In his rejoinder to Dan Stone, Cesarani attempts to answer the objections raised by the latter against the establishment of a Holocaust memorial day in Britain. Using the public response (so far) to the recent opening of the Imperial War Museum's permanent Holocaust exhibition as a test case, he argues that, contrary to Stone's worry that no one would register the existence of a memorial day, the British public shows every sign of being far from indifferent to the events being 'commemorated'. Cesarani characterizes Stone's other concerns as a counsel of despair. It is up to those who dissent from a safely distanced, homogenized or reductive view of the Jewish tragedy-or from a view of the British government as being anything but blameless in the commission of international human rights abuses and genocides, both historical and contemporary-to make sure that the 'plurality of memory' that Stone advocates is not traduced by the events of the day.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Cesarani (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: