival – and the response is at all times “Certain, that’s unhealthy, nevertheless it’s not a large enough step to justify the F-word,”’ Jason Stanley advised New Yorker author Andrew Marantz. ‘I’m beginning to really feel just like the it’s-not-a-big-enough-step folks received’t be pleased till they’re in focus camps.’
In spring 2018, ICE – our Immigration and Customs Enforcement – began tearing refugee kids from their dad and mom and throwing them in cages. I wrote to Stephen Naron, director of the Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies. I puzzled – I requested him – whether or not this is perhaps the second to compile testimonies about kids being taken away from their dad and mom in the course of the Holocaust?
On 17 June 2019, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke concerning the detention camps alongside the southern United States border as ‘focus camps’. The backlash was rapid. One week later the Holocaust Museum issued an announcement: ‘The US Holocaust Memorial Museum unequivocally rejects efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and different occasions, whether or not historic or up to date.’
It was a radical assertion: Forbidding considering of 1 phenomenon in relation to a different one amounted to forbidding considering tout court docket. The Holocaust Museum’s ban on analogies was successfully a ban on considering as such.
Stephen and I returned to the collage documentary movie concept, now with the hope of upsetting a dialog that may very well be an Aufhebung of the ‘is Trumpism fascism?’ debate. It appeared to me that public dialogue had tended to narrate to historic comparability in a reductionist means: Both X is rather like the Holocaust, by which case we face the final evil; or X will not be just like the Holocaust as a result of both (a) the Holocaust will without end stay the distinctive embodiment of absolute evil, or (b) the current scenario will not be unhealthy sufficient (but). Within the circumstances of each (a) and (b), we should always relax.
However the Kierkegaardian Both/Or is a lure. The query about historic comparability shouldn’t be a sure or no query, however a how query. Nothing is ever precisely the identical as the rest. It was the concepts of ceteris paribus (‘all different issues being equal’) and rational actors that led to my early disillusionment with political science. Each struck me as fallacies: folks behave irrationally on a regular basis. And all different issues are by no means equal. That is one motive why it’s inconceivable to do a management research on actual life.
This September my ten-year-old son’s class took a area journey to a nature protect. My son was particularly taken by the wild pigs. He got here house and introduced a passionate discourse on the the reason why it was preferable to be a wild pig versus a human.
Friedrich Nietzsche would have agreed. His 1874 essay, ‘The Makes use of and Disadvantages of Historical past for Life,’ started with cows luxuriating of their presentism. We may solely envy them their happiness, whose supply – Nietzsche wrote – was an absence of self-consciousness about temporality. Man, alternatively, is continually conscious of the previous, and this consciousness serves ‘to remind him what his existence essentially is – an imperfect tense that may by no means change into an ideal one.’ Consciousness of the previous plagues, emasculates, at occasions overwhelms us. Solely the sturdy can deal with loads of historical past. Take Schiller and Goethe, Nietzsche advised us. ‘In relation to such lifeless males,’ he wrote, ‘how few of the dwelling have a proper to dwell in any respect!’
Intimidation by greatness has its parallel in intimidation by vileness: the sentiment that in relation to the Holocaust, nobody has a proper to talk in any respect. Nach Auschwitz ein Gedicht zu schreiben ist barbarisch, Theodor Adorno wrote after the conflict. ‘To write down poetry after Auschwitz is barbarism.’ Are assertions of each magnificence and horror, then, equally impermissible?
What’s at stake in singularity? For Hans Ulrich (‘Sepp’) Gumbrecht, the epistemological dedication to singularity is certain up with an ethical dedication to duty. The nervousness is that comparability relativizes, and thereby mitigates; singularity is existentially essential for full consciousness of guilt. In Sepp’s case, the guilt is a guilt-by-contiguity: born in 1948, he himself is amongst these described by German chancellor Helmut Kohl as having been ‘graced by a late start’ – Die Gnade der späten Geburt. Maybe what motivates Sam Moyn’s polemic is an analogous nervousness: historic comparability – even, paradoxically, to fascism – threatens a singularity presumed to floor duty.
But should comparability lighten duty? And if that’s the case, why? What, then, can we conclude about metaphor? Translation? Is our understanding of others not dependent exactly upon analogy, metaphor, translation?
In her dissertation on Einfühlung, a ‘feeling-into-the-Different’, which the philosopher-turned-Carmelite nun Edith Stein wrote underneath Edmund Husserl, empathy is based on analogy: ‘As a result of this [foreign psychic life] is certain to the perceived bodily physique, it stands earlier than us as an object from the start. Inasmuch as I now interpret it as ‘like mine,’ Stein wrote, ‘I come to think about myself as an object prefer it. I do that in “reflexive sympathy” once I empathetically comprehend the acts by which my particular person is constituted for him.’
Heuristic units – departures from univocality – are instruments of understanding. What then, is the connection between the epistemological (what can we all know and perceive?) and the ontological-turned-ethical (how can we attain empathy?). For Stein the stipulations for empathy have been above all epistemic. Sepp suggests one thing extra radical – a sort of empathy that’s much less a cognitive Einfühlung and extra an affective Mit-Leid, a ‘suffering-with’. This Mit-Leid permits for a distancing from the Enlightenment teleology of progress that envisioned humankind buying information and transferring in direction of the longer term, leaving the previous behind. There’s a lot within the concept of a broad current, inundated with the previous, unable to go away that previous behind, that feels oppressive in a means not not like what Nietzsche described. But, Sepp suggests, there’s one other facet: maybe in breaking from the historicist chronotope we is perhaps breaking as properly from a ‘brainy however bodiless’ cogito, and so gaining the opportunity of an empathy dependent neither upon comparability specifically nor upon information usually. Maybe on this newly thickened current, one thing akin to Walter Benjamin’s Stillstellung, we would expertise an embodied lingering that gives house for being-together-with-the-past-and-with-one-another.
Even, although, if we have been to desert the diachronic comparison-across-time formed by a historicist temporality, a lingering within the current would possibly nonetheless demand translation throughout a synchronic aircraft. Spike Lee’s 2018 movie BlackKkKlansman tells the story of Ron Stallworth, a black Colorado policeman who infiltrated the Klu Klux Klan within the Nineteen Seventies. Within the movie, Stallworth tells his colleagues that he can painting himself as white on the telephone. The police chief is sceptical. ‘Some communicate the Queen’s English, some communicate jive,’ says Stallworth, ‘I communicate each.’ His bilingualism is met with incomprehension – as a result of he’s surrounded by individuals who don’t perceive code-switching. Individuals are poor at greedy the which means of translation. Our exceptionalism is certain up with our monolingualism, which isn’t solely a linguistic deficit but in addition an imaginative one: our incapability to think about that life that takes place in different languages can be actual.
Translation calls for a capability to inhabit the voice of one other. Among the many books to return into being (though not primarily in my kitchen) for the reason that 2016 elections is Amelia Glaser’s Songs in Darkish Occasions: Yiddish Poetry of Battle from Scottsboro to Palestine. In response to the sufferings of Ukrainians, Palestinians, African Individuals and others, Yiddish poets re-inscribed Jewish texts, ‘translating trauma into empathy’, and rendering different victims of oppression ‘metaphorically Jewish’. This historical past of Yiddish poetry reminds us that considering via analogies – translating untranslatable struggling – is inextricably certain up with empathy.
It reminds us, too, that Jewish historical past itself invitations universalist in addition to particularist readings. The vary of those readings is on show within the Passover seder choices in New York Metropolis alone. The story of the Exodus – the liberation from slavery, the forty years of wandering within the desert, the ready for the era shaped by slavery to die out and a brand new era to return of age – way back transcended Judaic specificity to change into one of many nice boundary-less metaphors.
In 1980, as Solidarity took type in communist Poland, its chaplain, Józef Tischner, wrote ‘Pondering from inside a Metaphor’. Tischner started with the epistemological drawback: how may we attain fact? How may we all know that the world was actual, and never merely a projection of our consciousness? How may we all know our very existence was not merely a semblance of actuality? The epistemological query was so haunting, Tischner defined, as a result of our deepest ache, shared by all, was ‘the ache of radical uncertainty’. The historical past of epistemology was laden with metaphors: Saint Augustine conceived cognition as giving start, ‘one thing of its personal type … neither reflection nor creating out of nothing.’ Written in 1980. Plato requested us to think about a cave, the place the shackled prisoners mistook the shadows on the partitions for actuality. René Descartes hypothesized an evil demon, who had put false ideas into his thoughts with the malicious intent to deceive.
‘Radical metaphorization of the seen world,’ Tischner wrote, ‘means degrading it from the place of a fully current world.’ Conversely, considering within the full absence of metaphors meant adhering to the ‘precept of univocality of language – as if it have been a prohibition to go open air which binds the virus-infected.’ For Tischner, this metaphor-less considering, this declare to complete affirmation of the world in its singularity, was a considering by which ‘realism turns into not solely a philosophy however already a illness.’
Tischner wrote as a thinker. And philosophers have a tendency to maneuver alongside the planes of the singular and the common. Historians, in distinction, have a tendency to maneuver alongside the aircraft of the middleman third time period – neither singular nor common: class, faith, nation, race, era. The philosophies of Immanuel Kant and Hegel have been very totally different. They agreed, although, on an important level: nothing is unmediated. For Hegel there was at all times a 3rd time period. For Kant the Ding-an-sich was unreachable. Actuality would at all times be mediated by the buildings of the Ich denke, the ‘I believe.’
Husserl couldn’t settle for this. He needed immediacy, pure seeing, absolute certainty. And when the Nazis took energy and he was forged out of his personal college as a non-Aryan, he deeply believed that if his venture of epistemological readability may very well be achieved, it will save the world from barbarism. Husserl, a German thinker born a Habsburg Jew in Moravia, died in April 1938, six weeks after the Anschluss. His erstwhile assistant Edith Stein was taken from her Carmelite convent by the Gestapo and gassed in Auschwitz as a Jew. Husserl’s phenomenological methodology concerned each Anschauung, an instinct of an empirical object, and Wesensschau, an instinct of an eidos, a common essence. We may intuitively understand, as an illustration, the actual, empirical instantiation of a given apple, whereas directly intuitively extracting from this particular notion an essence of ‘appleness’ an identical amongst all apples, no matter their empirical variations.
A seemingly abstruse philosophical methodology may show inspiring for historians: how can the trouble of exhaustive description of one thing that’s irreducibly explicit give us perception into common essences? Any historic scenario comprises components of each the singular and the common. Can we, then, extract the common from the actual, and higher perceive the connection between them? No second is ever precisely the identical as some other, identical to no human being is strictly the identical as some other. However, there are essences we are able to distill, issues we be taught from the previous.
We be taught that life in a given time and place can seem completely regular – however can activate a dime. We’re capable of normalize the irregular with astounding rapidity. What’s completely unimaginable sooner or later can change into the brand new establishment a couple of months later.
Die Grenzen verschieben sich, commented my pal Ema, as we drank espresso by the Danube this August. The borders recede. I used to be describing to her the America I had simply left. Ema understood: she and her husband, Serbs whose second mom tongue is Hungarian, had come to Vienna from Vojvodina in former Yugoslavia. Ema had come within the Nineties, in the course of the wars of ethnic cleaning; whereas a college pupil in Vienna she had volunteered as an interpreter for Bosnian refugees.
The borders recede. And we are able to keep it up.
Indi Samarajiva graduated from faculty in Montreal. A bit of later he moved again to Sri Lanka, simply because the ceasefire within the civil conflict fell aside in 2008. ‘I used to guage these herds of gazelle when the lion eats one among them alive and everybody retains going,’ he writes, ‘– however no, people are simply the identical.’ As the present American president campaigned for reelection, Indi Samarajiva regarded via previous images: ‘There’s a burnt physique in entrance of my workplace. Then I’m enjoying Scrabble with associates. There’s bomb smoke rising in entrance of the mall. Then I’m at a live performance. There’s an extended line for fuel. Then I’m at a nightclub … we used to exit, fear about cash, fall in love – life went on.’
In spring 1943, in the course of the Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion, the Polish poet Czesław Miłosz watched because the ghetto burned. On his facet, the Aryan Facet, kids performed on a carousel near the ghetto wall. And Miłosz considered the Campo dei Fiori, the place in the course of the Inquisition the cosmologist Giordano Bruno had been burned on the stake. ‘Earlier than the flames had died/ the taverns have been full once more,/ baskets of olives and lemons/ once more on the distributors’ shoulders,’ he wrote. He considered Giordano Bruno because the carousel went spherical and spherical to a carnival tune.
At occasions wind from the burning
would drift darkish kites alongside
and riders on the carousel
caught petals in midair.
That very same scorching wind
blew open the skirts of the ladies
and the crowds have been laughing
on that stunning Warsaw Sunday.
We be taught that these individuals who preserve an uncanny ethical readability no matter all situations and people who take some sadistic pleasure in harming others are each outliers. Most individuals, more often than not, behave in a means formed by the social scenario by which they discover themselves.
There’s at all times a scapegoat, the anthropological thinker René Girard tells us. It’s one among many cases the place philosophical issues reveal themselves to be of rapid concern in social life. The actual individuals on this position fluctuate, however the position itself stays remarkably fixed. Are there different such roles? Within the Netflix miniseries Unorthodox, nineteen-year-old Esty runs away from her ultra-orthodox enclave in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg. The rabbi dispatches the Chassidic thug Moishe to deliver her again. In Berlin, terrorized by Moishe, Etsy turns to her estranged mom, who way back fled their neighborhood in Williamsburg. It’s only then that Etsy learns that her mom didn’t abandon her by alternative, that Etsy was taken from her. How was it attainable?
‘There’s at all times a Moishe,’ Etsy’s mom tells her.
In Rahul Pandita’s text Moishe is the native ruffian from whom a younger boy sooner or later borrowed a small amount of cash to purchase some meals. Islamist extremists had pushed the boy from his house within the Kashmir Valley; in exile his household was destitute and had nothing to offer him. The boy was unable to repay the debt; the native ruffian stabbed him to loss of life with a screwdriver.
Through the Second World Struggle the Austrian-born Diana Budisavljević saved hundreds of kids from fascist Ustashe camps in Croatia. Maybe we be taught, too, that there’s at all times a Diana Budisavljević? An Irena Senderlowa? A Harriet Tubman? A Chiune Sugihara? The particular person like Brett Warnke’s Mexican immigrant pupil Jonathan, who needed to change into an American border guard with a purpose to save folks like his mom, who had died alone within the desert deserted by the ‘coyote’?
We be taught that inhumanity, like humanity, approaches in small steps. Slavenka attended the trials of Yugoslav conflict criminals within the Hague. These may have been folks she knew, maybe former classmates of her daughter. ‘As in Germany, in Croatia you first stopped greeting an individual of the opposite nationality maybe solely since you have been afraid that others would see you acknowledging him,’ she wrote. She tried to explain the way it had all occurred: ‘it’s important that we perceive that it’s we atypical folks and never some madmen who made it attainable. We have been those who sooner or later stopped greeting these neighbors of a distinct nationality – an act that the subsequent day made attainable the opening of focus camps. We did it to one another.’
‘An avalanche of killings by no means began as an enormous factor,’ Krzysztof Czyżewski, the theatre director who co-founded the Borderland Basis in Poland, mentioned. ‘Auschwitz was one thing linked to day by day life and small occasions. That’s the way it begins. You by no means know the way it will find yourself.’
We be taught that there are moments when there aren’t any harmless selections, and that the implications of actions are boundless – and unexpected. Radu Vancu invokes Paul Celan’s Wolfsbohne: Mutter, wessen Hand hab ich gedrückt, da ich mit deinen Worten ging nach Deutschland? ‘Poor Paul/ desperately needed to know if he could have shaken the hand/ of his mom’s killer. You could have executed it, Paul. You possibly can by no means make certain,’ Radu writes.
And it’s true: You possibly can by no means make certain.
‘Every part is translation,’ the Ukrainian translator and psychoanalyst Jurko Prochasko as soon as mentioned. Every part is translation, which is rarely clear. There is no such thing as a seamless comparability, no seamless metaphor, no seamless translation. Husserl’s transcendental ego that would obtain unmediated information was a fantasy of pure transparency.
Unmediated, excellent understanding of the Different is a utopian – and maybe, too, a totalitarian – delusion. However that excellent understanding will not be attainable doesn’t imply that no understanding is feasible. Husserl’s counterpart and antipode, Sigmund Freud, tells us that there isn’t a chance of excellent understanding of even our personal selves, not to mention another person’s. Freud was unequivocal: there isn’t a such factor as absolute readability; the self is at all times hidden from the self. But the existence of artwork and literature is a leap of religion that some sort of understanding of the Different is attainable. In any other case Paul Celan’s poetry wouldn’t exist. Nor would the novel. Their existence is an act of religion that we can learn ourselves into the lifetime of one other particular person.
Good opacity is perhaps as a lot a fantasy as excellent transparency. Possibly, ultimately, some sort of translation is all too attainable. Krystyna’s need to seek out herself in a spot the place horror was incomprehensible – the place she herself, along with her experiences, was incomprehensible – was an try and flee from the human situation. When she understood that there was no such place, she made a last escape. The remainder of us stay to grapple.
That is the introduction to the bigger discussion board partaking artists and authors, from very totally different locations and writing in very totally different genres, in a dialog on ‘the makes use of and downsides of historic comparisons for all times’. The thought initially arose in response to the American presidential administration’s household separation coverage on the southern border. A brief documentary movie, The Last Time I Saw Them serves as a degree of departure. The intention is to impress a dialogue that may very well be an Aufhebung of the ‘is Trumpism fascism?’ debate: what can and what can we not perceive by considering in comparisons with the previous?
Discover the Desk of Contents itemizing all contributions here.
The venture is a collaboration between the Fortunoff Video Archive for Holocaust Testimonies at Yale College, the Democracy Seminar, and the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies (TCDS) on the New School for Social Research.