Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Great Debates (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Holocaust Denial? (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=885691)

Jackmannii 11-22-2019 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nelliebly (Post 21987370)
There are Holocaust deniers, and there are Holocaust minimizers

Well, it's difficult to see much difference between totally denying the Holocaust and saying that hardly anything bad happened. :dubious:

Irving is an anti-Semitic bigot who has called Jews his "traditional enemy" and penned the following lovely little poem for his young daughter:

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.


Quote:

Then there's Fred Leuchter
...who has also combined Holocaust denial with virulent anti-Semitism. Poor Fred hasn't forgiven "the Jews and Jewish organizations (who) destroyed my business as a manufacturer of execution equipment." :(

DrDeth 11-22-2019 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21988991)
so...one anonymous poster on some unnamed message board some time ago.
With that much solid evidence I apologize for ever doubting you.
:dubious:

No, you didnt read it right.:rolleyes:

DrDeth 11-23-2019 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorny locust (Post 21988935)
DrDeth, I wouldn't say that twice in a lifetime, the second time when you brought up the first incident, counts as "tossed around a lot"; at least, unless you're not just counting the cases you describe but also those in which it's being "tossed" accurately.

And I also asked for the context [ETA: and phrasing] in which you brought it up the first time. You don't have to answer, of course; but I can't really form an opinion without it.

I dont really want your opinion. I stated my opinion. it's happened a few times, and i dont know why you keep bringing it up.

Either accept or dont.

Tim@T-Bonham.net 11-23-2019 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance Turbo (Post 21988874)
This is a bullshit smear of Congresswoman Omar. She put out a statement explaining her 'present' vote on the Armenian genocide resolution. It's extraordinarily misleading to suggest that the reason for her vote was denial that those events occurred.

Yes, Ilhan sent me her statement. But I don't buy it. It's basically that time-worn distraction hand-wave that 'other people have done worse things in the world'. Rather like saying I can't complain about alleged police brutality in Minneapolis because Chinese police are so much worse. Or like a Trumper relative whose response to my rant about Trump's latest escapade is "But what about Hillary's emails?"

Genocide is wrong, and should be condemned, and whatever excuse you give for not doing so is just not good enough.

Bryan Ekers 11-23-2019 01:33 AM

I tend to get amused when the denial gets mixed up with trying to appear threatening, i.e. "Don't mess with us, Jews, or we'll finish the job.... that.... errrr... never really happened!"

MortSahlFan 11-23-2019 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21989280)
Well, it's difficult to see much difference between totally denying the Holocaust and saying that hardly anything bad happened. :dubious:

Irving is an anti-Semitic bigot who has called Jews his "traditional enemy" and penned the following lovely little poem for his young daughter:

:(

Despite that, Irving is still an expert on WWII (especially since he speaks German). He had a few more fans after Christopher Hitchens befriended, defended, and said he was the ultimate "authority". He is an asshole, but it is what it is. I think its why so many inside Hitler's circle let him interview him - they "trusted" him.

thorny locust 11-23-2019 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21989333)
I dont really want your opinion. I stated my opinion. it's happened a few times, and i dont know why you keep bringing it up.

Either accept or dont.

You're the one who brought it up, by making a public claim that there are "a lot" of accusations of Holocaust denial made against those who don't deny the Holocaust, for only stating that not everyone targeted was Jewish.

I asked for evidence. Aren't we on the Dope?

You haven't provided any -- two nearly context-less personal experiences, in both of which it's entirely unclear what people were actually responding to, aren't evidence; even if the two have now turned into "a few". So, if it's "accept or don't" that such statements are "tossed around a lot", outside possibly your own personal idiosyncratic experience, I don't.

Jackmannii 11-23-2019 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21989607)
Despite that, Irving is still an expert on WWII (especially since he speaks German). He had a few more fans after Christopher Hitchens befriended, defended, and said he was the ultimate "authority". He is an asshole, but it is what it is. I think its why so many inside Hitler's circle let him interview him - they "trusted" him.

There's widespread agreement that Irving has forfeited any claim to be a legitimate historian (much less an "expert"). The Lipstadt case provided further evidence not only of Irving's Holocaust denial, but of his fawning admiration of Hitler.

"As Professor Evans put it:

'I was not prepared for the sheer depths of duplicity which I encountered in Irving 's treatment of the historical sources, nor for the way in which this dishonesty permeated his entire written and spoken output. [...] His numerous mistakes and egregious errors are not, therefore, due to mere ignorance or sloppiness; on the contrary, it is obvious that they are calculated and deliberate. That is precisely why they are so shocking.'

Mr Justice Gray was scathing in his conclusion:

'Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a "spin" on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments by Irving is a further pointer towards the conclusion that he has deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with his political beliefs...'

David Irving's failure as a legitimate historian is not that he departed with a preconceived notion, or that he tried to reinterpret the past in the light of that notion. The "intentionalist" versus "functionalist" debate described above is an example of historians doing precisely that. So is the controversy about the Munich agreement in 1938. And there is a long list of other similar efforts. As stated previously, there is nothing wrong with this as long as the sources are used honestly, properly weighed and no significant sources altered, omitted or misrepresented.

That is not the case with Mr Irving as the court found in unequivocal terms. Where it served his purposes, he misrepresented evidence, mistranslated words and documents, omitted key evidence that disputed his interpretations, included evidence uncritically from biased sources without properly assessing it against other evidence where it supported his interpretations. Hence, his failure is not rooted in his viewpoint, or his amassing of the facts, but rather in the method he employed to buttress his viewpoint.

The historian must above all present the truth. What Irving was found to have done violates that most fundamental principle, and thereby, he forfeited his claim as a legitimate historian. "


http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-h.../irving-wrong/

Lance Turbo 11-23-2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net (Post 21989362)
Yes, Ilhan sent me her statement. But I don't buy it. It's basically that time-worn distraction hand-wave that 'other people have done worse things in the world'. Rather like saying I can't complain about alleged police brutality in Minneapolis because Chinese police are so much worse. Or like a Trumper relative whose response to my rant about Trump's latest escapade is "But what about Hillary's emails?"

Genocide is wrong, and should be condemned, and whatever excuse you give for not doing so is just not good enough.

But she's not a denier. You claimed she's a denier when she is not.

She voted 'present' for reasons you disagree with. She didn't deny anything.

nelliebly 11-23-2019 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 21989280)
Well, it's difficult to see much difference between totally denying the Holocaust and saying that hardly anything bad happened. :dubious:(

If the difference were insignificant, the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Snopes, The New Yorker, The Jewish Chronicle, et al, wouldn't make the distinction. (While the New Yorker article used the term minimize, most other sites say distort.) Snopes:

Quote:

“Holocaust denial” describes attempts to negate the established facts of the Nazi genocide of European Jewry. Common denial assertions are: that the murder of six million Jews during World War II never occurred; that the Nazis had no official policy or intention to exterminate the Jews; and that the poison gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp never existed.

A newer trend is the distortion of the facts of the Holocaust. Common distortions include, for example, assertions that: the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration; deaths in the concentration camps were the results of disease or starvation but not policy; and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery.
So, yes, they're both bad groups with the similar goals, but as the Jewish Chronicle says,
Quote:

We've heard of "Holocaust denial, but Holocaust distortion is more common--and more dangerous.
Hope this helps.

Urbanredneck 11-23-2019 11:22 PM

If someone writes a book claiming they are a Holocaust survivor, how would we know they are telling the truth?

Bryan Ekers 11-23-2019 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21990878)
If someone writes a book claiming they are a Holocaust survivor, how would we know they are telling the truth?

I don't know, but if the text relies heavily on the use of leet, I'd have my suspicions.

Northern Piper 11-24-2019 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbanredneck (Post 21990878)
If someone writes a book claiming they are a Holocaust survivor, how would we know they are telling the truth?

Same way as any other history book. Review it closely for internal consistency. Cross-check with known historical facts. Review the sources or citations. Check any documentary sources it cites. Does it hang together overall as a consistent account.

Ann Hedonia 11-24-2019 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21985472)
I just want to point out that a non-trivial number of white supremacists/neo-Nazis/Holocaust deniers do not, in fact, consider Jews to be "white people" even if a large number of them have pale skin. I'm not sure how they arrive at that notion.

Christian Identity movement. The theory holds that white people are the true Israelites, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

Jewish people are the cursed descendants of Cain, the serpent seed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_seed

Everyone’s talked about the racist and anti-Semitic aspect of these “hard right” nutbag groups. The third leg of that stool is anti-Federalism. I think it is important to remember these groups did not spring up recently. They have evolved over generations and the underlying philosophies aren’t just random crazy. It’s a particular kind of non-random highly organized crazy

Derleth 11-24-2019 12:09 PM

Then there are the Khazars:
Quote:

Originally Posted by RationalWiki
The Khazar myth holds that Ashkenazi Jews (i.e., those descended from an Eastern European bloodline) are not ethnically Jewish at all, but descend from the inhabitants of the medieval Turkic Khazar Empire. Myth-makers often harness this idea in attempts to discredit Zionism and/or to explain why the British/Aryans/Blacks/Arabs/insert race here, and not the Jews, are the REAL "chosen people" of the Bible.

[snip]

The Thirteenth Tribe is a book written in 1976 by Arthur Koestler, claiming that Ashkenazi Jews were descended from Khazar converts to Judaism.[2] The author apparently had the best of intentions, and thought that by establishing Khazar descendance rather than from the Jews of Jesus' time and area, the "Christ-Killer" accusations would end and Antisemitism would disappear.[3]

It is, of course, still propagated, and believed, by a range of people who want to hate the Jews, claim "lost tribe" status for themselves, or both; the usual argument runs "Those people who claim they're Jews aren't really Jews, they're Khazars, and my group is the real lost tribe, which therefore proves something" as if being a member of a so-called "lost tribe" proved anything at all, least of all the existence of those tribes what got themselves lost to begin with.

RioRico 11-24-2019 01:47 PM

Fredirich Nietzsche called Antisemitism not a mental disorder but a "brain disease" from which his sister suffered - he had first-hand experience. I can't disagree. We know that religious frenzy stems from cerebral malfunctions. Ethnic hatred could see similar causation.

Novelty Bobble 11-25-2019 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21989607)
Despite that, Irving is still an expert on WWII (especially since he speaks German). He had a few more fans after Christopher Hitchens befriended, defended, and said he was the ultimate "authority"

I'm not aware of Hitchens ever describing him as the "ultimate authority" on anything and certainly not the holocaust. I doubt Hitchens would even recognise the concept of any human as an "ultimate authority". Irving was (and is still in many cases) considered a serious historical source in some areas, a fucking nutjob in others.
Hitchens did not agree with Irving on his holocaust views but he did defend his right to publish and spoke out against his conviction for what he thought and what he might be about to say. His was a defence of free speech, not an endorsement of the speech itself.

As for "befriending" him, I'll leave it to reader to decipher Hitchens own words. Seems to me like Hitch did what Hitch did. He reached out to learn more but at no point does it read like a cosy buddy-buddy relationship.

So best to be clear with the facts I think. People might get the wrong impression from what you wrote and think that Hitchens had some sympathy towards holocaust-denial. He did not.

Kobal2 11-25-2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21989607)
Despite that, Irving is still an expert on WWII (especially since he speaks German). He had a few more fans after Christopher Hitchens befriended, defended, and said he was the ultimate "authority". He is an asshole, but it is what it is. I think its why so many inside Hitler's circle let him interview him - they "trusted" him.

And we should take Hitchens' word on who's the ultimate authority on history as valid because... ? Last I checked, Hitchens didn't have any background whatsofuckingever in history or historical research.
Historians almost unilaterally jettisoned Irving's ass decades (plural) ago. He might have been a mere "controversial figure" at some point in the 70s or 80s but he's moved well into outright crackpottery since.

Kobal2 11-25-2019 11:16 AM

And by "unilaterally" I of course meant "unanimously"

MortSahlFan 11-25-2019 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble (Post 21992785)
I'm not aware of Hitchens ever describing him as the "ultimate authority" on anything and certainly not the holocaust. I doubt Hitchens would even recognise the concept of any human as an "ultimate authority". Irving was (and is still in many cases) considered a serious historical source in some areas, a fucking nutjob in others.
Hitchens did not agree with Irving on his holocaust views but he did defend his right to publish and spoke out against his conviction for what he thought and what he might be about to say. His was a defence of free speech, not an endorsement of the speech itself.

As for "befriending" him, I'll leave it to reader to decipher Hitchens own words. Seems to me like Hitch did what Hitch did. He reached out to learn more but at no point does it read like a cosy buddy-buddy relationship.

So best to be clear with the facts I think. People might get the wrong impression from what you wrote and think that Hitchens had some sympathy towards holocaust-denial. He did not.

I'm saying that certain personalities with fans have influence. Here's one video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjPQB1bFrtw

I hate censorship. That's all. Hitchens was DEAD wrong on Iraq (and some of his fans decided it must be a just war if HITCH is for it), but I don't want him banned, even though that endorsement of the war might have prevented more resistance.

Novelty Bobble 11-25-2019 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21992916)
I'm saying that certain personalities with fans have influence. Here's one video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjPQB1bFrtw

I hate censorship. That's all. Hitchens was DEAD wrong on Iraq (and some of his fans decided it must be a just war if HITCH is for it), but I don't want him banned, even though that endorsement of the war might have prevented more resistance.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with a link to that video, it doesn't seem to contradict anything I wrote.

As for his views on the second Iraq war, I'm not sure how it is possible to come to definitive conclusion one way or the other as there is no way to know what happens if Saddam's dynasty remains in power.

Ispolkom 11-25-2019 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim@T-Bonham.net (Post 21985527)
It's not limited to white supremacists. Here in Minneapolis, my Congressperson is a non-white, non-Christian woman, and she is a holocaust denier. Of the Armenian holocaust, at least, based on her recent vote on that.

When did Ilhan Omar deny the reality of the Nazi murder of millions of Jews?

Chisquirrel 11-26-2019 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ispolkom (Post 21994204)
When did Ilhan Omar deny the reality of the Nazi murder of millions of Jews?

If you turn your head sideways, squint really hard, and ignore the statement she released explaining her vote, you can get to where she "denied the Holocaust".

Derleth 11-26-2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ispolkom (Post 21994204)
When did Ilhan Omar deny the reality of the Nazi murder of millions of Jews?

Not what anyone said. She voted "present" when a vote to recognize the Armenian Genocide, a holocaust mostly forgotten these days, came up. That is a form of denial. Refusing to recognize something is a form of denial. Interestingly, she was the only Democratic Representative to vote against it.

Budget Player Cadet 11-26-2019 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B. (Post 21985438)
I put it in Great Debates, because I assume it will spark one.

But why do white supremacists almost always deny the Holocaust? I don't need a cite. And I say "almost always". But in reality, I never saw one who didn't.

Why do they do it? It seems to be pretty universal for them, as I said. What is their point? And purpose, for that matter?

:):):):)

So the first and most fundamental thing we need to understand about nazis is that they lie. Constantly. There is no "truth" to them, there is only power. They are very clear and explicit about their intention to lie to the "normies", couching every statement in performative irony that allows those who aren't neo-nazis to think "edgy humor" and those who are to think "I agree with that". Any attempt to engage with their views honestly or earnestly is a failed effort, because most of them know full well that what they actually propose (a white fascist ethnostate) is going to be incredibly unpopular.

So what they do doesn't really need to make sense in terms of their beliefs, or their convictions, because they lie about what both of those things are constantly. So. With that in mind, why deny the holocaust? What purpose does it serve? I honestly don't have much to add to what people have already mentioned (rehabilitating the nazi image, furthering paranoid conspiracy theories about jews, etc.). What comes to mind for me is epistemic strategy, relating to both the "Big Lie" and "Firehose" schools of propaganda. To contest every point, to clog the airwaves with so much bullshit that determining the truth becomes difficult. In that environment, fascists, who always are better at speaking the language of moral certainty than the language of facts, tend to do considerably better than liberals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocity (Post 21985444)
Well, there is considerable overlap between anti-Semitism and white supremacism (why, I don't know - most Jews are white), so, something such as the Holocaust that boosts the cause of the Jews (in the PR sense) is obviously something white supremacists will object to.

"Whiteness", as a concept, is not well-defined. It certainly has never had much to do with skin tone - just ask the Irish and Italians who were treated as non-white in the past. Throughout history, whiteness has been used not as a racial categorization, but as the absence of racialization. White people are the people who don't have some discriminated-against racial category. And when "white" people stop treating you as different, you are, effectively, "white".

Jews? Jews were not seen as white. And to modern white supremacists, they still usually aren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jragon (Post 21986550)
Also note that White Supremacy and White Fascism is essentially a death cult that progressively more narrowly defines "white" based on the predominant prevailing identities of the people in charge as they get more power. So they may even allow some "useful" POC when they're low on power to be in their sphere, but once they get power those get purged (either from the party/positions of power or literally in the sense of genocide or exile), and then Italians get purged, and then Irish People, and then... say... the Spanish, then the French etc etc until suddenly only Baltic people or German people or English people or someone who can prove they've never had any non-what-is-now-defined-as-white ancestry going back 5 centuries or whatever are "white". There's always an increasing standard of "purity" among white supremacist communities. This usually ends up extending to other marginalized people too, such as the disabled, or gay people or trans people.

*hi-fives in Danskin*

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21989607)
Despite that, Irving is still an expert on WWII (especially since he speaks German).

Imagine a hypothetical "expert" on the Napoleonic wars who, despite the accuracy of any other claims he made, also insists that Napoleon rode a fire-breathing dragon into battle at Waterloo. Once it becomes clear that he's not joking and legitimately believes this, do we keep calling him an "expert", or do we shake our heads and laugh him out of the room?

Telemark 11-26-2019 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derleth (Post 21994898)
That is a form of denial. Refusing to recognize something is a form of denial.

Here is her statement on the vote - https://omar.house.gov/media/press-r...5-and-hres-296

While I disagree with her reasoning, I don't see it as a denial in any meaningful way.

Derleth 11-26-2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telemark (Post 21994960)
Here is her statement on the vote - https://omar.house.gov/media/press-r...5-and-hres-296

While I disagree with her reasoning, I don't see it as a denial in any meaningful way.

Her statement breaks down into "The evidence isn't in yet" and "Other bad things happened"; the first is a lie, and the kind of lie used by denialists, and the second is irrelevant when discussing her vote about that bad thing. So she denied the Armenian Genocide and threw up chaff when people called her on it.

Telemark 11-26-2019 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derleth (Post 21995026)
Her statement breaks down into "The evidence isn't in yet" and "Other bad things happened";

Where does she say "The evidence isn't in yet"? She wrote
Quote:

It should be done based on academic consensus outside the push and pull of geopolitics.
I don't see that as questioning the evidence, just a statement that consensus doesn't come from a political vote. I can see a way to read that as questioning the evidence, but it comes off as a pretty stretched reading IMO. You may feel differently.

The "Other bad things happened" part is true, but I agree with you that it's poor reasoning to use that to avoid voting on this issue.

MortSahlFan 11-26-2019 12:43 PM

Congress ignored this for over 100 years, and I think some are looking for any reason to hate Rep. Omar.

DrDeth 11-26-2019 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derleth (Post 21995026)
Her statement breaks down into "The evidence isn't in yet" and "Other bad things happened"; the first is a lie, and the kind of lie used by denialists, and the second is irrelevant when discussing her vote about that bad thing. So she denied the Armenian Genocide and threw up chaff when people called her on it.

I concur, I mean "whataboutism" isnt a good reason.

I mean there are still some arguments that the Armenian horror wasnt quite technically a "genocide', but she didnt use them. Oddly, since there are strong arguments that the deaths and dwindling of the US Natives wasnt a "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" or a "planned systemic genocide".

I mean you could apply "genocide' to the Fire bombing of Germany or the bombing of Japan too. Nuking Japan was certainly a "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such". Let's not overuse the term.


Mind you, I do think that the Armenian situation does qualify.

Kobal2 11-26-2019 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortSahlFan (Post 21995165)
Congress ignored this for over 100 years, and I think some are looking for any reason to hate Rep. Omar.

Ya think ?

;)

Ale 11-27-2019 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derleth (Post 21987595)
It's a recruitment tool in another way:

If They are lying to you about this important piece of history, what else are They lying to you about? Why are They lying to you at all? Who is this They I'm talking about?

Secret knowledge is a big bait. It makes people feel important, knowing something most people don't. That's why Life Hacks spread so well, even the ones which are patently absurd if you ever actually tried them: They're little things I know that you don't, which puts me one up on you, innit? Well, imagine that, except for a big chunk of human history.

All of a sudden the whole damn world has been debunked. Up is down, black is white, and you have part of the biggest secret in the whole world. Some people will kill for stuff like that. Some people will die for it. People have died for it, if you consider cults to be one aspect of this: "I know the path to eternal happiness, and it happens to go through drinking poisoned soft drinks, possibly after mutilating my sexual organs."

Once you have someone hooked like that, you can feed them increasingly absurd shit which happens to line up with them continuing to follow you.

As Voltaire put it, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities".
Lying big is a way to gain fanatics to a cause, whether it's done serendipitously or by cold, calculated design.

Chisquirrel 11-27-2019 01:01 AM

nm

Chisquirrel 11-27-2019 01:54 AM

We're all discussing Omar voting present, even going so far as to say she voted against it, and was the only Democrat to do so.

Omar voted Present. So did Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (D) and Paul Gosar of Arizona (R). Johnson gave no reason for her vote, and Gosar claimed it was simply a partisan attack on Trump.

Actually voting against HR 265? Eleven Republicans, only one of which [Tom Cole of Oklahoma (R)] offering his reasoning: it was solely an attempt to hurt US-Turkey relations.


But hey, let's focus on a tortured portrayal of Omar's words instead.


More on her opinion:


"My issue was not with the substance of this resolution. *Of course* we should acknowledge the Genocide. My issue was with the timing and context. I think we should demand accountability for human rights abuses consistently, not simply when it suits our political goals."

RioRico 11-27-2019 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21995196)
I mean there are still some arguments that the Armenian horror wasnt quite technically a "genocide', but she didnt use them. Oddly, since there are strong arguments that the deaths and dwindling of the US Natives wasnt a "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such" or a "planned systemic genocide".

Much of the European-American interaction involved enslavement or disease more than planned racial elimination. Exceptions AFAIK, clearly genocide, include US and Canadian policies against indigenes. Removal. Starvation and privation. Medical and legal neglect. Kidnapping children. Yes, deliberate physical and cultural destruction - like how China now handles domestic Muslims. Will Congress condemn Chinese genocide, or various Australian, Belgian, Russian, Guatemalan, et al genocides? Did I miss those votes?

MortSahlFan 11-27-2019 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 21997921)
Much of the European-American interaction involved enslavement or disease more than planned racial elimination. Exceptions AFAIK, clearly genocide, include US and Canadian policies against indigenes. Removal. Starvation and privation. Medical and legal neglect. Kidnapping children. Yes, deliberate physical and cultural destruction - like how China now handles domestic Muslims. Will Congress condemn Chinese genocide, or various Australian, Belgian, Russian, Guatemalan, et al genocides? Did I miss those votes?

What about the current genocides in Yemen and Myanmar? Funny how this happened after this so-called deal with Turkey concerning the Kurds.

It's a bad sign when we don't have additional words besides racism or bigotry which sounds racist in itself. How certain kinds of racism is worse than others, so start an entire term, even if it isn't accurate.

DrDeth 11-27-2019 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 21997921)
Much of the European-American interaction involved enslavement or disease more than planned racial elimination. Exceptions AFAIK, clearly genocide, include US and Canadian policies against indigenes. Removal. Starvation and privation. Medical and legal neglect. Kidnapping children. Yes, deliberate physical and cultural destruction - like how China now handles domestic Muslims. Will Congress condemn Chinese genocide, or various Australian, Belgian, Russian, Guatemalan, et al genocides? Did I miss those votes?

Well, 90% of the indigenes were dead before there was a US or Canada, and altho there were some small exceptions, at no time was the elimination of the natives "planned" or "systemic". Us white folks just kinda bumble our way thru getting rid of most of the rest, and of course the Indians didnt really help their cause with massacres and atrocities. (Something about the European mindset is that atrocities rarely scare us into give up, we just get angry and seek revenge).

and once we call everything a "genocide" it loses it's strong meaning.

Andy L 11-28-2019 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21998165)
Well, 90% of the indigenes were dead before there was a US or Canada, and altho there were some small exceptions, at no time was the elimination of the natives "planned" or "systemic". Us white folks just kinda bumble our way thru getting rid of most of the rest, and of course the Indians didnt really help their cause with massacres and atrocities. (Something about the European mindset is that atrocities rarely scare us into give up, we just get angry and seek revenge).

and once we call everything a "genocide" it loses it's strong meaning.

Would you consider the death of 20% to 40% of a nation during government mandated forced expulsion be "planned" or "systematic" - because that's what happened to the Cherokee, and the Creek, and the Choctaw, and the Chickasaw, over the course of a few years.

Tamerlane 11-28-2019 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy L (Post 21999325)
Would you consider the death of 20% to 40% of a nation during government mandated forced expulsion be "planned" or "systematic"

Considering how badly it was mismanaged, to the extent that there was an even an attempt to manage it, "systematic" and "planned" hardly seem fitting descriptors. But at any rate it comes down to whether you consider ethnic cleansing via forced population transfer( which it was )to be synonymous with genocide. They're generally considered closely related phenomena, but usually defined as distinct from each other.

Now on the other hand the Pequot War of 1637 was pretty unambiguously genocidal. The colonists genuinely wanted to exterminate the Pequot as a people and more or less succeeded.

Kobal2 11-28-2019 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamerlane (Post 21999386)
Considering how badly it was mismanaged, to the extent that there was an even an attempt to manage it, "systematic" and "planned" hardly seem fitting descriptors. But at any rate it comes down to whether you consider ethnic cleansing via forced population transfer( which it was )to be synonymous with genocide. They're generally considered closely related phenomena, but usually defined as distinct from each other.

Now on the other hand the Pequot War of 1637 was pretty unambiguously genocidal. The colonists genuinely wanted to exterminate the Pequot as a people and more or less succeeded.

Where I'm concerned, the general gist of it is that, while it can't really be argued that there was a centrally planned Big Picture genocide going on ; there were dozens upon dozens of individual, contained, slow-encroachment genocidal acts and plans by dozens of genocidal actors who never got punished or even shamed for it by their contemporaries. And I'm not just talking about heinous stuff like the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek or poxy blankets ; I'm also talking about kidnapping children to forcibly "civilize" and "educate" them into not being damned dirty Indians no more.

When you don't condemn nor punish massacring this or that tribe, nor "relocating" this or that tribe, nor any actions deliberately meant to de facto remove this or that tribe from existence and keep doing it for 200+ years... honey you're doing a Big Picture genocidal, you're just not all teutonic efficiency about it :).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth
and of course the Indians didnt really help their cause with massacres and atrocities.

Did anyone else hear that needle skip right there ? :p

DrDeth 11-28-2019 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy L (Post 21999325)
Would you consider the death of 20% to 40% of a nation during government mandated forced expulsion be "planned" or "systematic" - because that's what happened to the Cherokee, and the Creek, and the Choctaw, and the Chickasaw, over the course of a few years.

Well, there was nothing about the Cherokee trail of tears that was Planned to kill off natives- it was combination of bad management, stupidity, racism, and the corruption of the Van Buren administration (Jackson , altho he started the voluntary removal, had nothing to do with the forced removal, since he wasnt even president then).

wiki "Scott discouraged mistreatment of the Native Americans, ordering his troops to "show every possible kindness to the Cherokee and to arrest any soldier who inflicted a wanton injury or insult on any Cherokee man, woman, or child."

And perhaps 4000 died (mostly due to dysentery- very common, tens of thousands of Civil was soldiers succumbed) of a total of nearly 2000), very nasty indeed, but altho the move was "planned" there was nothing at all "planned" or "systematic" about the deaths along the way. No doubt some of the "conductors' were racist that hated the natives but by and large the deaths were caused by POOR planning, gross corruption, and stupidity. Unless you can find the smoking gun signed by Van Buren or Scott saying "Hey make sure that we wipe out 20% or more of those redskins along the way, fewer to feed" it wasnt a genocide. It was stupidity and greed.

DrDeth 11-28-2019 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamerlane (Post 21999386)
Considering how badly it was mismanaged, to the extent that there was an even an attempt to manage it, "systematic" and "planned" hardly seem fitting descriptors. But at any rate it comes down to whether you consider ethnic cleansing via forced population transfer( which it was )to be synonymous with genocide. They're generally considered closely related phenomena, but usually defined as distinct from each other.

Now on the other hand the Pequot War of 1637 was pretty unambiguously genocidal. The colonists genuinely wanted to exterminate the Pequot as a people and more or less succeeded.

Yeah, that was pretty much planned. But there were only 700 killed, and it was a war. Hell us Allies killed 25000 just in the Firebombing of Dresden

DrDeth 11-28-2019 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobal2 (Post 21999479)
Where I'm concerned, the general gist of it is that, while it can't really be argued that there was a centrally planned Big Picture genocide going on ; there were dozens upon dozens of individual, contained, slow-encroachment genocidal acts and plans by dozens of genocidal actors who never got punished or even shamed for it by their contemporaries. And I'm not just talking about heinous stuff like the Trail of Tears, Sand Creek or poxy blankets ; I'm also talking about kidnapping children to forcibly "civilize" and "educate" them into not being damned dirty Indians no more.
.....


Did anyone else hear that needle skip right there ? :p


If you want to say there was many shameful acts committed upon the natives, that while heinous, were neither planned or systemic- thus not really a genocide, sure. And that's the point. Sure over 200 years, slowly, the white man won, and thus screwed the Indian pretty badly. But there was nothing planned and systemic about it.

Why? let's not pretend that the natives didn't commit many heinous acts upon the whites, they certainly did. I mean just because they lost and we love the little guy and the loser, we can't just brush those off either.

Kobal2 11-29-2019 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21999536)
But there was nothing planned and systemic about it.

Planned ? No. Systemic ? Yes. Again, when the public discourse is almost unilaterally biased against a group ; and brutalities committed against the group are never punished nor officially condemned, you're perforce going to see a lot of brutalities.

Quote:

Why? let's not pretend that the natives didn't commit many heinous acts upon the whites, they certainly did. I mean just because they lost and we love the little guy and the loser, we can't just brush those off either.
Sure, but it's not like they started it. E.g. Cortez kicked off the massacre ball, and nobody can claim he had any historical beef or real reason to... "Both sides do it" is nonsense when one side is (for the most part) doing it in response and kind, sometimes even encouraged to - for example, while the practice of scalping the dead existed in some parts of the New World prior to the arrival of Europeans, the latter did a hell of a lot to spread and encourage it in spaces where it hadn't existed before.

The phrase "500 treaties or more" is almost a cliché among Native American advocates at this point, to refer to the 530some treaties the US government signed with various tribes and groups throughout its history - and then broke or unilaterally amended because Fuck Em That's Why. Whereas treaties broken by Natives are, to my best knowledge, in the single digits.
You can't try and pass that shit as a moral equivalence.

RioRico 11-29-2019 02:33 AM

And the holocausts just keep on coming!
Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21998165)
Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico
Much of the European-American interaction involved enslavement or disease more than planned racial elimination.

Well, 90% of the indigenes were dead before there was a US or Canada...

I specified disease. The first Euro explorers spread germs in both directions that felled much of Europe and nearly obliterated coastal America. Euro settlers found empty sites where earlier sailors saw thriving populations. It's hard to enslave the dead.

Quote:

and once we call everything a "genocide" it loses it's strong meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Genocide
Quote:

Some academics consider genocide to be a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing". Thus, these concepts are different, but related, as Norman Naimark writes: "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people". William Schabas adds, "Ethnic cleansing is also a warning sign of genocide to come. Genocide is the last resort of the frustrated ethnic cleanser."
Do the US "negro removal" projects during my lifetime qualify as ethnic cleansing? Do alt.right voices calling for expulsion of Blacks, Jews, Latinos, et al qualify as genocide advocates? Is mass-murder of social dissidents more acceptable?

DrDeth 11-29-2019 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RioRico (Post 21999707)
And the holocausts just keep on coming!

I specified disease. The first Euro explorers spread germs in both directions that felled much of Europe and nearly obliterated coastal America. Euro settlers found empty sites where earlier sailors saw thriving populations. It's hard to enslave the dead.


..?

Sure, no doubt, I even mentioned that. But like the Black Plague, that was neither planned nor systemic.

survinga 11-29-2019 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21987301)
Well, that raises a point. If you say it wasnt six million Jews, it was more like three or four or five million- you could be called a denier.

I got called a denier by pointing out that yes, Communists, homosexuals, and gypsies were also killed off. So were "politicals", my Euro relatives were sent to Dachau where perhaps, they had it a tiny bit better than the Jews. But not much as when the Allies captured the camps, many Politicals were sent to Soviet Gulags.

So "denier" is waved around a bit too much.

On the #'s killed, the Nazis kept very meticulous records, and the evidence all points to something close to 6 million. So, if someone says "3 or 4", I think that is a form of soft denial.

On the 2nd point, just pointing out that other groups were targeted is not denial. The deniers go another step and try and put these other groups on par with the Jews. It's well-documented and well-known by all historians that the Jews were considered the top enemy by the Nazis and their #1 target. They were willing to annihilate and/or enslave other groups, but nothing was on par with the Jews. However, just pointing out that other groups were killed (gays, communists, gypsies, jehovah's witness) is not a form of denial.

Jackmannii 11-29-2019 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by survinga (Post 22000328)
On the 2nd point, just pointing out that other groups were targeted is not denial. The deniers go another step and try and put these other groups on par with the Jews. It's well-documented and well-known by all historians that the Jews were considered the top enemy by the Nazis and their #1 target. They were willing to annihilate and/or enslave other groups, but nothing was on par with the Jews. However, just pointing out that other groups were killed (gays, communists, gypsies, jehovah's witness) is not a form of denial.

There are people who profess great indignation about Jews promoting Holocaust remembrance for supposedly failing to give sufficient attention to other groups whose members were murdered by the Nazis.

Curiously, these people (generally) don't lambaste organizers of Black History Month for accentuating black suffering under slavery but not highlighting the enslavement of other groups throughout history - or attack Armenians for concentrating on their own genocide.

Naturally, any group historically targeted for enslavement and/or elimination will focus on its own sufferings. However, claims of ignoring other ethnic/political/religious groups seem to be focused most virulently on Jews.

This generally comes off as a "soft" :dubious: form of anti-Semitism.

Ruken 11-29-2019 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jackmannii (Post 22000737)
There are people who profess great indignation about Jews promoting Holocaust remembrance for supposedly failing to give sufficient attention to other groups whose members were murdered by the Nazis.

Curiously, these people (generally) don't lambaste organizers of Black History Month for accentuating black suffering under slavery but not highlighting the enslavement of other groups throughout history - or attack Armenians for concentrating on their own genocide.

Eh I've run into the "but what about..." types wrt slavery. You think of a flavor of stupid, it's out there. Probably has a Facebook group (I recommend not looking unless you want a shower ASAP.)

Northern Piper 11-30-2019 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telemark (Post 21995157)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Derleth
Her statement breaks down into "The evidence isn't in yet" and "Other bad things happened";

Where does she say "The evidence isn't in yet"? She wrote

Quote:

It should be done based on academic consensus outside the push and pull of geopolitics.
I don't see that as questioning the evidence, just a statement that consensus doesn't come from a political vote. I can see a way to read that as questioning the evidence, but it comes off as a pretty stretched reading IMO. You may feel differently.

The "Other bad things happened" part is true, but I agree with you that it's poor reasoning to use that to avoid voting on this issue.

Context is important. The Hill article on her vote explains it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hill
In a written explanation for her vote, Omar said that the recognition of genocide and mass atrocities should be done outside politics and “based on academic consensus,” a phrase that Armenian rights groups say Turkish deniers use to sow doubt.

“Rep. Omar's suggestion that there is no ‘academic consensus’ effectively denies the Armenian Genocide,” said Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America. “It basically takes a page from the Turkish Embassy's denial playbook.”

That seems to be the basis for the suggestion of denial: that she's using the language the Turkish government uses to sow doubt about the genocide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Hill
About 1.5 million Armenian Christians were systematically murdered by the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century. Turkey denies that there is enough historical evidence to point to genocide and criticizes the event as disputed and controversial.

...

“The International Association of Genocide Scholars, the preeminent body on the subject, has repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed the fact of the Armenian Genocide,” said Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America.

By trying to suggest that her vote was based on a lack of academic consensus, when there is in fact a general academic consensus, that appears to be a form of denial on her part, especially when she uses the language used by the Turkish government.

Interestingly, after her "present" vote became a matter of debate, she issued a further statement, which appears to recant from the comment about a need for academic consensus:

Quote:

Omar’s office, on Thursday, sought to clarify that the congresswoman was stating she believes there is academic consensus on the fact that the genocide happened, emphasizing that her vote was a protest of the House using the genocide as a “political cudgel.”

...

The congresswoman wrote a thread on Twitter further clarifying her comments.

“This is classic 'real politique!' My issue was not with the substance of this resolution. *Of course* we should acknowledge the Genocide,” she wrote.
Two different explanations for "present".


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.