International Educational Conference Post-conference publication | Page 62

We are obsessed with keeping survivors alive; we want them to do the emotional

and actual bearing witness. We are obsessing about the next generation, which creates this perpetual feeling of it is either them [survivors] or them [next generation] that will do this work when I am just thinking that it should be us. Right? It is very interesting to me that we are not letting survivors rest in a way. I often think about forcing 90 year olds

to travel and go to schools. It is so meaningful, and it does impact children, but I think it is time that we don’t expect as much emotional labour from them. – Dr. Maria Zalewska 

 

In Dr. Matthew Boswell’s view, we should harness the inherent creativity that younger visitors express. As educators, we can provide the tools and framework for visitors

to express themselves, allowing them to respond to the places they visit by creating their own outcomes, whatever they may be.

 

Dr. Jennifer Rich suggested that involving visitors in discussions about new technologies and their own creativity could be a good way to address visitors' needs. They may need

to be actively engaged to form a stronger connection with the site and enhance their ability to remember.

 

Dr. Piotr M. A. Cywiński agrees that we have to engage visitors. However, today we express our feelings about a place we have visited using mere ‘likes,’  emoticons, or short comments. To truly convey the significance of such places, we need more efficient means of communication. Relying solely on data such as the number of likes and shares is insufficient. It's difficult to determine if the message is effectively getting across.

 

According to Dr. Maria Zalewska, the way we teach about the Holocaust has evolved

in the Internet era. In the past, education on this topic was more centralized, primarily delivered through specific institutions and national curricula. Nowadays, people

from various backgrounds share their emotions, memories, and how they remember

the Holocaust. This has led to a form of transnational memory project, resulting in diverse memories of the Holocaust. While schools remain a key source for learning about this history, they are no longer the sole educational influence. The information is now more nuanced, and we are aware of the different perspectives, avoiding a single, frozen-in-time discourse.

 

During the discussion with the audience, it also became clear and crucial to emphasize

the significance of the words we use to describe online experiences or projects being developed. Proper terminology is vital to avoid confusion between the virtual

and authentic experiences. An online or virtual tour is not a replacement for a physical, on-site tour. Virtual testimonies, while valuable, cannot match the power of real ones

and must not be manipulated to deviate from the truth.

 

Another audience participant joined the conversation and suggested that the materiality of objects holds a unique and sacred status that should not be challenged by new technologies. The impact of authentic objects and memorial sites should not be threatened by the competition posed by new technologies. Thus far, nothing has managed to replace the authenticity of the experience, and it is likely that nothing ever will, judging by the reflections of people who have visited sites like Auschwitz-Birkenau.

 

Earlier, I used the expression ‘rite de passage’ because I think it is the nearest to this experience. But even a rite de passage is not a transfiguration of a human being. It is not

a perpetual, complete change of yourself into someone else.