jj@alice.UUCP (05/10/85)
>>.. The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not >> just one man. It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and anti-communism >> that was endemic to German society. > > > I think the above statement has to be stated and repeated again and >again. There has been a delibirate and malicious propoganda to the >contrary assigning it to some individual say Hitler. Hitler is nothing >but the logical consequence of imperialist "civilization". To see what >this "civilization" is all about one should see the documentry about the >concentration camp which is being shown in Frontline in PBS this >week(week of May 8). It can be stated that human history has NEVER >witnessed this kind of barbarism in its entire past history. And this >WILL be repeated if the superpowers have their way. Their record >so far does not show in the least the peacenicks they proclaim >themselves to be. I just can't resist pointing out the emotional deception in this note. The first part "...product of social forces..." looks good to any reasonable person. The person commenting, realizing this, tries to slide one by the reader (and make emotional and political points) by first agreeing (and predisposing the reader to agree further) and then coming up with one of the standard nutnews "proof by blatant association" crocks, saying that it is the `logical consequence of imperialist "civilization"', a conclusion that is at best appears to be uninformed. The writer goes on to say that "human history has NEVER witnessed this kind of barbarism in its entire past history." a statement that (given my own ancestry) makes me wonder if the writer's ever read Afghani, Irish, Scot, Australian, African, Indian (as in India), or Amerind history. (That's just what comes to mind off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a lot more that I know about, but the point is depressingly well made.) A lot of the genocidal behavior I've listed has nothing to do with the current society, thus disproving any possible connection to `imperialist "civilization"'. I find this article quite disturbing for two reasons. The first is the was the writer uses emotional deception almost as a matter of course. The second is the lack of perspective evident in the comments about barbarism. The Nazi Germany treatment of the Jewish regretably has many equals in history, albiet most on a lesser scale because of the lesser populations involved. (Ok, folks, you're all going to move to nice, new, farms right up next to the Arctic circle. Move along, move along...) It's true, I believe, that democracy can only survive in an informed society. From what I see (sometimes deliberate) on nutnews, among the presumibly "informed elite", I think we're in BIG trouble! -- TEDDY BEARS ARE OPINIONATED! AFTER ALL, SOMEONE HAS TO BE RIGHT! "Then one said to the other, I think we must be gone, We'll leave a present for our friend before me move along..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (05/22/85)
In article <3706@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: > >The writer goes on to say that "human history has NEVER witnessed >this kind of barbarism in its entire past history." a statement >that (given my own ancestry) makes me wonder if the writer's >ever read Afghani, Irish, Scot, Australian, African, Indian (as in India), >or Amerind history. (That's just what comes to mind off the top of >my head. I'm sure there's a lot more that I know about, but the >point is depressingly well made.) > ... >The second is the lack of perspective >evident in the comments about barbarism. The Nazi Germany >treatment of the Jewish regretably has many equals in history, >albiet most on a lesser scale because of the lesser populations >involved. I agree with the major point made in the (deleted) text of this article. Equating the social forces which caused the Holocaust with the "inevitable results of imperialism" is nutnews. I do want to say a little about the parallel instances of genocide listed, though. One aspect of the Germans' attempted genocide of the Jews which has always struck me as near unique is that, unlike the other instances mentioned above and almost all others I've seen, the Germans' actions were against their best interests. In these other cases, peoples are killed because you want their land, mostly, and there is a positive material benefit in killing them. (Leaving aside the moral costs, which makes such actions more costly in the long run.) One powerful group wanted to steal something from a less powerful group, so they did it in the most straightforward way: the just took what they wanted and killed anyone who objected or might object. Now the Germans did expropriate the property of the Jews they killed, but that wasn't the point of their actions. Since many of the smartest and most valuable members of German society were Jews, and since this was known to all, killing these people, particularly when in the middle of a desperate war, was decidely not in the German self-interest. (Just as one facet, German Jews naturally tended to be rather touchy about people questioning their patriotism, so they could probably have been counted on to enlist in the German army in large numbers, if permitted. By killing them, instead, the German's probably lost several hundred thousand prospective soldiers, leaving aside the massive resources necessary to run the concentration camps and the loss of scientists, doctors, and intellectuals.) Here was a case in which the primary motivation behind the genocide was racial hatred rather than greed. In the other cases mentioned, racial hatred was used as more of an excuse for indulging in greed. Of course, dead is dead. The Irish killed by the English, the Armenians by the Turks, are every bit as dead as the Jews killed by the Germans, regardless of motives. Still, I find it less difficult to comprehend, and thus less frightening, when murder is spurred by avarice rather than pure, unmotivated hatred. The only real parallel I see to the German genocide of the Jews is the Cambodian self-genocide. Again, the killings demonstrably and predictably damaged the destroyers, rather than rewarding them. Again, an ideology was the motivation. Ideologies can be dangerous things. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa soon to be reiher@LOCUS.UCLA.EDA {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
jj@alice.UUCP (05/24/85)
Peter R comments that one singular facet of the Nazi Germany genocide was that it was for ideological, rather than food/economic reasons. I have no disagreements with this statement at all. Unfortunately, some of the other genocides mentioned (Irish comes to mind), were also ideological in nature. <I think that some tribal/racial elements were present in Cambodia, still that IS ideology> Needless to say, this excuses NO country or tribe/nation's actions involving genocide. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE OPINIONATED! AFTER ALL, SOMEONE HAS TO BE RIGHT! "Then one said to the other, I think we must be gone, We'll leave a present for our friend before me move along..." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj