I Pit Martin Hyde

[DeadTreasSecretaries]

@Measure_for_Measure

I’d have to dig deeper into the discussions to evaluate this. What I was seeing was poorly sourced claims that Martin was minimizing genocide when in fact that was an unfair characterization, substituting repetition for substantiation. I daresay most people would perceive such attacks as cheap shots.

This would be an example of tone policing:

Many hundreds of unmarked graves of Indigenous children discovered at Canadian residential schools

This ties into, in my opinion, a problem with how history is understood in modern times. There’s basically two, deeply flawed, ways that I observe most people talk about historical actions and figures. One is “hagiography” where we engage in mindless worship of our forebears, and aggressively resist any critical analysis of their failures. Another is “history by screech” which is where people, outraged by people long dead not living up to modern standards, believe the primary analysis of their l…

He wasn’t factually disagreeing with anything, he just thought that people were “screeching” too much about genocide.

@Measure_for_Measure

If you think genocide is important, and it is , then it’s also important to engage with people who have ordinary median American sentiments, if only to familiarize yourself with what people know, what they don’t know, and what they believe. Right-wing gimmickry matters comparatively less. So Martin’s POV is useful; shouting it down as genocide minimization is unhelpful and counterproductive.

This I agree with in general, and I don’t think debates on forums like this accomplish a whole lot when it comes to raising awareness about genocide one way or another. The only thing I think is really productive is personal stories. Genocide and genocide minimization are both only possible because people are capable of dehumanizing “different” groups of people.