The Historian and the Source: Some Contemporary Problems in Holocaust Historiography

IF 0.1 Q4 HISTORY Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.15388/lis.2023.52.5
Nerijus Šepetys
{"title":"The Historian and the Source: Some Contemporary Problems in Holocaust Historiography","authors":"Nerijus Šepetys","doi":"10.15388/lis.2023.52.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When researching and writing the history of the Holocaust, it is crucial not only to select (and match the topic and approach) the main primary sources, but also to find an adequate critical relationship with them. In the case of the historiography of the beginning of the Holocaust (which is also the beginning of the Holocaust in Lithuania), at least in the twenty-first century, such a relationship is often a challenge for the researcher: there is a tendency to automatically rely on, or to question, particular groups of sources (according to origin). This also leads to serious problems in understanding history, some of which the paper attempts to address. For example, how is the possibility of such an understanding disrupted when reliance is placed on specific (accidental) primary sources without questioning the setting and meaning of their origins and ignoring others? Or what is the picture of history that emerges when the attempts to apply both the attitudes of primordial trust and primitive questioning to subjective sources are uncontrolled? Finally, what are the implications of ignoring primary sources for the historical understanding of Holocaust situations, first of all the “pinning down” of testimonies, and then the subsequent processing (writing them down, reworking them, making them up, swiping them)? Importantly, these are questions not only of today’s historical scholarship, but of the Jewish scholars who survived the Catastrophe immediately after the war.","PeriodicalId":33054,"journal":{"name":"Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos","volume":"11 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15388/lis.2023.52.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When researching and writing the history of the Holocaust, it is crucial not only to select (and match the topic and approach) the main primary sources, but also to find an adequate critical relationship with them. In the case of the historiography of the beginning of the Holocaust (which is also the beginning of the Holocaust in Lithuania), at least in the twenty-first century, such a relationship is often a challenge for the researcher: there is a tendency to automatically rely on, or to question, particular groups of sources (according to origin). This also leads to serious problems in understanding history, some of which the paper attempts to address. For example, how is the possibility of such an understanding disrupted when reliance is placed on specific (accidental) primary sources without questioning the setting and meaning of their origins and ignoring others? Or what is the picture of history that emerges when the attempts to apply both the attitudes of primordial trust and primitive questioning to subjective sources are uncontrolled? Finally, what are the implications of ignoring primary sources for the historical understanding of Holocaust situations, first of all the “pinning down” of testimonies, and then the subsequent processing (writing them down, reworking them, making them up, swiping them)? Importantly, these are questions not only of today’s historical scholarship, but of the Jewish scholars who survived the Catastrophe immediately after the war.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
历史学家与资料来源:大屠杀史学中的一些当代问题
在研究和撰写大屠杀历史时,至关重要的不仅是选择(并与主题和方法相匹配)主要的原始资料,而且还要找到与它们之间适当的批判关系。就大屠杀开端(也是立陶宛大屠杀的开端)的历史学而言,至少在 21 世纪,这种关系对研究者来说往往是一种挑战:人们倾向于自动依赖或质疑特定的资料来源群体(根据来源)。这也导致了理解历史的严重问题,本文试图解决其中的一些问题。例如,如果只依赖特定的(偶然的)原始资料而不质疑其来源的背景和意义,同时忽略其他资料,那么这种理解的可能性是如何被破坏的?或者说,当试图将原始信任和原始质疑的态度同时应用于主观资料来源而不受控制时,会出现怎样的历史图景?最后,忽视原始资料来源,首先是 "确定 "证词,然后是后续处理(写下来、再加工、编造、篡改),对大屠杀情况的历史理解会产生什么影响?重要的是,这些问题不仅是当今历史学术界的问题,也是战后大灾难中幸存下来的犹太学者的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Kova su „kinų sienos“ mitu How Rural Society Was Occupied Art Creating Imperial Space Images of India in the Lithuanian press of Catholic missions, 1927–1940 Instructions for Censors: Behind the Curtains of Post-war Polish Censorship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1