I feel that there is validity in the claim that the framework of a museum is structured around it’s “grammer”. The way things and objects are presented can warp the emotions of the viewer. As a result, the museum curators hold a great responsibility to ensure that the subject has not become mutilated and editorialized for the sake of ticket sales or public appeal. Curators must walk a fine line between making the museum interesting and able to draw crowds, while making sure to not cross the line of taking advantage of what all too often is a sensitive part of history. For instance, the fact that Yad Vashem and the United States Holocaust Museum are renowned by both Holocaust scholars, survivors, and members of the general public show that they have not strayed too far from this fine line. This idea of “light-editorializing” also relates to Kuper’s idea of ensuring that the public memory (in terms of Holocaust memorials) is at the very least acknowledged. Kuper’s views on public memory are that f memorials should be about not only remembering the event and people, but also the reality of the time and what did or not happen to stop the atrocities now memorialized.
One example of a public holocaust memorial that I have found is the New England Holocaust memorial. Located near Faneuil Hall in Boston, this monument consists of six glass pillars (six; one for each of the major death camps, as well as one year for each year of the holocaust, and the number in millions of Jews who were killed). In regards to public memory (considering the United States did little to stop the atrocities of the Holocaust), the monument uses poems in a subtle fashion. For instance, the poem First they Came is inscribed on a stone next to the monument. While there is no written explanation of the poems significance here, the context is clear. There are other, more saddening poems at the monument, but none come as close to acknowledging what Kuper calls “public memory” as First They Came.