12-21-09, 08:46 PM #1
is it history or is it politics?
people are constantly talking about holocust deniers and how offensive and wrong it is to denie this happened yet why is it this one issue which is so important it requires LAWS to protect it?
I was thinking about Howard the other day and his "black arm band view of history" (direct quote, various times during his PMship, also quoted constantly by Tony abbott current oposition leader). In population terms the slaughter of the tasmanian Aborigionals has to be the worse crime because it wiped them out compleatly, there are no tassimanian aborigionals left yet if this is mentioned the same people who are so strongly against "holocust deniel" want to brush over this as unimportant. An intire culure wiped out and its unimportant?
However Howard went further than just trying to brush it under the carpet. He wanted to control the schools and bring in what he called a "national ciriculum".
So that means he wanted to standise science so that creationisum didnt creep in like it has in the US right?
No sorry science was being left to the indervidual states
So he wanted to lift the standeds in early english and maths because he saw a faling standed right?
Well partually, what he was proposing was the standisation of late english and HISTORY. Now thats a stange choice, surly the unis in conjunction with the state education departments could handle these 2 right?
Well when you think about it late english isnt about litracy at all, rather its about anaysis, specifically of the media and politics, and the time required to be moved into John Howard's history are currently devoted to SOSE, specifically the portions dealing with the legal and political systems of this country.
Why do i hear "anyother brick in the wall" playing in my head as a write this?
12-21-09, 11:14 PM #2
I don't understand what you are saying.
12-21-09, 11:24 PM #3
Because this particular act of genocide (the holocaust) happens to be one that the USA and Europe more closely identify with culturally. That is why certain laws in Germany pertain to the hocaust and not other genocides. Why that phenomenon surprises or distresses anyone, I don't know. People need to stop confusing "that event is not as familiar to me and therefore I relate to it much less" with "I think that event was no big deal and/or was justified." Right now, that is the idea being falsely attributed to many white members of the board. We have name for that crappola: it's called mock outrage.
Now, I'm not sure what you are specifically asking... but that is my reply to you.
12-22-09, 03:23 PM #4
And that is the purpose of Holocaust museums, memorials, etc. We don't need memorials to remind us that killing and genocide are bad; that's pretty damned obvious. Rather, we need reminding that such can still occur in wealthy, industrialized, democratic countries, and so must be guarded against.
It is political history, and the question of what is relevant to our politics as they are now is important. This stuff isn't about ranking which genocides were the worst, but about dealing with the actual dangers of our actual polities.
That said, I think laws against Holocaust denial are a stupid idea. Doesn't seem to accomplish much, so why bother abridging the free speech of a few sick kooks?
12-22-09, 03:26 PM #5
Actually, what we need are strong authoritarian governments to rid us of this barbaric democracy.
By SkinWalker in forum HistoryLast Post: 05-22-10, 07:51 AMReplies: 5
By dixonmassey in forum PoliticsLast Post: 01-11-09, 07:59 PMReplies: 3
By S.A.M. in forum HistoryLast Post: 12-10-08, 06:10 PMReplies: 5
By fantasus in forum HistoryLast Post: 10-25-08, 01:22 PMReplies: 1
By battig1370 in forum HistoryLast Post: 01-13-08, 04:10 AMReplies: 39