Bruno Bettelheim’s argument revolves around how the prisoners themselves changed. He claims …show more content…
She points out how women are portrayed as “unproblematic victims,” like children are. Instead, Waxman explains, women were also negatively effected by the camps and they too became violent, like Clara, a once-timid girl who became a Kapo. She points out how men and women’s experiences were different in the 1920s and 1930s due to gender roles and because women had a physical advantage over men: women couldn’t be circumcised. Waxman then transitions into discussing rape and sexual assault, something that was mostly rare within the camps. She concludes her article, though, by focusing on the bigger picture: “survivors who write testimony can feel compelled to make their experience compatible with pre-existing narratives of survival.” Waxman wants to emphasize that scholars shouldn’t make assumptions about women and their experiences during the Holocaust. In the end, women died like men …show more content…
His main perspective centers around 2,000 years of Jewish history, where he claims the Jewish people “lacked the will to resist” because resisting wasn’t part of their history—they needed to refrain from resisting in order to survive. He attempts to prove that Jewish people aimed to “transfer the struggle from a physical to an intellectual and moral plane.” He breaks down some ways the Jewish people resisted, such as “written and oral appeals,” anticipating German wishes, and widespread salvation through labor. He ended his argument by emphasizing how the Jewish people were “helpless,” painting the picture that their 2,000-year-old religion was the reason to