Tregre: Week 6, Sarajevo

The Cellist of Sarajevo and Welcome to Sarajevo both portrayed the longest siege in modern history in very different ways. The attack of modern warfare and dehumanization of people was shown explicitly through four main characters to describing their personal terror, and with an orphanage of innocent children.

In The Cellist of Sarajevo, four characters were used to show their independent struggles that each were a direct result from the siege attacking the city. It was the early nineties and the Bosnian Serb forces were basically holding the city hostage. 

The first character used to describe the terror and effects was Kenan. He had to travel across town to collect drinking water for his family. He has a wife and two small children and tried to avoid the conflict for four days until he had no choice but to leave to get water. It truly shows his courageousness when he also went to get water for his selfish, mean elderly neighbor. He has to make a long route in order to help his family survive. However, no one is safe. He must face gunfire in the open, but it also is not safe since buildings are being bombed daily. One feel how he feels hostage. He has to leave to survive and seems to has his entire family's lives in his hands. He is between a rock and a hard place and must risk his life and face likely death to get water, an essential to survival. 

Next is the character, Arrow. She will not face her real name because it reminds her of who she was before the war and how happy she was. One can see her attempt to cope with this dark time. Her name is Arrow "so that the person who fought and killed could someday be put away." She struggles with her personal morals, however, feels that this is the only choice that she has. She is chosen to protect the Cellist who plays for 22 days in memory of the 22 people killed. She must eventually face who she is. When the war is over, she wants to die under her old name and be her old self who "hated nobody." However, she must face who she really is and see if her old self will even still exist.

Then there is Dragan. He sent his wife and son out of the city at the start of the war. He often thinks about them and avoids friends for survival. His goal is to cross the street in order to survive. He is paralyzed by fear. The reader can feel his terror. If he does not cross, he will surely die, if he does he can be shot. 

Ironically, the character who the novel did not discuss the most, was the Cellist of Sarajevo. It was a man who saw a shelling attack from his window. They victims were his neighbors and his friends, so in their honor, he decides to play the cello for 22 days, a day for each victim. His passion to honor the fallen and to keep his humanity alive was amazing. His life was at risk and it was surely a death sentence, however, he kept playing in spite of the "men on the hill." 

These characters are normal, everyday people who have to act as heroes in order to survive. It is the flight or fight method. Whether it is going across town to get water or to kill the enemy. They each reacted a different way, but chose to survive and let their will shine through and not let it steal their humanity. The "men on the hill" threaten their lives, but they continue to live and value their chance at life. They do what it takes and the cellist even looked death in the eye to show his courage. They were not humans scared by death into hiding, they would do what it took to survive this siege. These four people were the exception. Haunted by memories of a bright past as they slowly slip away day by day. But the Cellist represented the light of the past. There was hope for survival and not all would die in vain. Death could be surpassed by the spirit and bravery.

In Welcome to Sarajevo, it is about two journalists named Flynn and Henderson. They meet during the beginning of the Bosnian war in Sarajevo. This movie had a very different take than the book, but both included the cellist who left an impact on the world forever. When the journalists find an orphanage near the front line, they cannot help but take action to help these innocent children, especially Emira. Henderson gets her away from the war then had to bring her back because her "real" mother wanted her back in her life. He risks his life in order to protect these children against the siege. Each character in the movie, along with the book, all risked their lives in order to keep humanity alive. Whether it was to simply survive or to save lives, characters put their lives at risk. These were heroes. They would not let the enemy take their will to live. Henderson was able to eventually adopt Emira and save her life. However, at the end is when the cellist plays. Though it was under different circumstances (when the Sarajevo became the number one worst place instead of the fourteenth), he played in the middle of the city. People were going to die listening to his music, but he did not want everyone to die in misery and in vain letting the enemy win.

Both these pieces discuss in detail the city under siege in different lights. Some were about people who had to chose between life and death, while others made the choice to help others. Regardless, each character chose not to let it beat them and dehumanize them. They kept their spirit. Modern warfare is not the same as it was back in let's say the 1800s. People would face each other and fight. Now, it is much more strategic and not as honorable. People are help captive. For example, instead of going into the city and killing its citizens, they surrounded it and just shot and bombed them. This kind of siege can be more frightening since there is no honor system, much like the Holocaust. People were shoved into gas chambers thinking that they were going take a shower. Honor and honesty does not exist. It is to eliminate people fast and swiftly, no matter what the way or how. It is scarier and more tragic. Modern warfare can be much more deadly and devastating than back then. People's sense of lack of safety and insignificance shown by the enemies desire to just dispose of them like garbage, proved to be very dehumanizing. It makes people question their right to survive. When empathy is not shown and one's life is in danger for no specific reason besides their geographical location, dehumanization occurs. They just have to pray to be lucky. People are capable of cruel things, much like what these citizens of Sarajevo witnessed. 

Tregre: Week 4, The Pianist

This was a difficult novel to read, just like Night. It is emotionally draining to read about these personal experiences and first hand accounts of horrors that one cannot even image, let alone go through. Chapter 9: The Umschlagplatz will stick in my mind because of the details.

The Pianist is a novel about a man named Szpilman's journey through the Holocaust with the comfort of the piano.

The Pianist by Wladyslaw Szpilman and The Pianist directed by Roman Polanski were the same story shared in two different ways, but both extremely impacting on different levels. The novel allowed insight into Szpilman's thoughts and feelings during this horrific time. He was able to hide and play the piano, and when he was forced into silence, he mimicked it with his hands. The impact the long years, 1939-1944 had on Szpliman were disturbing and evident in both works.

In the autobiography, one was able to get close and actually feel what Szpilman was feeling. This is what made some parts hard to read. Not to be too graphic in this account, when he discussed his viewing of the Germans smashing children's heads into a brick wall as a favorite form of extinguishing people, I wanted to get sick. This novel was so intimate and personal being written in a first person narrative. One could feel what he was going through and his recollection of how his feelings were towards other Jews and Nazis, which were not really expressed in Polanski's film. Over 20,000 people died in Warsaw and many were Szpilman's friends, family and neighbors. The closest one can get to understanding how this felt, is by reading someone who went through it. One can see his internal struggles and his thought process when each thing happened. Szpilman wrote for himself and not for others in order to let his grief go and move on with his life. This makes his writing more powerful and the next best thing to the actual experience. One can feel how he was more worried about the splinter in his finger effecting his playing than his emaciation. I was there with Szpilman as he retold his story.

In the film, third person perspective was used. The movie was able to express emotion that words could not express through music. It showed how the function of music could be used to cope with massive trauma. One could really focus on Szpilman's relationship with the piano and his music, and how the time, memory, and fantasy world he lived in passed while coping with the Holocaust. He was a professional musician and had the discipline to deal with isolation through his music. Most people would go insane. This film gave a different view of Szpilman. It focused more on his music instead of his own personal thoughts and reactions. The audience is looking from the outside world into his life, instead of being told what he experienced and witnessed. Trauma that is experienced at this degree is usually expressed in a nontraditional way, such a music in this case. It is not easy to cope and put into words, so instead a different outlet is created. Trauma is more hard to survive psychologically than physically. One can see the affect this had on him in the movie. Polanski did a wonderful job. It was a different interpretation.

It is difficult to choose which one was better. One was Szpilman's account of things and first hand experience, while the other played with how music impacted his life. I think it depends which one hits your gut the hardest. The movie was a work of art along with the novel because the director, Polanski also experienced some of the same things that Szpilman did. Maybe this movie was as much of healing for Polanski as the book was for Szpilman. Both a man's form of expression and grief while coping with extreme trauma.

Tregre: Week 3, Schindler and Wallenberg

Schindler and Wallenberg were two men who stuck out during times of genocide. I have touched base on it in previous blogs, but many people did not stand up in the face of adversity. However, one must ponder, what made Schindler and Wallenberg different than the majority.

Through this clip you can see how terrible the circumstances are. To stand up in this face of terror would take immense courage. Once again, a main interest for me in this course is the psychology of the Holocaust and genocides. This is usually called diffusion of responsibility phenomenon. It is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in larger groups of people when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. This happened in the Holocaust. It was bad to murder people, however, instead of doing the right thing, they assumed other people would take care of it, put an end to it, and just follow along. On the other hand, the terror was so real that people may have been frozen to conform. But there are always those people who go against the grain.

Schindler's List was a shocker. Schindler himself was a Nazi party member, catholic, womanizer, and would take part in activities to increase his money. He was not the person one would pick to save thousands of Jews. He took sides with the underdog and would always try to help the person in need. Schindler would have Jews work for him and they actually would not produce anything. His workers always had food and clothing. There was never any cruelty. He grew more and more concerned with the Jewish workforce the more he saw the Nazi's persecuting them. He turned his factory into a safe haven for Jews. He saved over 1,100 of them. When one is so disgusted with the terror of torture and killing of innocent people, some step up and some go along with it. Schindler could not turn his back on this terrible time. He helped these people and used his power to save lives. He took responsibility and made a difference. Though he may not have had the best morals, he knew what was right and wrong in this instance and took action. It takes a strong sense of self to turn against something as strong as the Nazis were.
Wallenberg was also a surprise. This man did not have to work, but chose to. He saved thousands by passing out passports to Jews. He also had 37-38 safe houses and also took charge to make a difference. Wallenberg was another person who chose to take responsibility and use his power to make a difference. When he met Jews who escaped HItler's Germany, their stories of what the Nazi's put them through affected him greatly. He also felt responsible since he in fact owned a drop of Jewish blood himself.

Both of these men took responsibility for what was going on. That is the keyword of this posting, responsibility. Good people just listened to authority and went with the flow somehow trusting that these choices were right, however, it took guts to take responsibility for these actions and to help put an end to them.

Tregre: Week 2, CP Taylor, God Hates Fags

Bent and Good were a breath of fresh air for this week's reading and movie watching assignment. So often we only hear about the genocide of the Jews, but we also forget the lives of gypsies, homosexuals, and twins lost in the Holocaust too. I was not well informed of what the homosexuals went through and this has definitely broken my heart and opened my eyes. I kind of wanted to take a different approach when answering the blog question. Share my thoughts, then give my answer in a short, concise way.

Bent was a powerful movie. At first, I was a bit shocked. Within the first five minutes I saw a naked guy using the restroom. However, it was the truth. It was raw and nothing was hidden because it was on TV. This made it more realistic. Max, the main character was a promiscuous gay man in the 1930s. He gave the movie a lot of entertainment because he was so suave. When he brought home the Sturmabteilung man home, that is when you could see there would be trouble. This is when you could feel the terror strike. Hitler had just decided to get rid of homosexuals. The brutality of it all still shocks me. They killed the Sturmateilung man immediately. Even after this, Max refused to leave his boyfriend. When he turned down the papers, I knew that was where it was going to go downhill. I can understand why Max beats Rudy to death, even though I was furious, when they were being transferred to a concentration camp. It all comes down to the psychology of it. This does not mean he was a bad person. People all react different. When one is put in a life or death situation, you cannot determine what one will do until they are in it. It is a fight or flight deal. He even went as far to have sex with a dead girl to prove that he was not gay. He chose life instead of honor. He did what he had to do in order to survive and choosing to deny being a homosexual was his choice. People in the camp were all Jewish, but people in the camp who were gay had to wear a pink triangle and branded as different from even being a Jew. Plus, he would have been subject to torture and inhumane experiments. However, things change after Max falls in love and meets Horst. Horst was the opposite. He chose honor over death. How powerful is that? Horst owned up to being gay and did not deny it. He wore the pink triangle with honor and dignity. After he is shot by the guards, Max decides to die with honor and dignity for what he is. A proud homosexual who can love just as much as a heterosexual.

This movie touched me and once again exposes what happened during that terrible time. I was proud of him dying with honor instead of killing another person and denying who he really is. I am very idealistic so it pleased me. He died for his love and being what he truly was.

Good was a fantastic play. I grew up in theatre and reading plays, so sometimes it is easier for me to read plays. This play had the most interesting character, Halder. He went from being a professor to a Nazi. His best friend was even Jewish. It was 1933, and the pressure was intense, but it was a pure betrayal. Halder and Maurice, his friend, would debate about their dilemmas and Maurice turns out to be quite a complex character. He was Jewish, but had unresolved feelings about it. It is absurd how an intelligent, good man, such as Halder, became a coldblooded murderer. This book was great to explain my previous blog of how one man could possibly get perfectly good, moral people to become brutal, mass murderers. Halder like I said was a good man, he was preoccupied by his mother, a marriage without love, his children, and his love for one his students. Being that he is pro-euthanasia, it attracts the Nazis. He does not just join them, but becomes a fully active member. Halder was lured in by the fact that his membership of being a Nazi made him feel important and belong, that he did not believe that what he was doing was bad. The irony of the play is that while Halder loves Jews, Maurice, a Jew himself hates them. Halder becomes brainwashed and becomes a Nazi himself. When one takes a step back, Halder is just a product of his society. He is human and turns a blind eye to things that are too evil to fathom. This was a great, eye opening read from a new perspective.

This play also reminded me of the Westboro Baptist Church, or as many people know them as the "I Hate Fags" group. These people honestly believe in their religion what they say is true. So it is so hard to condemn people, though personally I would like to give those people a piece of my mind, who believe that they are helping society. Their membership is pure brainwash and they are passionate about what they believe in.


Great reading this week and definitely food for thought. Now to go back and answer the blog question originally asked after I wanted to share my thoughts on the reading and movie, a victimizer is actually the victim. A victim usually does not retaliate. A victimizer does. I look at it differently. In order for a person to be able to have the capacity to inflict pain on another, they have to feel pain. It is the wrong way to react, but when people are traumatized their pain comes out in different ways. In this reading and movie, both characters became the victimizer. For example, when Max killed his boyfriend, he took his pain and shame out on him. He was only for himself in his helpless situation. When people develop a learned helplessness, they either become strong or weak, in this case they became weak. When people talk themselves into believing what they are doing is right, then there is no stopping them.

Tregre: Week 1 Blog, The Psychology Behind Genocide

Night, The Conspiracy, Soviet Story, and the nobel prize speeches all shared a common thread at the core. The pure shock and devastation of how such inhumane treatment and mass genocides were able to be conducted without interference. The horror and terror resonates in each material. There are many aspects I would like to address. Due to me being a psychology major, I felt like the entire assignment content this week was purely psychological along with the physical aspect of death.

The truth is, the Holocaust did happen. Along with this, other mass genocides also happened. Many wonder and study to this day how such an atrocity was able to occur. One can only speculate as to why nothing was done. It took awhile for genocides to be talked about. No one wanted to own up to it, admit that it was allowed to happen, and some just did not want to accept that it happened. People do not want to speak about bad things. It makes them uncomfortable and even embarrassed. I know that I am over 50% german and it is still hard knowing that my heritage was responsible for mass killings. Everyone is born with a conscience, so it makes it harder to own up to something so terrible. Which may lead to how Neo-Nazis came to be and how some people even go as far as denying the holocaust.

In Night, Wiesel wrote about his pain and detachment with these horrors. At times, he was the one helping others to keep going when they just gave up. The worst people in the concentration camps he said, were the ones sitting and staring into space. They were already dead and did not know it. This was a learned helplessness. They gave up and succumbed to what was happening. Their fight was gone. I, personally, would not know what to do in this type of situation. For example, the Jews in the camps knew that if they showed signs of weakness or caving, they would be executed. However, some still just gave up and accepted the fact that they would be killed regardless. It is a way of coping.

The others who did have the will and were lucky enough to survive were faced with even more after they were liberated. People did not want to talk to the survivors or about what happened. This goes back to blaming the victim. When terrible things happen, it is easier to maintain faith in a just world by believing that it was the victim's fault that this terrible thing happened. People are not able to deal with traumatic events and can't, so this is a way of coping too. It does not benefit the survivor, instead it isolates them.

Wiesel stated that this is by far the most damaging situation. When it is not talked about and nothing is done when devastating events occur. He quoted, "And then I explained to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe."
In this case it is the diffusion of responsibility. I am not sure if it is a familiar term, but it can be best explained that the more people who are present, the less likely one will take charge and assume responsibility. For example, if someone breaks their leg at a mall as opposed to a parking lot with one person in it, the person who broke their leg in the parking lot will most likely have the ambulance called the fastest. People diffuse the responsibility onto another. That is what made Wiesel so appalled. No one stepped in to stop this atrocity. They threw the responsibility onto others believing that someone else would help.

Many believe that the Nazi soldiers and civilians were all horrible people too. I am in no way saying that what happened was acceptable, it was 100% wrong, however, they all just followed authorities commands. Studies were done and it had nothing to do with thinking that what they were doing was right. Their leaders told them what to do so they followed suit. Even the leaders had to agree because if they did not follow orders they would be sent to a concentration camp as well, which was evident in The Conspiracy.

What was most powerful to me was Wiesel's discussion on indifference in his speech. He said that the most damaging was when people were indifferent. It was not fueled with hate, anger, or love. It was fueled by not caring. This was the worse. He said that, ""The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference." This is very true. The lack of empathy through all of this was astonishing. He said that "we must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." It is absurd how in the movie, The Conspiracy, they figured the easiest ways to stop the Jews would not be to sterilize them, but to just go ahead and kill them like they were nothing more than mosquitos.

Through these movies and readings, the horrible genocide did happen, along with other genocides that are rarely talked about. Whether it was starvation, execution, or another method, these people experienced night. However, the people of now and the future have a choice, to stand there indifferent, or to stand up and do what is right. That way, nothing like that terror can ever happen on this Earth again.


The famed picture of the survivor, Elie.

Tregre, Introduction

Hey Guys! My name is Sara Kay Tregre and I am a Psychology senior, and also minoring in English Literature and Women's Studies. I will go on to Grad School when I graduate in May, hopefully at my first pick school. I do not know many of you in this class so I will tell you, if you go to say hello to me on campus, it is not that I do not know you, but I do have an identical twin, so it is probably her! Now, with that cleared up, more about me I guess.I love to read and it is one of my favorite hobbies. I was also born and raised in NOLA so I am a completely die hard SAINTS fan! WHO DAT (hence the picture)! I am outgoing and love to workout. This class appealed to me because blogging can be a lot of fun and one of my favorite genres to read about is the Holocaust. Some of the movies and books on the syllabus I have not read or watched yet, so it will be interesting and I am like a sponge, I love soaking up new things. I cannot wait to get started and look forward to meeting some of you guys!