How to Understand And Confront Holocaust Denial

[BrandonD]

As possibly a more impartial observer, I'm wondering if the problems here are not the arguments, but the silences. As there are only a few hours now to 'leave somehting in 2013', it might be a good idea to identify what that something is.

It seems to me that the only way forward is through discussion, I'm sure that anyone familiar with forums knows that an apparent hiatus is often just the act of putting the thing on ice (and ice is bound to eventually melt in a human habitable environment)

My usual default way forward is to ask questions, so here's a couple:

1) I haven't been paying close attention to AD's output over the last half a decade, but I suspect that his 'holocaust denial' (ie pertaining to other genocides) is basically a sin of omission. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

2) It was mentioned above about people 'not being listened to', and here we have a plus in that SLAD is quite eloquent in identifying his/her beef ie that other genocides are not being attended to. I can only see one logical solution, and that is to identify and discuss them individually. It seems to me that generalisation may be the problem here.
Has this been done, and if so why has it faltered? This is what I mean by attending to something.

Well culturally speaking, at least here in America the silence regarding the American holocaust is (not surprisingly) deafening, and in my experience marginalization/hatred against blacks and hispanics in this country is significantly more widespread than against Jewish people, so I'd guess that some people might feel that our social injustices are being attended to in a lopsided manner.

Regarding "sins of omission", I personally think it is shocking that not even a single major motion picture has honestly addressed the native american holocaust which took place in this country. I know from personal experience that it is still a very common belief that Europeans came to this continent in a relatively cooperative manner - sure there were a few bad apples, but for the most part it was our European diseases that accidentally killed off the entire indigenous population.

I find it hard to see that type of thinking as anything other than "holocaust denial" meant to paint murderers in a more positive light, and yet this particular holocaust denial certainly doesn't appear to raise the same degree of public outrage and vitriol.

Lastly, in addition to these things it seems many people suspect there is a political motivation behind this lopsided attention to social injustice, considering this country's political affiliations.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong, these are just my attempt at honest observations. If anything being said here is not welcome in this forum for whatever reason then I will gladly drop the subject.

[jakell]

Holocaust denial...from the makers of Gravity denial and Evolution denial.

As I said in a previous post, there is more to this than the mere naysaying of historical events. It starts off like this and then starts to take on the appearence of a dogmatic belief that is impervious to reason and evidence.

This is my interest here. Holocaust Denial is but one tenet of the civil religion of white nationalism** (and the cult of white supremacism), there is a bigger picture.


** Not all White Nationalists are deniers, some just dip their beaks in it.

[jakell]

As possibly a more impartial observer, I'm wondering if the problems here are not the arguments, but the silences. As there are only a few hours now to 'leave somehting in 2013', it might be a good idea to identify what that something is.

It seems to me that the only way forward is through discussion, I'm sure that anyone familiar with forums knows that an apparent hiatus is often just the act of putting the thing on ice (and ice is bound to eventually melt in a human habitable environment)

My usual default way forward is to ask questions, so here's a couple:

1) I haven't been paying close attention to AD's output over the last half a decade, but I suspect that his 'holocaust denial' (ie pertaining to other genocides) is basically a sin of omission. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

2) It was mentioned above about people 'not being listened to', and here we have a plus in that SLAD is quite eloquent in identifying his/her beef ie that other genocides are not being attended to. I can only see one logical solution, and that is to identify and discuss them individually. It seems to me that generalisation may be the problem here.
Has this been done, and if so why has it faltered? This is what I mean by attending to something.

Well culturally speaking, at least here in America the silence regarding the American holocaust is (not surprisingly) deafening, and in my experience marginalization/hatred against blacks and hispanics in this country is significantly more widespread than against Jewish people, so I'd guess that some people might feel that our social injustices are being attended to in a lopsided manner.

Regarding "sins of omission", I personally think it is shocking that not even a single major motion picture has honestly addressed the native american holocaust which took place in this country. I know from personal experience that it is still a very common belief that Europeans came to this continent in a relatively cooperative manner - sure there were a few bad apples, but for the most part it was our European diseases that accidentally killed off the entire indigenous population.

I find it hard to see that type of thinking as anything other than "holocaust denial" meant to paint murderers in a more positive light, and yet this particular holocaust denial certainly doesn't appear to raise the same degree of public outrage and vitriol.

Lastly, in addition to these things it seems many people suspect there is a political motivation behind this lopsided attention to social injustice, considering this country's political affiliations.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong, these are just my attempt at honest observations. If anything being said here is not welcome in this forum for whatever reason then I will gladly drop the subject.

You seem to be saying that it is a 'sin of omission' then. Is this correct.?
Surely one approach is to try and personally address that omission and only secondarily bemoan others lack of acknowledgement.

One little point.... Don't you think the term 'American holocaust' is rather vague, and that a term such as Native American Genocide at least does the job of identifying the event(s) in question (I am forced to assume that this is what you are referring to).
Even 'Jewish Holocaust' begs the question "which one?". Nazi Genocide would do the trick.

[slimmouse]

Oh and one final point.

What really repulstes me most about the Nazi Holocaust, is that not only were most of our parents elected leaders aware that this was happening, along with the fact that many of these fuckers were making money out of it, but at the same time they were encoruraging our forefathers to go and fight the monster that was HIitler.

We never found out until much later that it these very same people, who were sending people to their deaths in WW2, were essentially the same people who fundamentally created it..

full time death tally?

Humanity 50 million. Rich powerful people 0

Knowing what I later learned about these people, and how war is their stock in trade, and how generally sick these people are ( oh, yes, theyre still in charge - see the Bush family for example), I often wonder if they didnt consider the Holocaust some kind of fucking genocidal bonus.

So what Im telling you, is that these kind of people are still very much in charge.

In the meantime of course theyve got us all falling out about the definition of whose holocaust is king?

You gotta hand it to em dont ya.

[jakell]

Oh and one final point.

What really repulstes me most about the Nazi Holocaust, is that not only were most of our parents elected leaders aware that this was happening, along with the fact that many of these fuckers were making money out of it, but at the same time they were encoruraging our forefathers to go and fight the monster that was HIitler.

We never found out until much later that it these very same people, who were sending people to their deaths in WW2, were essentially the same people who fundamentally created it..

full time death tally?

Humanity 50 million. Rich powerful people 0

Knowing what I later learned about these people, and how war is their stock in trade, and how generally sick these people are ( oh, yes, theyre still in charge - see the Bush family for example), I often wonder if they didnt consider the Holocaust some kind of fucking genocidal bonus.

So what Im telling you, is that these kind of people are still very much in charge.

In the meantime of course theyve got us all falling out about the definition of whose holocaust is king?

You gotta hand it to em dont ya.

Ths tally however is based upon the rather questionable split of entire human race in 'Rich Powerful people' and 'Humanity'. whilst satisfyingly simplistic, such binaries also create enormous distortions.

I do think there is a bit of a strawman up there though (whilst slipping in the us/them binary through the side door). There is not necessarily a falling out about which holocaust is 'king', but about terminology.

I suggest that the term 'Nazi genocide' is descriptive enough to do the job properly, and this could equally apply to other genocides too, what do people think? (I mean about terminology here, and not bemoaning what the rest of the world uses).

[slimmouse]

It sounds to me like your denying the facts.

Namely, the same rich people who knew full well about the holocaust in real time, have family and friends and heirs still in charge today

Now thats either a reasonable claim or it isnt Jackell.

Ever read IBM and the holocaust?

How about Hitler and the rise of Wall street?

You see, to me, this lies at the very essence of how to understand and confront holocaust denialism.

[jakell]

It sounds to me like your denying the facts.

Namely, the same rich people who knew full well about the holocaust in real time, have family and friends and heirs still in charge today

Now thats either a reasonable claim or it isnt Jackell.

Ever read IBM and the holocaust?

How about Hitler and the rise of Wall street?

I haven't addressed any of those things you mention here, and don't intend to. I have been addressing the Nazi Genocide itself (what do you think of this term BTW, do you think it works?).

This is possibly a sin of omission, but I can live with that. I commit this sin on a daily basis and to an infinite degree.

[slimmouse]

It sounds to me like your denying the facts.

Namely, the same rich people who knew full well about the holocaust in real time, have family and friends and heirs still in charge today

Now thats either a reasonable claim or it isnt Jackell.

Ever read IBM and the holocaust?

How about Hitler and the rise of Wall street?

I haven't addressed any of those things you mention here, and don't intend to. I have been addressing the Nazi Genocide itself (what do you think of this term BTW, do you think it works?).


This is possibly a sin of omission, but I can live with that. I commit this sin on a daily basis and to an infinite degree.

Hey sins of ommision are not neccesarily a big deal, in small doses.

"Nazi Genocide"?

Fine by me. As far as Im concerned it's yet another well documented genocide perpetrated by rich and powerful people on the rest of us.

[seemslikeadream]

"Nazi Genocide"?

I did not know the Nazi's were victims of genocide? Is that why the U.S. government brought so many here ...to save the Nazi Race?

[jakell]

"Nazi Genocide"?

I did not know the Nazi's were victims of genocide? Is that why the U.S. government brought so many here ...to save the Nazi Race?

It's a possible term I have thrown up to identify the one perpetrated by the Nazis during WWII. Could you suggest an alternative? The term 'The Holocaust' is obviously problematic to some on here, and as I said recently, the root problem seems to be terminology.

The thread title could be altered to "How to understand and confront NG** Denial" for the purposes of RI discussion, and I believe the event would be identified adequately. It's possible that some prefer the ambiguity, but it's not those thinking of.

** I'm a serial abbreviator, sorry about that.

[jakell]

It sounds to me like your denying the facts.

Namely, the same rich people who knew full well about the holocaust in real time, have family and friends and heirs still in charge today

Now thats either a reasonable claim or it isnt Jackell.

Ever read IBM and the holocaust?

How about Hitler and the rise of Wall street?

I haven't addressed any of those things you mention here, and don't intend to. I have been addressing the Nazi Genocide itself (what do you think of this term BTW, do you think it works?).


This is possibly a sin of omission, but I can live with that. I commit this sin on a daily basis and to an infinite degree.

Hey sins of ommision are not neccesarily a big deal, in small doses.

"Nazi Genocide"?

Fine by me. As far as Im concerned it's yet another well documented genocide perpetrated by rich and powerful people on the rest of us.

The trouble is they don't come in small doses they come in supersized portions as standard, this is why I used the term 'infinite degree'.

If I attempt to focus on one subject for the purposes of clarity and rigour, then I am committing approximately (infinity - 1) sins of ommision.

Let him who is without sin etc.....

[slimmouse]

If I attempt to focus on one subject for the purposes of clarity and rigour, then I am committing approximately (infinity - 1) sins of ommision.

According to who? Personally, I couldn't give a damn. You look at what you know and give it your best shot.

Your best shot being the operatvie term.

[jakell]

If I attempt to focus on one subject for the purposes of clarity and rigour, then I am committing approximately (infinity - 1) sins of ommision.

According to who? Personally, I couldn't give a damn. You look at what you know and give it your best shot.

Your best shot being the operatvie term.

I'm using the word 'sin' loosely, it's really just a (mathematical) fact of life.

Given that there are practically an infinite number of potential subjects that one could be examining, just looking at one leaves (infinity-1) that you could be said to be ignoring (or denying).

I'm really taking a potshot at the rhetorical trick used in a number of discussions of introducing a 'new' subject based on the claim that it's absence up to that point is significant.
With dogged repetition this can be quite effective, especially if other posters fall for it.

[tapitsbo]

would you say that the allied/elite funding of the nazi's is unrelated to the nazi genocide though? it's hardly a completely different topic. The dishonest denial that the nazi genocide actually happened definitely distracts from the problematic suppressed parts of history relating to how the nazis didn't exactly exist in a vacuum. Which means that the collusion of elites in the crimes of WWII isn't a "new" subject, it's fundamental to the topic. The fact that we maybe can't make a neat binary distinction between those who were in on it and those who weren't only means there's all the more to discuss as far as the context of these events.

[jakell]

would you say that the allied/elite funding of the nazi's is unrelated to the nazi genocide though? it's hardly a completely different topic. The dishonest denial that the nazi genocide actually happened definitely distracts from the problematic suppressed parts of history relating to how the nazis didn't exactly exist in a vacuum. Which means that the collusion of elites in the crimes of WWII isn't a "new" subject, it's fundamental to the topic. The fact that we maybe can't make a neat binary distinction between those who were in on it and those who weren't only means there's all the more to discuss as far as the context of these events.

The trouble is that everything is related, and can often be shown to be with a bit of imagination and rhetoric. This fact doesn't help with discussion though and often works against it, especially if there are folks around who know how to use this fogging mechanism.

There's no easy formula around this, and I try to look at the momentum of a discussion rather than freezing it and trying to work out all the potential related subjects, and I value momentum over anything else, to me it represent the cerebral lifeforce.

Relating back to this one. I regard the quibbling over terminology (holocausts and genocides etc**) to be a major sticking point that could do with sorting out, and it seems to be the 'H' word that is the thing that could be jettisoned.
A practical way of looking at this is that we need to establish facts first (via precise terminology), before we move on to wider implications, and I certainly don't deny the wider implications.


** an interesting side issue is that the 'other genocides' approach is a favourite tack of NG deniers, while not strictly denial, it is used to muddy the waters prior to a wider questioning of the events.