Book review

The Holocaust in American Film, by Judith E. Doneson, explains accounts of how the Holocaust event has been used in films to stimulate the American minds. Doneson’s thesis is to be historically responsible and accurate when presenting information of any kind, this case being the Holocaust. The book does not hold back any historical information surrounding the tragic happening of the Holocaust, whether the information came from America or Europe. Judith Doneson explains the movie Schindler’s List along with a variety of others. Judith explains how the Holocaust films affected audiences in various time periods. The book helps to connect and give light to a framework of movies and television that have kept the tragic event from becoming nonexistent in American minds. The book deals with issues containing anti-Semitism views towards the Jewish people and how American film portrayed them. Judith feels that there are three major films that address the threat of Nazi Germany over the Jewish people.
Judith begins the book with explaining the era of 1934 through 1947. America had been through the depression, and the country was trying to stand on its feet again. The depression was a time that left many people in terrible circumstances. Many of those circumstances were; hunger, suicide, un- employment and psychological damages. Luckily for the future generations to come, American film was there taking footage of all the aspects of life and the effects it had on our fellow Americans. American film during those years was not just around for documentary purposes, America film wanted to start sending a message to their viewers. Judith explains, “Hollywood began to confront issues of importance, tackling, for example, themes of social conscience films like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), Juarez (1939), and The Grapes of Wrath (1940)”. Even though films were being made in a responsible manner to educate people, it was unclear how many Americans really understood the onslaught the Jewish people were facing from Hitler in Germany.
Hearsay is one thing, but for many seeing is truly believing. Judith felt that there were three films in particular that gave importance to the threat of Nazis to the Jewish community and dealt with anti Semitism views towards the Jews. These three films she speaks of are; The House of Rothschild (1934), The Great Dictator (1940) and Gentleman’s Agreement (1947). Each of these films are different in their plots but they all share common themes of anti-Semitism views towards the Jews, hoping to make audiences understand what can happen from prejudice views that turn persecution. These films helped make America home for the Jewish people. Even though these films were recognized with great reviews, some Jewish Americans felt that these films gave too much attention to them because they just wanted to be left out. Some felt that by giving importance to the anti-Semitism views, it kept the ideas alive in American minds instead of fading away from memory. Nevertheless, it is more highly held that these films were crucial educating device for Americans to be able to accept the integration of Jewish immigrants.
Television has proved to be a device that has captivated people in every region it is offered. Television reaches the eyes, ears and minds of people that are normally uninterested. Even though the Holocaust has been in films and portrayed in many different aspects, television is not limited to any restrictions. Michael Arlan puts it best; “Television has become the major source of our perceptions of the world at every level, be it news, sport, talk, or social values”. Television is so powerful because it offers information in a way that any person watching it can understand and be a part of the event. Television has been a key in keeping the Holocaust fresh in American minds.
The American films and televised shows have sent a similar message to viewers that America is a place for salvation for those under siege. The portrayal of the Holocaust that has been shown in American has been changed to make Americans sympathetic with the event. This poses a problem for historical content, in the manner that America is taking the event from Germany and the Jewish people. This was not the goal when transforming the information for the viewers; it was just a butterfly effect that was unforeseen. No matter the implications of the issues, it is evident that in any form the information is better for Americans to know what had happened to the Jewish people in Germany. James Oliver Robertson expands on this thought; “The social process of explaining and understanding is often very different from the realities of the actual phenomenon being explained. The difference is vividly true of wars”.
Judith E. Doneson’s book was not an easy read. This book needs to be studied chapter by chapter in order to retain all the information offered. The book she wrote seems to have a few different theses. The theses I got from the book were; the integration of Jewish people into America through films, how the films affected the Jewish communities’ image in America, how America took the Holocaust from Germany, how film made the Holocaust an American experience and how television has become the major educator of information. I think she wanted to be objective and responsible to the events that had transpired. I have not seen any of the movies or television shows listed in this book and before reading the book, I never cared about doing so. This mindset comes from being generations away from the Holocaust. I now feel that it is my duty to understand the events that have transpired during the Holocaust. I want to understand the standpoint of the American view, along with German experience. Michael Kammen states; “It might just as well not have happened. Conversely, history hinges upon memory; the necessarily selective, collective remembrance that suits a society, without memory no knowledge”.

blog#7 Martyna, Wendy. "Beyond the "He/Man" Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language."

I think language is such a broad area to change inequality in gender. It seems to me that people in general do not even speak the same types of English, so to try to change language there is too many avenues to fix. Instead I think children should be taught to break past the stereo types that are in front of them. Except that certain things are not going to change, but in their own lives they can change the things they do not care for. I think sometimes people give importance to certain types of words in our language which are deemed in appropriate which keep them as taboo. This effect I think gives the person who is using it a reason to do so. If people were not to all words to hurt them or know that they are above that type of behavior, the people using it would have no fun in doing so. So I will make a conscience effort in making my children feeling equal but I will not go out and try to save the world.

Blog # 6 Parks, Janet B., and Mary Ann Roberton. “Attitudes toward Women Mediate the Gender Effect on Attitudes toward Sexist Language.”

The article describes sexist language as; “words, phrases, and expressions that unnecessarily differentiate between women and men or exclude, trivialize, or diminish either gender”. (parks & Roberton, 1998a, p. 455). This theory suggests that language and gender are closely tied. The experiences in which people have growing up will affect the mannerism in which people use language. It is shown that both men and women use gender in language, but women are more supportive of non gender language then men. This is an obvious conclusion since men are not the ones being objectified by the use of gender in language. Since I have been in this class I make a conscience effort to not objectify women in language. I noticed in my writing I would always use; “he”, or “man and wife”. Now I try to balance my usage of using gender in language.

Blog #5 West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. “Women’s Place in Ever€yday Talk: Reflections on Parent-Child Interaction."

The article was very interesting. I connected with it a lot because of how much it had to do with parent and child relationships. I have always been and as a younger person been very accepted in adult conversations. My parents did not leave me out of many of their conversations like the article had mentioned and so I was open to many adult type conversations when I became older. I actually think it would be better for parents take their children out of adult conversations because kids take serious conversions very differently. I think they have to the tendency to take things worse than are and blame things on themselves and that is not ok.

Blog #5 Gender Bender

I thought that the actors in the skit did a good job of portraying the opposite sex. I cannot say that it is exact because everyone is different but in my experiences of being around men, it is pretty accurate. I was raised by a woman so I am a little more in touch with my feelings than the typical man. I am “feminine” in that way some might say. Most men are not, so I express my feelings more with the women around me like my mom, girlfriend and female co-workers. I think that men should be taught at young ages to be more expressive with emotions. Our society oppresses men’s emotions and that should be changed.

Blog #4, Tannen, Deborah. Chp. 2: "‘I’m Sorry, I’m not Apologizing.’"

“I’m Sorry” helped me to understand a little bit better the ways that men and women differ in conversation. The article also explained some interesting aspects of the American language, such as the cultural acceptance of the conversation piece, “sorry”. It is a word used habitually here in America, and this differs from other countries. I have heard that it is always not appropriate to sorry because when one is using the term, he or she is admitting guilt. I never thought about this and I thought it was interesting. Before I never took the time to think about what I was saying because the word just rolled off my tongue, but now I will put more consideration into the proper usage before I blurt it out.

Post #3. Sheldon, Amy. "’Kings are Royaler Than Queens’: Language and Socialization.”

The English language contains sexism characteristics that promote male dominance as a social norm. This leaves women to be unseen in our language and to a certain extent can make people adapt from an early age to become sexist. Also making another outlet of how women can be and are left out of American culture. This type of mentality can and will bleed into many different aspects of life, take for example women's work force. Studies show jobs that are classified "women’s work" the pay is likely to be 40% less than male classified jobs, this shows serious inequality in the attitudes towards women importance compared to men. This article I believe is trying to show the first and most primitive form of sexism children are going to be introduced to. Although I do know that children are more likely to use language from their mothers from ages 1-6 years old. So the problem is not 100% from males, meaning that the sexism in language is done by all. Amy Sheldon practices in her own life and suggest that people use a balance of terms or neutral words when referring to objects, roles of people, and he/she when talking to their children, so that they can become objective in their use of language.