In which I consider the macabre

I have been thinking about Lennon and Foley's 'Dark Tourism' article. They discussed the new phenomenon of tourist interest in recent death and atrocities, and continued by analyzing the Auschwitz-Birkenau historic site. So, what is this fascination that people have with death and destruction?

I have stood where Ann Boleyn (and countless others) lost their heads in London, I have stood where Savonarola burned to death in Florence, I have looked over the graves of Titanic victims in Halifax. I have observed medieval torture instruments (including a used guillotine) in Ghent, I have walked past rows of bones in the Paris catacombs, I have seen where gladiators once lost their lives with crowds of Romans cheering their demise. Seems I can enjoy the macabre as much as the next person, and who wouldn't enjoy the more colourful, gory parts of history? As a history student, it is the extraordinary events that capture our interest for the most part. The wars, the murders, the intrigue. But the difference is the distance I feel from these activities. This is one of the fundamental reasons I chose to study history that had happened five hundred years ago as opposed to fifty. The distance allowed me no personal attachment, no emotional draw.

I recently watched a trio of youtube videos (aaah youtube, what don't you have online?) that I happened to watch in a trio because they happened to link to each other. Hence the addictive nature of youtube. The first was the crash of the Hindenburg, complete with radio soundtrack. The second was the Kennedy assassination, a video I had never seen before (and I really wish I hadn't let my curiosity get the better of me because it was particularly horrific). The third was a 'home video' of Hitler, Eva Braun and their pals frolicking in the Alps in 1939. Now, with these events, while there is some distance, the fact that they happened in the 20th century while most of my grandparents were alive is shocking to me. I can't help but feel this sensitivity to the horrific events that are still in the living memory. The invention of colour video helps particularly with the idea that these people were not so different, that these events happened recently and could possible happen again.

As a historian I understand why Lennon and Foley would criticize Auschwitz-Birkenau for lacking historical explanation or interpretation. At the same time, I can't imagine going to a historic site like a concentration camp and trying to see it with a distant, professional historian perspective. It's too horrific, too recent. I enjoyed their description of Auschwitz as more of a pilgrimage site - while talking about such an event it shouldn't be forgotten as one aspect of the site. Visiting such a place would just be heart-wrenching - even with the inauthentic touches that Lennon and Foley point out. As public historians, we must remember what the public is looking for. Are they looking for a moving experience, or a balanced history lesson? One skill public historians must learn is putting the two together. But I have to admit - while I was standing in Anne Frank's room in Amsterdam, I didn't care that there were video screens with oral interviews, or text panels explaining the Dutch situation in the early 1940s. I was just excited and moved to be there, history lesson or no. There are just some spots where words aren't needed.