|
|
Post by Mr. Vitale on Jul 7, 2015 16:41:45 GMT
Write your responses to the essay "The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank" by responding to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by cassfletcher on Jul 8, 2015 20:42:36 GMT
Bruno Bettelheim portrays a different lesson behind the book, play and movie The Diary of Anne Frank. He looks deeper into the context. What most people look at is how efforts at disregarding in private life what goes on around one in society can hasten one's own destruction. The author of this essay sees that Anne Franks story can not be explained without recognition of forgetting all of the bad things that have happened to the Jews and to visualize the ability to take part in a secretive life while still hanging one to what may have been one's daily routines but also knowing something could happen at any moment. He helps the reader to realize that the Franks attitude towards life being about to carry on as before may have led to their destruction in the end. The Franks remained to try and life in the same fashion as before in their happier lives while other Jews were escaping to the free world with a different gentile family. The whole family wanted to stick together an go on with life as usual. Bettelheim is basically saying that the Frank family would have had a better chance of survival if they did not do it as a family. The Frank's did not realize how dangerous the world really was and were not prepared for an escape in case of discovery. The author said that he had a relative who wanted to eave as soon as things started to go downhill but could not get his family to go with him. He kept risking his life to come back and try to get them to safe themselves but was unable to convince the Jews to leave each other to go into singly hiding. The more his family needed to act on freedom, the more unable they were to take an independent action. The less they found strength in themselves, the more they held on to their past life. His whole family ended up dying. Bettelheim used this example to provide evidence that the Franks dependability on being with their family kept them from knowing an being prepared for what may happen which possibly could have been the reason why all but the father died.
The story of Marga Minco was used in this essay as an example of an easier survival with splitting of a family. This little girls parents planned out what would happen when police came to for them. The father would try to distract them while the little girl and mother escaped through the back door. The parents get killed but the little girl survived and escaped to a Dutch family alone. This shows that with a plan and the ability to let go was a big necessity to survival. The author looks at the Franks outlook and desires as their own way of coping with the situations. He is not criticizing them but only admiring. Although Marga Minco survived, her story is not as well-known as Anne Franks. The failure of the Frank family deserves the close examination because of the inherent warnings it contains for the living.
Anne Frank says, "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are good at heart." The author uses this quote to show how her belief in goodness in all men encourages us to ignore the implications of Auschwitz. If all men were good at heart then it can have us think that Auschwitz was never really there or may not reoccur. That is exactly why Anne Frank and her family believed that. They all wanted to stay positive no matter how hard reality was becoming for the Jews. That is what makes the story of Anne Frank so beloved. Their failure to survive all came out of their determination to stay together as a family and hope for the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaylawilson on Jul 23, 2015 1:07:43 GMT
Bruno Bettelheim, the writer of The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank, meticulously analyzed not only the movie, play, and book titled The Diary of Anne Frank, but he as well thoroughly analyzed the reaction of those not directly effected by the holocaust, (such as foreign nations or non-Jews), when they realized the truly horrible, systematic genocide of the Jews that took place in Nazi Germany and German- occupied territories. Bettelheim's essay shed light on the way society handled "The Catastrophe". Bettelheim suggests that the success of the franchise following The Diary of Anne Frank, was due to the psychological mechanics people put into place in order to counteract that it was human nature to have such proclivities as the Nazi- Germans. One mechanic used was the idea that the Nazi party was a small group of insane and perverted peoples, and that it was ridiculous to believe that mankind itself could behave in such ways when put into that situation. Secondly, some believed that the horror of the extermination was exaggerated, which was first suggested by the German government calling the publications about the Holocaust "horrible propaganda". Finally, in order to believe that not every man has such a cruel nature, society had suppressed the information in an effort to rather forget about what was happening outside of their lives, although they believed it. Bettelheim criticized not the story of Anne Frank, but how the people not effected by the holocaust responded to what was happening to the Jews during the Holocaust. In a society spiraling into chaos, one tries to obtain freedom from the ideas that a whole group of people could be exterminated, or their lives altered completely, by denial and suppression of the conflict itself.
Another reason why the story of Anne Frank was so popular, was due to the demonstration that life can continue to flourish under direct persecution by a ruthless totalitarian system. Anne Frank's diary suggests that efforts towards disregarding what happens in society can catalyze one's own demise. The attitude that Anne's family had that life could be carried on as before could have been the main culprit of their destruction. Bettelheim suggests that Anne's death was a senseless one, and could have been averted if Anne and her family members had separated and joined different Dutch families. This separation of the family was common for the Jews to do in Holland during the Holocaust in order to survive. While the concept of prolonging the beloved family life was desired and understandable, it was unrealistic during the 1933-1945 time period. Something that intrigued me during this section of the essay was that Bettelheim suggested that perhaps it wasn't the family just trying to stay together during the awful times. The splitting up of the family could have meant that the family would have to come face to face with the realization of just how much danger they were in.
At the end of the play and movie of The Diary of Anne Frank, we hear Anne's voice from the beyond, saying, "In spite of everything, i still believe that people are really good at heart". This fictitious ending to the movie and play also played a part in their huge successes. This sentimental statement made was highly improbable due to the fact that Anne was starved to death, watched her sister meet the same fate before she did, and watched an untold amount of adults and children being slaughtered. Anyone can agree with Bettelheim that it was highly unlikely that while although Anne seemed partially optimistic through out the novel, she would not have believed the statement that "everyone is good at heart". Nevertheless, no one thought much into it. Society as a whole WANTED to believe that everyone was truly good at heart. If we were able to declare the Nazi's actions admissible due to the fact that "everyone was good at heart", in a sense, we were able to believe that they were never flawed in the first place. Maybe we were able to believe that it was human nature to submissively accept orders from a greater power, not that it was human nature to be barbaric and bloodthirsty. If a person believes that everyone is good at heart, then it could be easily convinced to that person that there never really was an Auschwitz, nor would there be any possibility that this type of savagery could ever occur again. All in all, Bruno Bettelheim enlightened me and showed me a new perspective by explaining that the problem did not lie solely in the extermination of the Jews, nor in how Anne Frank was specifically persecuted, but that the problem also lie in how society responded to her diary and what this reaction "tells about our attempts to cope with the feelings of her fate that arouses in us".
|
|
|
|
Post by bcastellucci on Jul 23, 2015 17:34:07 GMT
The author Bruno Bettelheim in the essay, "The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank," discusses what he believes is the "ignored" lesson given off by the Frank family while they were in hiding. The author is trying to convey throughout the essay that everything the Franks were so admired for, covered up the things that they should of been criticized for because of the extreme danger it put them in. Just like the world today with social media, people only display what they want you to know and they leave out whatever makes them look bad.
The author uses critical diction in this essay to focus on what the family did wrong, not just to criticize them but to prove that their way of living during this time was not in the right of mind. He says, "My point is not to criticize what the Franks did, but only the universal admiration of their way of coping, or rather not coping." He is trying to show that other survivors stories were neglected because of the high admiration of the Franks. The author presents his ideas on what the Franks did wrong while in hiding when they should have been looking at reality and reacting to the danger. The Franks biggest desire was to stay living the same as much as possible like in the "happier times." As much as any family would wish to stay like this, most know that you can not go that way when trying to keep your family alive. The Frank family sacrificed their lives to be together. Instead of separating to stay safe they risked their children's lives to try and be together which was an unrealistic hope at this time. Bettelheim wanted to pay close attention to what the Franks could have done but did not do.
The authors purpose was to show that there was a lesson that came out of the Frank family's failure that was not shown in their original story because it was being covered up by the admiration of their hiding. He quotes, "It is a failure that deserves close examination because of the inherant warnings it contains for us, the living." After reading this essay, it just doesn't seem right that survivals who did all they could to get out alive, were ignored by society because of the high popularity of the Franks story. Other families who went through this could have inspiring stories about what they did and how they coped but instead we are distracted by the movies, plays and stories of Anne Frank and her family. He writes this essay as a warning for us to learn from the Franks poor desicions, in case of history repeating. Yes the Frank family stayed extremely positive during tough times and the love they had for each other, and the hop to stay together was inspiring. There is no doubt they deserve high admiration. But in the end the way the Frank family acted during the holocaust led to their own destruction and each one of them dead, except for their father. The authors critical diction had a very persuasive tone which caused you to get pulled in as a reader to what he was telling you. In this way Bettelheim very much achieved his purpose in presenting to us the ignored lesson of Anne Frank and her family.
|
|
|
|
Post by briannadavids on Jul 23, 2015 20:10:38 GMT
Bruno Bettelheim’s “The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank,” takes the story The Diary of Anne Frank to a whole other level, criticizing the Franks for some of the choices they had made during their time in hiding while comparing them to other families he perceived to have better outcomes. For example, Bettelheim disagrees with Anne’s parent’s decision to keep her with them, instead of sending her with a Dutch family where she would be “posing as their own child.” He thought they could have had a better plan so that they would not be destined to their own fate, and I understand where he is coming from. However, I think that there was not enough time to have a well thought out plan, but at least they had a plan so that they would not be captured right away.
Bettelheim continues to criticize the Frank family when he states, “By eulogizing how they lived in their hiding place while neglecting to examine first whether it was a reasonable or an effective choice, we are able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story— that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances.” I disagree with Bettelheim because he is trying to say they were just setting themselves up for failure, but they were taking a risk that almost any Jew would take at that time. There was not enough time to have a well thought out plan that would work efficiently, while still trying to not let the family fall apart. Moreover, Bettelheim continues to later say “The Frank’s hiding place had only one entrance; it did not have any other exit. Despite this fact, during their months of hiding, they did not try to devise one. Nor did they make other plans for escape.” There was not much they could do while they were in hiding. They could not make much noise so trying to create an escape out of their hiding place was nearly impossible. They had no contact with many people, maybe one or two here and there, so it made it nearly impossible for the Franks to set another plan in place to move them somewhere else. Bettelheim makes the Franks sound irresponsible, but they were trying to make the best of their awful situation. They kept themselves full of hope and did not take such big risks and extreme measure that Bettelheim would have wanted them to take.
I can relate to the Franks and Bettelheim because my uncle was a Jew trying to hide from the Nazis at the time of the war. Hiding in the hay bails of a non-Jew family was not easy for him. Nazi police would come and go throughout the months that he hid there. Sometimes his family would not eat for days, and the warm hearts that hid them brought them food. They could not move at all during the day and they had nothing to do. My great grandmother always told me about the horror they went through on a day to day basis, not knowing if the footsteps they heard next to them were going to be a Nazi, or simply just someone tending to the animals. My uncle did not really have a plan, he just had good friends that were willing to hide a few members of his family and another small family. However, he survived, and this is where I agree with Bettelheim. He is says he does not understand why the death of almost all the Franks is being preached, when there are survivors out there who’s stories are neglected, such as the story of Marga Minco, another survivor mentioned by Bettelheim. Overall, Bettelheim made me realize that there are things we can learn from other’s mistakes, but there was also an issue with how much we preach to the families that die, rather than those who survived.
|
|
|
|
Post by heavenskelly on Jul 24, 2015 16:05:50 GMT
Through The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank, by Bruno Bettelheim, readers are exposed to the deeper lesson behind The Diary of Anne Frank. We are all raised knowing about the sad story of a young girl who was forced to go into hiding, with her beloved family, in order to survive the infamous Nazi attacks. With the help of this essay, so many new solutions have been revealed, along with profound revelations about the Frank family. To start, a quote from the essay claims “The Franks were unable to accept that going on living as a family as they had done before the Nazi invasion of Holland was no longer a desirable way of life.” To many, this statement has never even dared to cross their mind. It is a sad truth that thousands have never considered. The fact of the matter is, if the Frank family had went into hiding singularly, more of the family would have made it out alive without being discovered.
By not accepting the full measure of danger occurring in their lives, the Franks were not able to make the right precautions. Going into hiding with your entire family is so much riskier than going into hiding by yourself. As the essay states, “By hiding singly, even when one got caught, the others had a chance to survive.” Unfortunately, the family wanted to stick together through it all. Which, even though it is an understandable desire, it lessoned their chances of survival. The family had contact with numerous Dutch families throughout Europe, but they did not open their mind to the possibility of sending their children to one, in hopes that they would claim them as their own. Thereby increasing their chances at surviving this terrible time, known as the Holocaust.
“In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart.” This statement goes beyond words. Such a short statement, but yet it was heard by millions around the world. Said by a young girl who went through unbelievable pain and suffering, and yet she still believed that there was good in people. Although, this phrase was not said in her diary, it is the saying that moved many while watching the Anne Frank movie. Through this, we see how a family still believed there was good at such a horrific time, and in many ways this could be the very reason they did not all survive. Thus, this play shows that even in a time of uncertainty and danger, families lived their lives as normally as they could. It is believed that this is how they survived mentally in this world. So, yes, it may be true that they would have physically survived by accepting the fact that they were in extreme danger and splitting up was the best option, but would they have been able to mentally take that on? This, being the rhetorical question that millions of us will never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandmbauer on Jul 30, 2015 6:30:56 GMT
Brandon Bauer
Mr. Vitale
AP Language 11
31 July 2015
The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank
On each page of a book or novel, you can almost always distinguish an underlying theme where each action that takes place in the story represents one of the many ideals the book is portraying. In resemblance to these underlying themes, there are both themes that can be clear or hidden. The essay The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank by Bruno Bettelheim surfaces the hidden themes that no person ever brought to light through the collective love of a few families.
Digging deeper in between the lines of The Diary of Anne Frank, the author explains what the Frank’s and other families should have done to keep themselves slightly safer in the terrorizing years that the German’s tried to exterminate the Jews. It would have merely took a few extra appliances for numerous families to survive a bit longer. Along these lines and as stated in the essay, “…the Franks, who were able to provide themselves with so much while arranging for going into hiding, … , could have provided themselves with some weapons had they wished.” Something as simple as a weapon or two to fight the “green police” before they were caught may have let half of them scatter out the back window without being noticed.
On the other hand, many other families, including the Frank’s, had the ideal that they would all stick together as a family, because if they keep close nothing can break them apart. I understand why this sensed to be the best thing to do because as a teenager, I feel safest when I am with my family, but Jewish families did not come to the realization that there is a better way for all of them to survive. Back to what Bruno Bettelheim explained, “My young relative, … unable to persuade other members of his family to go with him … could not convince these Jews to leave their homes and break up their families to go singly into hiding … with it further into the crematoria where, in fact, they all died.” If only they had broken up their family hideout, they may have all rendezvoused once the Holocaust came to an end in 1945, but these sacrifices were never made for many Jewish families at the time.
The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank by Bruno Bettelheim defined the difference between a stereotypical underlying theme and one that almost no person would recognize. Due to the sheer dread of what the Frank family went through, readers may not have grasped the missing pieces that the Frank family did not have. Conclusively, this ignored lesson not only played with your mind, but it clearly stated how the families could have saved themselves with the littlest bit of effort. Despite the actual representation of the story, the author tactfully distinguished the difference between an evident and ignored theme in an amazingly written essay.
|
|
|
|
Post by desireetolchin on Jul 30, 2015 21:17:50 GMT
In "the ignored lesson of Anne frank" Bettelheim talks about the story of Anne frank and the holocaust. Everyone just knows the story as a girl by the name of Anne frank wrote in her diary during the holocaust while hiding and wrote about what was happening around that time, whom eventually dies because of the nazis. While most authors feel pity, Bettelheim writes more so about what they could of done differently.
As he points out, if the family hid singularly then they had a better chance of surviving. The author criticizes the way we respond to the situation rather than criticizing the family. He says, "My point is not to criticize what the Franks did, but only the universal admiration of their way of coping, or rather not coping." By this meaning that all the other stories of Jews were neglected because of the admiration people had of the franks. Throughout majority of the story the author mentions what the frank family did wrong in hiding and basically that they set themselves up to be doomed.
The main line that stood out to me the most though while reading this was what Anne frank said, "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart" simply amazing, I couldn't wrap my head around this for the longest time. How could someone say this about people when she sees innocent humans being killed by others, she went through so much pain yet can still see the good in people. She had seen the best and worst of humankind and would not forget what was right for her, by this statement i realized she means that she believed people could redeem themselves, a short line but extremely powerful.
|
|
|
|
Post by lillyswan on Jul 31, 2015 1:45:15 GMT
In the essay The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank by Bruno Bettelheim, the author talks about the decision the Frank Family made during the World War 2. "My point is not to criticize what the Franks did, but only the universal admiration of their way of coping, or rather of not coping." Bettelheim had a negative tone when talking about the Frank's choice of what to do during the World War 2. Bettelheim explained many different things the Franks could have done to keep alive longer and while reading the essay you wonder why the Franks did what they did.
Bettelheim used negative diction to convey his negative and disagreeing tone. "The Frank family's attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction." By using the word the harsh word "destruction", Bettelheim shows how he does not agree with the Frank's views. Also, Bettelheim says, "…we were able to ignore the crucial lesson of their story- that such an attitude can be fatal in extreme circumstances." The words crucial, fatal, and extreme help convey a negative tone. Bettelheim feels the Frank's decision to hide all together and carry on with normal life was foolish in such a dangerous situation. The important lesson that got ignored is that an attitude of denial in a very serious situation can led to unfortunate consequences.
I get why the Frank family would want to stay together and hide but when it’s a life and death situation you need to do what is best. Bettelheim explains that the Franks could have sent the daughters away to hide with other families but they did not do that and their poor decision of staying together ended up with most of them dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by marissamcgaffney on Jul 31, 2015 17:57:00 GMT
When discussing World War II, it's never going to be presented in a positive light. Futhermore, Bruno Bettelheim, author of "The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank," does not restrain his pessimistic attitude towards some of the decisions the Frank family made while in hiding during the holocaust. Bettelheim, being a surviving prisoner, explains that his intentions are not to pick apart Anne Frank and her family. His purpose in this essay is to stand by the theme, being that when a world goes to pieces, life cannot remain the same.
"The Frank family's attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction." I totally disagree with Bettelheim's statement. I feel that since the Frank family decided to go about a normal life, despite their circumstances and conditions, this sets them apart from the other families. Bettelheim also says, "But instead, the main principle of their planning was continuing their beloved family — an understandable desire, but highly unrealistic in those times." Looking back on World War II today, seventy five years later, I would have followed the same plan the Franks did. Bettelheim mentions, "she (Anne) would have had to leave her parents and go to live with a gentile Dutch family." This is the decision Bettelheim preferred, which does not seem realistic to me. Expecting a young girl to leave her family to fight for their lives, while she survives, is quite an expectation.
I disagreed with Bettelheim's opinion for the majority of the essay, making this a difficult read. Critiquing how the Frank's went about their hiding is not going to fix anything now. If they wanted to try and survive this horrible annihilation together as a family, then kudos to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by eeinhaus17 on Aug 28, 2015 18:16:43 GMT
Bruto Bettelheim, a former prisoner in a Nazi concentration camp for a year, discusses in this well-thought essay about Anne Frank, her story, experience as a Jewish person in hiding, and her actions by her and her family. Bettelheim introduces ways in which the Frank's could of survived, which are highly questionable. He uses a negative tone to show how several of the Frank's actions led to their downfall, though Bettelheim states that his purpose was not to criticize the family, but to explain how Jewish people in hiding successfully stayed alive at least during the War, or in his words, to show the, "universal admiration of the ways of copying.
One of Bettelheim's ideas was the fact that the Frank's should of separated. He states that if Anne separated from her parents and lived with a gentile Dutch family, then Anne had a higher chance to survive, and maybe even her parents. I can see how this can be successful, since it will be harder for the 'green police' to find her and in the case of getting caught, there would be one less body taken. However, this raises the question whether young Anne could handle the anxiety of being away from her parents, and possibly never see them again. Also, the amount of time that she would have to be away from her parents was up in the air at the time, so it had its risks. The Frank's were also very family-motivated, and the comfort of being around, working, and hiding as family was encouraged by the Frank's. But if your consider the dangers that were happening in the time period of the start of the Holocaust, Bettelheim's idea would of made the most sense, considering that a life-or-death situation was occuring.
Bettelheim's other idea was to establish a plan, just in case the 'green police' would of showed up. This plan is quite to the point; find another hiding place with an entrance and an exit, preferably an exit that would be hard to discover, with a weapon on hand. This exit he states could lead to the roof of a building or a hidden alleyway. The building in which the Frank's hid in only had one door, used as both an entrance and an exit. I agree with this plan, due to its simplicity and that it involves the Frank's together as a family. Marga Minco, a girl the same age as Anne at the time, was able to survive with her family with a well established plan. When her father was confronting with a Nazi officer who found them, it gave Marga and her mother a chance to escape to the exit. This plan was almost successful, Marga survived, her parents did not. This shows Bettelheim's point and purpose of this essay all along, to demonstrate ways in which Anne and even her family could of survived the Holocaust.
|
|
|
|
Post by sammycrossley on Aug 29, 2015 2:22:27 GMT
During The Ignored Lesson Of Anne Frank Bettelheim does something that could be considered analyzing the Frank family and explaining to his readers how some of their actions did not help their situation, but further, hurt them. Although not exactly putting a blame on the Frank family, he criticizes their actions and shows how their ignorance to the severity of the situation partially killed them. He hits on the topics of how the children could have been saved if the parents had sent them on a train to live with another family. Their need to keep the family together is almost selfish because its something similar to "if one goes down, we all go down". Also, their lack of weapons shows how they didn't take the situation very seriously. If they had truly believed that Nazi's were to come, wouldn't it make sense that they fight back or die trying, since they knew it was possible they were going to die later anyway?
Although the Frank's could have done a lot of things differently, I didn't agree with the way some of Bettelheims points were stated, not because they weren't correct, but because it isn't a fair blame to place on the family. For example, the article states," But Anne, her sister, her mother, may have well died because her parents could not get themselves to believe in Auschwitz's." It is more than likely that this factored into the reasoning that the majority of the Frank family was killed during the Holocaust. But, how can one human, judge another for the rash decision made during a situation like this? Placing the blame of the deaths on the parents because the parents wanted to have hope that man kind would not murder one another, to me, is not right. I can only imagine if I were a parent in this situation that I would handle it the same. Also, the lack of real information about the camp could have helped with this decision. It is not like someone came up to Mr. Frank and allowed him to see the camp and the outcome of the Holocaust and then allow him to make the situation of how to handle his family.
Another thing I did not completely agree with was Bettelheim blaming the Franks inability to properly assess the situation because of "anxiety". A topic that was covered in the article was that Mr. Frank was a high-school teacher. Now assuming that Mr. Frank had taught most subjects, I would assume he had taught a history class. While doing this, he has learned the outcomes of many wars and political problems countries have faced. Not many problems have had an outcome with the severity of the Holocaust. This piece of information gives he the idea that perhaps the feeling was not as much "anxiety" than it was hope. Although many wars have caused many deaths over time, most have not targeted a single religion quite like the Holocaust. Since there is no way to be sure that Otto made his decision because of anxiety, I think it would be fair to say that it could be hope or a stronger feeling than anxiety that led Otto to make the decisoin he did.
I personally thought the essay was a fabulous piece of work. It was really interesting to me to have this topic talked about in this manner because majority of the time this topic is touched in a fragile way. There is no criticism displayed towards those affected in the Holocaust but because of only the sympathetic reaction to the Holocaust student don't normally learn to see the other angles of the topic. This view of the topic really allows the reader to understand more. To be able to see the topic in a negative and positive light really allows us to assess the situation and reaction of the situation in different lights.
|
|
catea
New Member
Posts: 4 
|
Post by catea on Aug 30, 2015 3:19:02 GMT
“The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank” brings attention to the unpleasant subject of one of humanities many flaws—blissful and intentional ignorance. Bruno Bettelheim wrote with firsthand experience of Jewish oppression in Nazi Germany. Including other stories from holocaust survivors supported his theory that human beings block the horrible things in life; what they do not wish to be true is simply filed away in the back of the mind. Speaking of the reaction to the treatment of Jews during World War II he wrote, “…a wave of extreme outrage swept the Allied nations. It was soon followed by a general repression of the discovery in people’s minds.” Part of the reason people wish to forget the atrocities in life because no one wants to believe that the human race is capable of committing such dehumanizing acts. Even Jewish citizens decided to preserve their way of life until the inevitable came and Nazis took them from their homes.
Bettelheim suggests that the mindset of these Jewish citizens was, “If we are certain that we are helpless to protect ourselves against the danger of destruction, we cannot contemplate it.” In other words, why try if we know we will fail? Since they thought there was no way to survive, they may have sat in “blissful ignorance” until the end came, reveling in the little extra time they had with normal life before the real world came crashing in. Instead of fighting for their lives they ignored the danger they were in, which is something I cannot fathom. How can you stand idly by while your friends and neighbors are being murdered? How do you resign yourself to death that easily?
I do not agree with Bettelheim’s criticism of the Frank family. They may have had connections that could have gotten them out of Amsterdam, but I can understand why they wanted to preserve the way of life they were familiar with. Not a choice I would make, but I suppose when put in the situation there is no desirable decision. There was no way for anyone to know where the better success rate would be, maybe hiding in plain sight seemed like a good idea at the time.
I enjoyed reading the story of Anne Frank from another perspective, especially the realizations that Bettelheim brings his readers: when the world as we know it falls apart, one cannot continue living in the same fashion as before without risking one’s humanity or even life. Morals must be changed; adaptations must be made to continue with some kind of life in new surroundings. Bettelheim believes that one should resist until death, as do I. What I took away from this essay was the importance of the battle, of the struggle for what is just. Acceptance of death, resigning to oppression is an insult to those willing to fight tooth and nail for the undeniable human privilege of life. Disrespect of the highest kind is to do nothing while others are giving their lives and their families lives to help you. I think Bettelheim is so passionate in his beliefs because he witnessed people do absolutely nothing in the face of evil. It only takes one disbeliever to convince thousands that rebellion is futile.
|
|
|
|
Post by kellyhenderson on Aug 31, 2015 18:55:07 GMT
Bruno Bettelheim's "The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank" explores what was the low survival rate for the Frank Family and how them staying together as a family ruined their chances for living.
Throughout the essay, Bettelheim chooses to criticize the Frank's as opposed to praising them as what most authors do. He states that "But even given their wish not to seperate, they failed to make appropriate precautions for what was likely to happen." (p. 37) and continues on with the fact that the Franks were like sitting ducks waiting to be caught. The key word is "likely". He states throughout the essay that much of the Jewish population fled to other countries where the Nazis were not in power. These people, he believes, were aware that death was a real possibility. Many people in the concentration camps denied death, and even did as much as hold the door open for their executioners. He uses this to reinforce that the Frank's were in denial of death, much like any other Jewish family in danger of the Nazis. They took no precautions when it came to if they were caught, such as bringing a weapon of some sort, or even trying to run away. When caught, they sat and waited for the Nazis to take them away, because they believed that death could not touch them.
Bettelheim then goes on to explain what the Frank's, and many other Jewish families, should have done for the best chance of survival. Closing the essay, he writes "If today...equality" (p.48-49). By comparing the Holocaust to the apartheid in Africa, Bettelheim manages to give a mostly accurate comparison the audience for the time would understand. He is also able to support his message throughout the work: you will receive freedom by seeking freedom. Standing around will give you death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nauttikka on Sept 1, 2015 0:49:44 GMT
Everyone knows the story of Anne Frank. The twelve year-old girl who kept a diary while her family was hiding in a secret annex. Bruno Bettelheim, a World War II survivor himself, told about “The Ignored Lesson of Anne Frank”. Bettelheim goes on to describe that, “The Franks family attitude that life could be carried on as before may well have been what led to their destruction.” He believes it was senseless of the Franks to try and stay together, when they had a greater chance of survival if they would have separated and gone with gentile Dutch families. There were other families who had to separate in order to survive. Although they would not be together as a family it was more important to them to have their life than a family. For example, Marga Minco, she was a Jewish girl whose family decided to separate before they were found by Nazis. “Her parents had planned that when the police should come for them, the father would try to detain them by arguing and fighting with them, to give the wife and daughter a chance to escape through the rear door.” It was possible for the Franks to have devised a plan for a separate escape route. Even though they would have to face the possibility of one of them dying it wouldn’t be the same as everyone but Mr. Frank dying. With Marga Minco, her mother and father died but she was able to escape to a Dutch family and she got to live to tell about it. Anne Frank wrote diaries and was never able to tell because her parents were negligent to the fact that there was a great possibility of them being caught. I believe that Bruno Bettelheim’s purpose for writing this was to show that Anne Frank’s family is admired for all the wrong reasons. They shouldn’t be respected for in the long run killing their family. If Mr. Frank would have let his family separate he would have seen them all live. There is some admiration to be given for the fact that they attempted to live together but in that attempt they should have created an escape route. Marga Minco lived with her family but when the time came they had to part ways.
Bruno Bettelheim reaches his purpose by showing what other families did during this time period. Families are meant to be together but in a situation like this I believe that a live, separated family is better than a family that is dead together. However the Franks weren’t the only people who failed to realize their situation. Olga Lengyl lived very close to the crematoria and the gas chambers. There were other prisoners living with her who denied the fact that they were there and ended up losing their lives because of it. If they would have acknowledged their situation they could have saved themselves and others from their execution. When the time came for her group of prisoners to be brought to the gas chambers, she tried to move away from the group while others did not. The people living in the concentration camps with Lengyl refused to realize what was going on. I cannot truly understand the extent of their troubles but I could only imagine that I would do everything in my power to try and survive. Bettelheim mentions a young man who tries and convinces his family to move with him when he goes to another town because of the growing extermination of Jews. They chose not to go with him and they pay the price of their lives. I would do the same thing if I was in his position. I would not purposely leave my family to die, just to save myself. I would attempt to save everyone but if it’s not possible there would have to be some sacrifices made. I would rather go down trying.
I believe that Bruno Bettelheim is very successful at reaching his audience. His readers all know the story of Anne Frank and her family and think that they are so brave for doing what they did but in fact they were scared. Bettelheim clearly says, “My point is not to criticize what the Franks did, but only the universal admiration of their way of coping, or rather of not coping.” Although that was not his point it is what was shown. I have always held the Franks at such high regard because of what they endured and I always will but reading this shows another angle at what happened. They were brave for deciding to stay together but it was also naïve of Mr. Frank to allow his family to take their first steps to the gas chamber by staying where they would easily be found.
|
|
