Uncategorized
How the Holocaust is remembered in the land of Anne Frank
(JTA) — You’d think that in a country so closely identified with Anne Frank — perhaps the Holocaust’s best-known victim — cultivating memory of the genocide wouldn’t be a steep challenge.
That’s why a recent survey, suggesting what the authors called a “disturbing” lack of knowledge in the Netherlands about the Holocaust, set off alarm bells. “Survey shows lack of Holocaust awareness in the Netherlands,” wrote the Associated Press. “In the Netherlands, a majority do not know the Holocaust affected their country,” was the JTA headline. “The Holocaust is a myth, a quarter of Dutch younger generation agree,” per the Jerusalem Post.
“Survey after survey, we continue to witness a decline in Holocaust knowledge and awareness. Equally disturbing is the trend towards Holocaust denial and distortion,” Gideon Taylor, the president of the Conference of Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, which conducted the study, said in a statement.
Like other recent studies by Claims Conference, the latest survey has been challenged by some scholars, who say the sample size is small, or the survey is too blunt a tool for examining what a country’s residents do or don’t know about their history. Even one of the experts who conducted the survey chose to focus on the positive findings: “I am encouraged by the number of respondents to this survey that believe Holocaust education is important,” Emile Schrijver, the general director of Amsterdam’s Jewish Cultural Quarter, told JTA.
One of the scholars who says the survey doesn’t capture the subtleties of Holocaust education and commemoration in the Netherlands is Jazmine Contreras, an assistant professor of history at Goucher College in Maryland. Contreras studies the historical memory of the Holocaust and Second World War in Holland. In a Twitter thread earlier this week, she agreed with those who say that “the headline that’s being plastered everywhere exaggerates the idea that young people in NL know nothing about the Holocaust.”
At the same time, she notes that while the Netherlands takes Holocaust education and commemoration seriously, it has a long way to go in reckoning with a past that includes collaboration with the Nazis, postwar antisemitism, a small but vocal far right and a sense of national victimhood that often downplays the experience of Jews during the Shoah.
“It’s such a complex issue,” Contreras told me. “There’s no one answer to how the Holocaust is remembered in the Netherlands.”
Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and I took the opportunity to speak with Contreras not only about Dutch memory, but how the Netherlands may serve as an example of how countries deal with Holocaust memory and the national stories they tell.
Our interview was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Tell me a little bit about when you saw the survey, and perhaps how it didn’t mesh with what you know about the Netherlands?
Jazmine Contreras: My major problem is that every single outlet is picking up this story and running a headline like, “Youth in the Netherlands don’t even know the Holocaust happened there. They cannot tell you how many people were killed, how many were deported.” And I think that’s really problematic because it paints a really simplistic picture of Holocaust memory and Holocaust education in that country.
There are multiple programs, in Amsterdam, in other cities, in Westerbork, the former transit camp. They have an ongoing program that brings survivors and the second generation to colleges, to middle schools and primary schools all across the country. And they also have in Amsterdam a program called Oorlog in Mijn Buurt, “War in My Neighborhood,” and basically young people become the “memory bearers” — that’s the kind of language they use — and interview people who grew up and experience the war in their neighborhood, and then speak as if they were the person who experienced it, in the first person.
You also have events around the May 4 commemoration remembering the Dutch who died in war and in peacekeeping operations, and a program called Open Jewish Houses [when owners of formerly Jewish property open their homes to strangers to talk about the Jews who used to live there]. It’s really amazing: I’ve actually been able to visit these formerly Jewish homes and hear the stories. And, of course, the Anne Frank House has its own slew of programming, and teachers talk a lot about the Holocaust and take students to synagogues in places like Groningen, where they have a brand new exhibit at the synagogue. They are taking thousands at this point. The new National Holocaust Names Memorial is in the center of Amsterdam.
I think, again, this idea that children are growing up without having exposure to Holocaust memory, or knowledge of what happened in the Netherlands, is a bit skewed. I think we get into a dangerous area if we’re painting the country with a broad brush and saying nobody knows anything about the Holocaust.
Have you anecdotal evidence or seen studies of Dutch kids about whether they’re getting the education they need?
Anecdotally, yes. I was invited to attend a children’s commemoration that they do at the Hollandsche Schouwburg theater in Amsterdam, which is the former Dutch theater that was used as a major deportation site. And it’s children who put on a commemoration themselves. Again, not every child is participating in this, but if they’re not participating in the children’s commemoration, then they’re doing the “War in My Neighborhood” program, or they’re doing Open Jewish Houses, or they’re taking field trips. That’s pretty impressive to me, and it’s pretty meaningful. They want to help participate in it in the future. They want to come back because it leaves a lasting impression for them.
Let’s back up a bit. Anne Frank dominates everyone’s thinking about Holland and the Holocaust. And I guess the story that’s told is that she was protected by her neighbors until, of course, the Nazis proved too powerful, found her and sent her away. What’s right and what’s wrong about that narrative?
Don’t forget that Anne Frank was a German Jewish refugee who came to the Netherlands. And I think that part of the story is also really interesting and left out. She’s this Dutch icon, but she was a German Jewish refugee who came to the Netherlands, and the Dutch Jewish community was single-handedly responsible for funding, at Westerbork, what was first a refugee center. I think that’s really complicated because now we also have a discourse about present-day refugees and the Holocaust.
Jazmine Contreras, an assistant professor of history at Goucher College, specializes in Dutch Holocaust memory. (Courtesy)
I’ve also never quite understood the insistence on making her an icon when the end of the story is that she’s informed on and dies in a concentration camp. The idea that the Franks were hidden here fits really well into this idea of Dutch resistance and tolerance, and her diary often gets misquoted to kind of represent her as someone who had hope despite the fact that she was being persecuted. In the 1950s, her narrative gets adopted into the U.S., and we treat it as this globalizing human rights discourse.
We don’t talk about the fact that she’s found because she’s informed upon, and we don’t talk about the fact that you had non-Jewish civilians who were informers for a multitude of reasons, including ideological collaboration and their own financial gain.
And when it was talked about most recently, it was about a discredited book that named her betrayer as a Jew.
That was a huge controversy.
I get the sense from your writing that the story the Dutch tell about World War II is very incomplete, and that they haven’t fully reckoned with their collaboration under Nazi occupation even as they emphasize their own victimhood.
On the national state level, they have officially acknowledged not only the extensive collaboration, but the failure of both the government and the Crown to speak out on behalf of Dutch Jews. [In 2020, Prime Minister Mark Rutte formally apologized for how his kingdom’s wartime government failed its Jews, a first by a sitting prime minister.] Now, the question is, what’s happening in broader Dutch society?
Unfortunately, there was an increase in voting for the Dutch far right, although they’ve never managed to get a majority or even come close to it.
Something else that’s happening is that many ask, “Why should Dutch Jews get separate consideration after the Second World War, a separate victimhood, when we were all victimized?” The Netherlands is unique because it’s occupied for the entirety of the Second World War — 1940 to 1945. There is the civil service collaborating, right, but there’s no occupation government. So it’s not like Belgium. It’s not like France, not like Denmark. And there was the Hunger Winter of 1944-45 when 20,000 civilians perished due to famine. You have real victimhood, so people ask, “Why are the Jews so special? We all suffered.”
And at the same time, scholarship keeps emerging about the particular ways non-Jewish Dutch companies and individuals cooperated with the Nazis.
The NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies in Amsterdam, which has done so much of this research, found that Jews who were deported had to pay utility bills for when they weren’t living there. You have a huge controversy around the the Dutch railway [which said it would compensate hundreds of Holocaust victims for its role in shipping Jews to death camps]. The Dutch Red Cross apologized [in 2017 for failing to act to protect Jews during World War II], following the publication of a research paper on its inaction. A couple of decades ago, the government basically auctioned off paintings, jewelry and other Jewish possessions, and in 2020 they started the effort to give back pieces of art that were in Dutch museums. Dienke Hondius wrote a book on the cold reception given to survivors upon their return. Remco Ensel and Evelien Gans also wrote a book on postwar Jewish antisemitism.
So a lot has been happening, a lot of controversies, and, thanks to all of this research, a lot happening in order to rectify the situation.
It sounds like a mixed story, of resistance and collaboration, and of rewriting the past but also coming to terms with it.
There’s a really complex history here of both wanting to present it as “everybody’s a victim” and that the resistance was huge. In fact, the data shows 5% of the people were involved in resistance and 5% were collaborators. So it’s not like this wholesale collaboration or resistance was happening. It was only in 1943, when non-Jewish men were called up for labor service in Germany, that they got really good at hiding people and by then it was too late.
Right. My colleagues at JTA often note that the Nazis killed or deported more Dutch Jews per capita than anywhere in occupied Western Europe — of about 110,000 Jews deported, only a few thousand survived.
Yes, the highest percentage of deportation in Western Europe.
A room at the Anne Frank House museum where she and her family hid for two years during the Holocaust in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. (Photo Collection Anne Frank House)
Since this week is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, let me ask what Holland gets right and wrong compared to maybe some other European countries with either similar experiences or comparable experiences.
The framing of that question is difficult because there’s so many unique points about the Holocaust and the occupation in the Netherlands. Again, it was occupied for the entirety of 1940-45. You have a civil service that was willing to sign Aryan declarations. The queen, as head of a government in exile in London, is basically saying, “Do what you need to just to survive.”
One of the big problems is there are people like Geert Wilders [a contemporary right-wing Dutch lawmaker] who practice this kind of philo-Semitism and support of Israel, but it’s really about blaming the Muslim population for antisemitism and saying none of it is homegrown. They don’t have to talk about the fact that there was widespread antisemitism in the aftermath of the Holocaust.
In the Netherlands they’re not instituting laws around what you can and can’t say about the Holocaust like in Poland [where criticizing Polish collaboration has been criminalized]. There are so many amazing educational initiatives and nonprofit organizations that are doing the work. And even these public controversies ended up being outlets for the production of Holocaust memory when survivors, but mostly now the second and third generations, use that space to talk about their own family Holocaust history.
Tell me about your personal stake in this: How did the Holocaust become a subject of study for you?
I specialize in Dutch Holocaust memory. I’m not Jewish, but my grandparents on my mother’s side are Dutch. For my first project I looked at relationships between German soldiers and Dutch women during the war during the occupation, and I eventually kind of made my way into the post war, when these children of former collaborators were still very marginalized in Dutch society. It ties into this. I do interviews with members of the Jewish community, children of resistance members and children of collaborators and how these memory politics play out.
What is the utility of events like International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the major Holocaust memorials in educating the public about the Holocaust and World War II?
International Holocaust Remembrance Day and May 4 result in the production of new memories about the Holocaust and the Second World War. I was at the 2020 International Holocaust Remembrance Day commemoration when the prime minister formally apologized. It was a really big moment, and it allowed the Jewish community, and the Roma and Sinti community, a space to remember and to share in that and to speak to it as survivors and the second and third generation.
Unlike the United States, the Netherlands is a small, insular country, so the relationship between the public and the media and academics is so close. So in the weeks before and the weeks after these memorials, academics, politicians and experts are publishing pieces about memory. That’s useful to the production of new memories and information about the Holocaust.
But what about the other days of the year? Will putting a monument in the center of Amsterdam actually change how people understand the Holocaust? That is a question that I think is harder to answer. The new monument features individual names of 102,000 Jews and Roma and Sinti and visually gives you the scope of what the Holocaust looked like in the Netherlands. But does that matter if somebody lives outside of Amsterdam and they’re never going to see this monument?
—
The post How the Holocaust is remembered in the land of Anne Frank appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Trump Administration Launches New Probes Into Discrimination at Harvard After Suing School Over Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA on Dec. 17, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
The US government has launched two new investigations into campus antisemitism and racial preferences — popularly known as “affirmative action” — at Harvard University, continuing the Trump administration’s legal barrage against the institution for allegedly not adhering to federal civil rights laws.
“Harvard University should know better. Its name will always be tied to the landmark Supreme Court case that found sweeping racial discrimination in admissions and the campus has been in the spotlight for tolerating egregious antisemitic harassment for years now,” US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement on Monday announcing the federal actions. “No one — not even Harvard — is above the law. If Harvard continues to stonewall as we try to verify its basic compliance with antidiscrimination statutes, we will vigorously hold them to account to ensure students’ rights are protected.”
This week’s newly announced inquiries will be led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
In a press release, the department said Harvard has “refused” to cooperate with OCR’s attempts to verify that it no longer confers admission based in part on racial identity, as stipulated by a 2023 US Supreme Court ruling which said that the enterprise is unconstitutional.
“OCR will investigate whether Harvard continues to use illegal race-based preferences in admissions despite the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard,” the department said in Tuesday’s statement. “OCR will also investigate alleged ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students. The Trump administration will evaluate both complaints and, if continued discrimination is found, take action to hold Harvard accountable for any illegal policies or actions.”
Writing to The Harvard Crimson, the university’s campus newspaper, Harvard said the racial preferences investigation is “the government’s latest retaliatory” move “against [the school] for its refusal to surrender our independence and constitutional rights.”
McMahon announced the probes just three days after the Trump administration filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts arguing that Harvard ignored antisemitism while extreme anti-Zionist activists subjected Jewish students to harassment and discrimination in violation of civil rights laws as well as the institution’s own purported commitment to anti-racism.
The complaint demanded the recovery of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants and other federal support Harvard received during the years in which it allegedly neglected to correct the hostile campus environment.
The lawsuit marked a shift in the Trump administration’s previous strategy of confiscating Harvard’s federal money and then defending the action in court. That policy has yielded mixed results, making a strong political statement while leaving Harvard strong enough to mobilize its GDP-sized wealth to sidestep the worst potential consequences by issuing bonds or bringing the matter before judges who have been sympathetic to their case.
As previously reported, by The Algemeiner, US federal judge Allison Burroughs ruled in September that Trump acted unconstitutionally when his administration impounded more than $2 billion in research grants from Harvard, charging that he had “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Burroughs went on to argue that the federal government violated Harvard’s free speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
The Trump administration maintains that pervasive antisemitism has been a major issue at Harvard,
“Harvard has been and remains deliberately indifferent to what its own Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias deemed the ‘exclusion of Israeli or Zionist students from social spaces and extracurricular activities,’” US Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argued in Friday’s filing. “Harvard has failed to enforce its rules or meaningfully discipline the mobs that occupy its buildings and terrorize its Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard instead rewarded students who assaulted, harassed, or intimidated their Jewish and Israeli peers.”
In a statement, Harvard contested the government’s account of the facts, saying it “deeply cares about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.” It also argued that it enacted “substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism acknowledged that the university administration’s handling of campus antisemitism fell well below its obligations under both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its own nondiscrimination policies.
Jewish members of the Harvard community have expressed concern about the climate on campus.
Last week, a new report issued by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA) revealed Jewish undergraduate enrollment at the university has plummeted to lows not seen since the eve of World War II and the Holocaust, falling to just 7 percent.
While the report denied that declining Jewish enrollment at Harvard is alone the result of racial preferences in admissions — which, in the name of “diversity,” affords preferential consideration to applicants whose academic achievement and standardized test scores fall outside the range of the typical elite students who schools like Harvard select for membership in the Ivy League — it found a similar trend occurring at Yale University.
Yale infamously adopted racial preferences under the leadership of President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite growing evidence that the practice created an environment of academic maladjustment and racial division. This led to the creation of segregated programming and amenities for African Americans, as well as a summer remedial program for minority students — PROP (Pre-Orientation Program) — that was eventually rebranded in the late 1990s when its apparent subtext proved unpalatable to a new generation of students.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Gavin Newsom Backtracks on ‘Apartheid’ Comments, Says He’s ‘Proud to Support’ Israel but Opposes Netanyahu
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks on Aug. 14, 2025. Photo: Mike Blake via Reuters Connect
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has expressed regret about recent comments characterizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as an example of “apartheid,” while reaffirming his concern for the country’s trajectory under its current leadership.
In an interview with Politico published on Tuesday, Newsom said he regretted suggesting earlier this month that it was “appropriate” to describe Israel as an “apartheid state” during an event to promote his new memoir.
Newsom was asked in his latest interview if he “regretted” using the term “apartheid” to describe Israel.
“I do in this context. I said it, and I referenced why I used it — a Tom Friedman article [in the New York Times] — in that same sentence where Tom used it in the context of the direction that Bibi is going,” Newsom said, using the nickname for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
For clarification, Newsom was then asked if Israel is currently not an apartheid state
“Correct. And that is a legitimate concern I have, that I share with Tom — that that direction, if that vision and that direction of the far right that Bibi is indulging, that if they see the full annexation of the West Bank, then that’s not something — that’s a word you may hear others use,” the governor responded.
Newsom also reiterated his support for Israel when pushed to say if he considered himself a Zionist but noted he strongly opposed Netanyahu’s leadership.
“Do I consider myself Zionist? I revere the state of Israel,” Newsom said. “I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far-right as it relates to what’s going on in the West Bank.”
Newsom’s comments came after he said during a book event in Los Angeles earlier this month that recent policies pursued by Israel’s current government have made the term “apartheid” increasingly common in international discourse. While framing his comments as reluctant, the Democratic governor argued that the trajectory of Israeli leadership left the United States with “no choice” but to reconsider aspects of its longstanding support such as providing military aid.
“I mean, Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately – sort of an apartheid state,” Newsom said. “It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice but to have that consideration.”
The comment sparked immediate backlash from pro-Israel advocates and some political leaders who characterized the label as misleading and unfair to a democratic US ally.
Israel, a key US partner in the Middle East, has long rejected comparisons to apartheid, arguing that such claims ignore the country’s democratic institutions and the equal rights afforded to its Arab citizens. Officials also contend that security measures in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-governance, are driven by real threats rather than systemic discrimination.
Critics point to growing Israeli settlements in the West Bank as an example of Israel encroaching on the territory of a potential future Palestinian state.
Much of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law.
Israel disputes this claim, however, citing historical and biblical ties to the area. It says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Defenders of Israel also note that, while about one-fifth of the country’s population is Arab and enjoys equal rights, Palestinian law forbids selling any land to Israelis.
Newsom’s comments come at a time when US policy toward Israel is becoming an increasingly central debate within the Democratic Party, particularly among figures such as Newsom seen as potential contenders in the 2028 presidential race.
The Democratic Party’s traditional position has emphasized strong support for Israel’s security and its status as a key democratic ally. However, in the two years following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza, a growing number of left-wing voices within the party have pushed for more vocal criticism of Israeli government policies and the country’s status as a US ally.
This evolution reflects broader shifts among Democratic voters, with recent polling showing younger and more progressive constituents expressing greater skepticism of pro-Israel policies, while establishment figures continue to stress the importance of the US-Israel alliance.
Uncategorized
How our Yiddish group uses the Forverts podcast to learn the language
When the Iowa City Yiddish Group began meeting at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was one of the absolute beginners. Six years later, I lead the enthusiastic group of some 12-15 retirees and produce lesson plans for each class that incorporate a variety of activities to promote listening and Yiddish speaking skills.
Each class draws from printed, auditory, and visual texts: songs, excerpts from interviews in the Wexler Oral History Project at the Yiddish Book Center, advertisements in old issues of Der Forverts, poems, folk tales, film clips, and the like. For each text, I design activities to promote comprehension, get students interacting with the text and with each other, and learn a bit of grammar, much as I did for many years when I taught Spanish to college students.
When I discovered that the Forverts had introduced a podcast intended for intermediate-level students, Yiddish with Rukhl, I knew I could use it to help the group learn.
One of the challenges of working with authentic texts — that is, texts produced by native speakers for native speakers, not for language learners — is that they are often frustratingly difficult for students. In addition, there are particular challenges with texts that students listen to rather than read or view, since listening happens in real time with no way to pause to look up a word or ask a question, nor can listeners rely on visual elements (as one could do with a film) to get clues to meaning. But Yiddish with Rukhl avoids those issues.
The format is straightforward: In each episode, editor Rukhl Schaechter reads two articles on a topic clearly at a relatively slow pace. Because the articles were previously published in the Forverts, I could use the audio recording and printed texts in tandem, which our group particularly appreciates.
A frequent topic of conversation among language teachers is how to come up with class activities that can bridge the gap between students’ comprehension levels and texts that the students would struggle to understand on their own. This is especially true for authentic texts, but also applies to any text students find somewhat difficult. With the first podcast episode, devoted to coffee, I created activities for the first half of the first article, Di kave-hoypshtot fun der velt (“The Coffee Capital of the World”) by Leyzer Burko.
This was my lesson plan:
- I started with a pre-listening activity, whose purpose was to introduce students to the themes of the audio text so that some of the information they would then hear would already be familiar to them. In this case, I wrote some open-ended questions to get the students talking (oyf yidish) about their feelings about coffee as children, their current coffee-drinking routines, and what the term kave-kultur means to them. The Iowa City Yiddish group is made up of smart people, and they had a lot to say about coffee culture in Europe, both past and present, that they then heard in the podcast.
- Then, I played five minutes of the podcast, which corresponded to the first half of the article. Depending on the platform one chooses (Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.), you can modify the playback speed, which can be helpful if a group finds the pace too fast. Although the students had the printed text in front of them, I asked them to close their eyes and focus just on comprehension. A quick self-assessment revealed that most understood 70-80%, which I consider ideal for learning.
- I played the recording again, and this time asked the students to follow along in their printed texts and circle words they did not know.
- We then read the text aloud, stopping at words that needed explanation. Each time I asked someone who already knew the word to derklern oyf yidish; that is, explain the meaning of the word without recourse to English. Paraphrasing, or using language you know to explain something you do not have the words for yet, is a skill that language learners at all levels need, and it is also a way for me to conduct as much of the class as possible in Yiddish.
- Finally, I used the printed text to teach grammar. Our group has never warmed to learning grammatical patterns in isolation, so I have turned instead to teaching such topics as inflection of nouns and pronouns, word order, and separable-prefix verbs by showing students how they work in texts to make meaning. This activity is the only one we did in Yiddish; the rest of the class was conducted almost entirely in Yiddish.
When we worked on Zikhrones fun an unterban-pasazhir (“Memories of a Subway Passenger”) by Rukhl Schaechter, I opted to focus exclusively on listening comprehension. Rather than activities based on the printed text (lesson plan steps 3, 4 and 5), I designed a series of collaborative listening activities. The narrative structure of the article was a good match for collaborative listening, because events in chronological sequence are often easier to understand and remember.
After a couple of pre-listening activities to orient students to the content of what they were about to hear, they focused on understanding as much as they could while listening to the audio of the article.
I then divided them into breakout rooms, where their task was to collaboratively create a list in simple Yiddish of the pieces of information they had understood in the six-minute article. We then got back together and I played the audio again with the goal that they would confirm their comprehension, notice and understand what their group mates had contributed, and pick up additional new pieces of information. They then returned to their breakout groups to expand on what they had written earlier. The final step was to return to the whole group once again and combine the groups’ lists to recreate as full a picture as possible of the content of the article.
The members of the Iowa City Yiddish group have expressed enthusiasm for working with the podcasts, and I plan to design lessons for more of them over the coming months. The relatable topics, appropriate difficulty level, and clear audio quality make them ideal for a community Yiddish group.
The post How our Yiddish group uses the Forverts podcast to learn the language appeared first on The Forward.