Summary Of Magda Fertacz's 'Trash Story'

1961 Words4 Pages

During World War II, Poland as a nation experienced many senseless acts of horror and the loss of innocent lives due to the suspension of societal rules. World War II has become emblematic of the popular notion that Poland was a victim during this time period due to a major of Poland’s memories consisting of pain, injuries, and death. In Trash Story, the author, Magda Fertacz, critiques the victimhood of Poland through the dialect between the Mother and Ursula. This conversation is focused on the Mother’s father, who was a part of World War II, and a situation that occurred during this time period. The Mother’s father is a representation of Poland’s victimhood during World War II since he was a part of the war and has suffered. Whereas, Ursula …show more content…

Thus, she is selecting certain memories to preserve the victimhood image. This action can be justified in the sense that the Mother did not witness this bread event, but she did witness the consequences that World War II had on her father. However, the fact that the Mother rejects the new information without questioning it authenticity reveals that she has no desire to change her recognition of her father. Due to the event, the Institute for the Verification of Memory classifies the Mother’s father as a “false” hero instead of a “true” hero. This passage creates confusion for the readers, due to the fact that Ursula gave an example of how a supposed victim acted as an offender since he harmed others instead of helping. This gets the readers to ask themselves if this act alone makes the Mother’s father unworthy of the identity of a victim. Also the idea that a person can be falsely identified as a hero or a victim through the deliberate collection of facts and memories is introduced. This leaves the readers with a question, does the action of a person who experienced injuries, which would make them a victim, have the power to overrule the identity of a victim and make them an offender. Furthermore, the readers are not given the full story of the event presented by Ursula, making it complicated for the readers to side with the Mother or Ursula. By just stating …show more content…

The only difference in the Mother’s rejection in this conversation is that she witnessed the Son’s abuse and knew this to be true. This clearly shows that the Mother is purposely rejecting memories to allow for her perception of the Son as a victim to remain present. The Son was mentally injured by his participation in the Iraq war, making him a victim. If the Mother were to accept that the Son was abusive towards the Widow, this would allow others to accept the fact as well. The acceptance would force the reputation of the Brother to be tarnished and maybe even changed. Some might consider his abusive behavior to be more important in determining his identity than his injuries. This second conversation creates a pattern for the Mother of selecting certain memories and characteristics to allow the identity of victimhood to prevail. This establishes another question that the readers experience; is it morally correct to selective and reject certain memories or fact to preserve an image of a victim or hero, especially if they are a part of the

Open Document