2016
DOI: 10.18290/rh.2016.64.1-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Bystander czy (pasywny) świadek? Kilka uwag nad konsekwencjami wyboru terminologii w badaniach nad Zagładą lub Holocaustem

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some scholars argue that by remaining passive, bystanders could be considered facilitators of the Nazi perpetrators (Gross, 2014). Karwowska (2016) proposes a change to the use of the word bystander as describing onlookers to the Holocaust to a somewhat more appropriate notion, close to the role of witness ‐ a person involved in the genocide itself. At the same time, the concept of the witness is also increasingly criticized as being inadequate and not fairly describing the actual position of Poles and other Eastern Europeans towards The Shoah.…”
Section: On the Moral Ambiguity Of Bystander Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some scholars argue that by remaining passive, bystanders could be considered facilitators of the Nazi perpetrators (Gross, 2014). Karwowska (2016) proposes a change to the use of the word bystander as describing onlookers to the Holocaust to a somewhat more appropriate notion, close to the role of witness ‐ a person involved in the genocide itself. At the same time, the concept of the witness is also increasingly criticized as being inadequate and not fairly describing the actual position of Poles and other Eastern Europeans towards The Shoah.…”
Section: On the Moral Ambiguity Of Bystander Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%