Forgive me for jumping back in the argument, but I was out of town. :)
 
>>Here's a thought: if the artifacts in the Holocaust Museum were
>>reproduced, and exhibited as such, what fodder would that be for those who
>>deny the reality of the ovens?  This is not a rhetorical question, and we
>>already have part of the answer: the deniers are pointing to the
>>'reconstruction' of the ovens at the death camps as 'proof' that they
>>never existed, that they are figments of some conspirators' interpretation.
>>
>>"You made it up" can only be refuted by original objects.
>>
>>--bayla
>
>Point taken -- but, in this particular example ... look, let's face it: the
>hard-core deniers will simply tell you that even *real* artifacts are
>faked.  A mound of dead shoes is simply -- a mound of *old* shoes.  Might
>have come from anywhere.  Proves nothing.
 
[log in to unmask]
 
[above excerpted from a longer message]
 
For a fascinating look at the struggle to preserve material evidence of the
Holocaust, look at Timothy W. Ryback's article titled "Evidence of Evil" in the
Nov. 15, 1993 issue of the New Yorker.It looks at the disintegration of
Auschwitz, the dwindling number of living survivors, and the resistance of
doubters to any evidential claims with their own counter-readings of evidence.
It touches many a raw nerve and establishes the Holocaust as a limiting case in
more ways than one.For example, human hair that is cited as proof of the
holocaust because of the Zyklon traces found upon it: should the spiritual
taboos surrrounding the hair be overriden so it can be displayed? Soon, the
traces of Zyklon will dissapear as the hair deteriorates. How does one preserve
that memory?
 
 
Craig Rosa
[log in to unmask]
M.A. student, Performance Studies/Museum Studies, NYU
PT Greenhouse Instructor, BCM