The other unique quality of the Holocaust, as far as I understand it, is that there was no escape. “Jewishness” was defined and indelible. In past atrocities, the offending group had the out of conversion (if hatred was on religious grounds), or submission, or expulsion. The Jews of Nazi Europe weren’t offered any escape but death because the Nazis wanted to wipe out Jewish DNA in the world. Also, as others have said, the mass slaughter and of people was usually a means to an end, but in the Holocaust, the slaughter and total annihilation of The Jews was the end - the stated goal.
I don’t know about less sensational - some of the things you read about what Stalin and Mao unleashed are as mindblowingly brutal as anything Hitler did. But Hitler’s empire collapsed and his crimes were uncovered. Stalin’s government carried on for another couple decades after his death, and Mao’s is still going strong and covering up his crimes.
This is true. For better or worse it’s easier for most Western people to identify with middle or upper class* 1940s European Jews than Cambodian or Congolese villagers. If you go to the Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam you’ll see that she had pictures of movie stars taped to her walls, some of whom you’ll still recognize today. Maybe it shouldn’t, but that kind of thing makes her come alive in ways that most other genocide victims don’t.
*We don’t usually hear as often about the poor, ignorant shtetl Jews who were killed - they’re less easy to relate to.
Thanks, all. Your responses are really helping me get my mind around this.
One thing, tho. Is an inhuman policy necessarily worse because it happened over a relatively brief period of time - such as the Nazis? Without minimizing the atrocity of such actions, I’m imagining one might consider it even worse if it extended over a period of generations/centuries.
The materials I’ve recently been reading concern the “mopping up” efforts in the 19th century to divest the surviving Indians of their remaining lands. Just so distasteful, once the opponent had already been so thoroughly beaten…
This thread reminds me once again that this is (despite protestations to the contrary) a highly western centric board. The Holocaust has such prominence in Western and Anglo sphere countries (for our purposes, former British colonies which have retained English as an official language who are not Western; India, Pakistan, Nigeria etc). Its just another genocide in other parts of the world; in SE Asia they still name Pol Pot, in Africa,other more recent genocides, in Central Asia, anything the Soviets did there). For most of the worlds po;ulation the Holocaust is not given prominence. Its* something very bad *which happened to some people on the other side of the world., which is recalled from history lesson.
Somebody claims that this isn’t a western-centric board?! 
They don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s also US-centric.
And there’s nothing really wrong with that. Every message-board will have some regional or cultural leaning, at least until the world unites under Esperanto…
…and the speakers of other languages are exterminated.
What?
That mention of learning about the Tutsis because of a movie, for example, is US-centric. Then again, there are many people in this board who seem to believe that the US = the Western world.
I can’t recall anyone who promotes Holocaust remembrance and education suggesting that these events are unique in the history of mankind.
It has been suggested/implied that commemorating the Holocaust somehow prevents adequate attention from being paid to other atrocities, but I have never understood why this should be so.
Ekstermi la lingvo herezuloj!
I never once learned about any genocide during schooling other than the Holocaust. We kind of touched on the “Trail of Tears”, but we never delved any farther than basics.
We spent THREE MONTHS on the Holocaust in my freshman history class.
Well, I understand the argument that if folk concerned about other atrocities wish to expend the effort and resources to make them part of the basic curriculum, then have at it. Not sure such position is terribly persuasive or resolves all that much in my mind, but it is a valid position to take.
I’m going to tread some really shaky ground, here, but here goes (essentially stream of thought). I see the Holocaust as similar to slavery in the respect that many folk who are not closely related to the groups involved may not understand the importance of keeping it so prominent in cultural and political discourse. It may be tempting for a non-black, non-Jew to say, “Enough with the ancient history. You aren’t the only group to have something lousy inflicted on you at some time in the past. Get over it.”
And whether it is intended so or not by folk “promoting Holocaust remembrance,” I suspect some folk not terribly interested in the topic may see such efforts as reflecting a desire to obtain some preferred treatment as universal sympathy over these past horrors.
Why don’t all cancers get equal billing?
I have to stop reading about colon cancer - it’s too depressing. At the same time, I wonder why we hear so much about breast cancer screening and research, and so little about other cancers deserving of mention (colon, lung, prostate etc.). I mean, there’s nothing unique about breast cancer. It’s not that I don’t think breast cancer deserves attention, just that our focus on it distorts the overall fight against cancer.
:dubious:
If that was a world history survey class, it’s unique in my experience. I’ve never heard of spending essentially an entire semester in such a class on any one subject. Perhaps you could elaborate further.