What makes the holocaust such a big deal?

Discussion in 'History' started by Roman, Apr 3, 2008.

  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    But they did make up like 90+ % of it, so...
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    no the nazi death camps claimed like 9 or 10 mil
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Roman Banned Banned

    I never mentioned Jews. In fact, I was careful not to say a single thing about them.

    I'll get to the rest of your stuff later.

    And syzyyzygyuzs- you're a retard.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    I can count four genocides in the past 50 years.
    Can you name them?
    Why not?

    Genocide's pretty common, pretty old.
    "But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them" - the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites ... - just as the Lord your God has commanded (Deut 20:16-17; see also Deut 7:2-16).

    I think spidergoat got it right- the Nazis stand out because they're the first to industrialize the process.

    The Spanish and Americans did a really good job obliterating the natives of America. It wasn't until the 19th century that Americans got the gatling guns and railroads to really lay waste. The Inquisition, for what it lacked in efficiency, made up with zeal.

    Genocide, throughout history, is a relatively common occurrence. Isn't their some shit going on in Darfur right now? I think there is.

    I guess what makes the Holocaust (as opposed to all the other, run of the mill holocausts) so badass was German efficiency.
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    The following may contain sarcasm. Proceed at your own risk of having your curious sensibilities attacked.

    And welcome back, invert.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yes - my pointing out that Xev linked from a Holocaust denier must be evidence of my rabidity. Not even that they share opinions, or that Xev cited it without later realizing "whoops! - my argument still stands but I really should have realized what that guy really was", but that she goes on defending it. And that everyone else goes on defending her for defending it. You like Norman Finklestein? Good. Some people do, and some people don't. The mere existence of his proposition doesn't prove it right. But perhaps Xev could have made an effort to cite him instead so there could be a proper debate, instead of just pulling over at the first suitable 'philosophy stop' and filling up on fine Saudi petrol (and meat jerky) whilst turning a blind eye to the "Arbeit Macht Frei" poster hanging on the back wall.

    Anyway: silly rabid me. I guess there's just something about ascribing the recognition of the near extinction of all Jewish people to a base money play that gets my dander up. My heartfeltingest apologies, invert. I guess it just staggers me that, far again from admitting that the source was a pretty scurrilous individual, no one has even the least bit of insight necessary to realize the common vein of the argument, or a bare minimum sufficient to denounce fellow-believers who stray too far off the path, such as Sindi.

    Obviously, yes.

    And so...because they don't get enough press, the Holocaust is less important, because concern and outrage is a zero sum game. Or is it that no one really wants to hear about Holocausts or holocausts any longer? They'd rather consign it to the rear-view mirror. I could go into the other reasons why it probably gets trumped, but as no one on the other side has spared a passing glance at them so far, I don't suppose there's much point.

    Or the argument is about - of course - the money. Why? Well...obviously no one wants to overpay for dead Jewish people - and yet no one really seems to know just how much a dead Jew is worth. Maybe that's the issue? I think the Saudis have probably worked out some kind of scheme about it. I mean, heck: such noble institutions as insurance companies are able to put a dollar value on people and if we as junior members of the Ersatz Juniorausschuß für der Position den Vermissen jüdischen Leuten can't do the same to assign a coefficient to delimit our moral outrage then I mourn for our collective abilities in multivariate regression. So perhaps we could simply express the angst that we might feel about a massacre on a scale unprecedented (since 1912-20) in a Western nation inheritor of Goethe according to whatever coefficients are produced there, without worrying about the particulars. Or that the same sentiments cut through innumerable people even today. (Must be the money thing, surely.)

    Or maybe instead, there's something about the whole value of putting a dollar amount on the heads of the victims of genocide, and that even the morally albatrossed among us can see that, subconsciously. So the issue somehow (!) effortlessly becomes not about how much is being paid - which, as night follows day, is the cause of anti-Semitism, and not, say, intolerance or bigotry or something silly like that - but about how it's being distributed. Unequal distribution makes old Jewish people eat chicken necks! they might claim, and that's wrong and...causes...antisemitism. Hmm. Because people like chicken necks? Well, it's a free country, or some of them are, anyway. Best let them think that correlation over.

    All right then: let us see a percentage. Let us see how much of the media is under control of "the Jew" - as Xev so eloquently put it - and then as a secondary and critical step, correlate that with their reporting on the Holocaust. A positive association (Bonferroni correction required? a philosophical question for another day) would prove the positive insidiousness of "the Jew", and thereby...that the Holocaust was not such a big deal, as Roman speculates. (I am sure it would be a lengthy calculation, but I can't help but think that someone somewhere has done such a calculation. And if the alma mater of such a person might be somewhere at a safe distance beyond the West Bank - say as far as Riyadh or Islamabad, perhaps - let us not mention it, no matter how free or unfree their press might be.)

    I couldn't agree more. Observe:

    "Jewish people"

    and now:

    "the Jew"

    You know, I think you and Xev might be on to something there. Keep us posted, if you will. I promise not to froth on you.


  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    You said "the". Your only difference was not capitalizing.

    You also said "genocide". The only genetically distinct group in the Nazi death camps were Jews. Communists, homosexuals and Roma are not, to my knowledge, genetically distinct. You could argue Poles and Russians if you wanted, but they weren't the major target of the Holocaust.
  10. Roman Banned Banned

    Where. Did I say. ANYTHING. About the Jews?
  11. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    See. ABOVE. Edits.

    It was implied - maybe subconsciously, but there. It. Is.
  12. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    No. It's the contradictory stances you're taking and the assumptions you're making that show evidence of rabidity.

    Your point on her biased source would be fine if you hadn't later claimed that using a jewish source was nothing more than an argument from authority fallacy.

    You've stated no less than three stances on the issue of sources:

    1. Using biased sources (such as from holocaust deniers, anti-semites, etc...) is not acceptable as the information is likely made up simply to put the jew down.

    2. Sources from sources other than anti-semites are fallacious as they are simply arguments from authority and mean nothing.

    3. Sources in general are bad as one should have the balls to say what one wants to say without resorting to quoting someone else in doing so.

    Near extinction?

    What was the ratio exactly? Of living to dead? I don't think that it was anywhere near to extinction.

    Was it bad? Sure. But, there's lots of bad things in the world.

    Well, of course, anything can be denied. Even the Holocaust. As you well know.
    It's an aesthetic judgement, of course.
    I think it gets way too much air time.

    Rwanda deserves more play than the Holocaust.

    It's all about perspective.

    How many common people even know about Rwanda? Nan King? Armenia?
    How many common people know about the commies, homos, gypsies in the Holocaust?

    We're sort of special folk here and we tend to know a bit about these things. But, your average Joe Idiot on the street only knows that there were lots of joos killed back there in that wwii. Never again, says they, cuz killin' joos is bad.

    Just another genocide in a long list.

    Is it a zero sum game?
    People's attention spans are limited, yes.
    It is, in this sense, a zero sum game.

    Well, this is somewhat off-topic. But they did get a country out of it.
    And what a load of trouble that has caused us.

    All I have is anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid.
    And, all evidence introduced by others you've dismissed and claimed that you have to speak from the heart rather than quoting some cold, dead source, eh?

    It's practically unbelievable that you'd deny the jewish presence in hollywood though. But, you're free to do so.

    Would you be frothing quite so much if she hadn't used the phrase "the jew"?
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    the poles didn't live long enough to be put in camps
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Actually my point was that it was employed specifically because Finkelstein is Jewish and I think you'd find it hard to disagree with my summary of Sam's rationale. It seems instead like the sources are being cherry picked - "here's a point - what do you think of that? Oops; rabid Holocaust Denier. Er, well, here's one from a Jewish person! What do you think about that?" Why not just start - as I mentioned - with Finkelstein and go from there? Or how about a source that isn't a) hopelessly biased because it's from a Holocaust Denier or b) picked specifically because it's Jewish? I think I mentioned a correlation in there somewhere. Is that not a satisfactory system?

    To the untrained eye, it might appear that way. But I have stated my restrictions above. "Sources in general are bad", indeed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I consider that an approach to 50% is a pretty close thing for a population of less than 20 million.

    All right: why?

    It's all about perspective.

    Nan King was actually relatively small, although it was indeed genocide. Armenia wasn't genocide, but was a holocaust and it may have been on a percentage base worse than the (Jewish) Holocaust. Rwanda was also a holocaust, although I don't know if it was a genocide per se. But it is far more likely that you hear about the Holocaust because it was done here, in the Western world - which Sam will gleefully agree with - in a nation that ought to have known or behaved better, and against a helpless people who - far less than even laying down arms - were unable to fight back and who had been oppressed for over 2000 years. It is the equivalent to keeping someone standing over a hangman's drop, dancing around the stool and kicking the victim in the shins for two millenia, and then gleefully kicking it out when the victim least expects it.

    See above and consider perspective and locale.

    It might have been less trouble with greater wisdom. But only the Jews', seemingly. No one else has to be wise. You're right: O-T.

    Absurd. Which evidence have I "dismissed from the heart"? If you want to make such a broad damnation, you should marshall something more to your cause.

    Well, if you'd care to read sources, you'd see I hadn't. I merely ask for some evidence thereof, and set up a critical test. If you don't have the time to look for it, then say so: but I would be remiss in accepting your premise without evidence that such a prevalence of "the Jew" meant control and biased reporting on the Holocaust.

    It's like theism: you might trot out evidence of various kinds for God, but in the end, you still kind of believe because you want to, a little. Same here. You believe "the Jew" controls Hollywood because want to, a little. Fine and dandy, but say so. I admitted to my theological biases to iceaura, so cowboy up.

    Or, rather, if "the Jew" hadn't hinted at something. Best we not delve too deep; moderator, you know, wot wot.

    Best regards,

  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Reading minds now?
  16. Bells Staff Member

    I strongly advise you to read up on the definition of "genocide" before commenting on the recognised genocides of millions of people.

    Nan King was a genocide, as was Armenia and definitely Rwanda. The same can be said for what happened to the Jews in WWII. You know, you are the first person I have ever seen who questioned whether Rwanda was in fact a genocide. You sound very much like the Western leaders sounded while it was happening.. don't say the "G" word and maybe people will just forget it's happening.
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Most genocides are just about killing people.
    The Nazis produced stuff like this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    From "The Eternal Jew" Film 1940
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Actually no. Genocide goes a lot deeper than just killing people. Gregory Stanton wrote a list, which is termed as "The Eight Stages of Genocide", after he studied the Rwandan genocide and recognised certain traits which existed in each genocide in history.

    And a genocide does not just have to be about 'killing people'. For example, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide interprets Genocide to include any of the following:

    * Killing members of the group
    * Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
    * Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)
    * Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group

    So it is not just about "killing people".
  19. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    It was Gendanken who linked that Sindi guy. Wasn't it?
    You didn't like the source because it was from an anti-semite so she went and found another source that was not only not an anti-semite, but was a jew and you objected because it was an 'argument from authority'.

    Just what source would you deem acceptable then?

    A Papau/New Guinea headhunter?

    We can just throw out that last bit about Sindi and Holocaust denial since that's a red herring. But you seem to be saying that one should make one's own arguments rather than going to external sources.

    20 million?
    Highest estimates of jewish dead being somewhere around 6 million?

    Nope. That doesn't work.

    I don't think 50% quite reaches 'near extinction' either. Even if the numbers did match.

    The question is: Why is Rwanda more deserving of air play than the Holocaust?

    The answer is simple. Rwanda took place post-Holocaust. It took place in the modern era.
    It took place in a day and age where we've all supposedly learned the lessons of genocide.
    It took place in a day and age when "Never Again" is uttered with the gravest sincerity at the merest mention of all those poor slaughtered jews.

    Yet, the bodies piled up in Rwanda so that the rivers were filled with bodies like deadwood.

    And nobody cared.

    Even you, who throw such theatrical displays of horror when brought face to face with the Holocaust, dismiss it as insignificant as it 'was just a bunch of primitive niggers'. (That's a paraphrase and hyperbole of course. But the sentiment is certainly there.)

    Rwanda shows clearly that we have learned nothing.
    That "Never again!" is nothing but empty rhetoric.

    Poor jews.
    Whitey always on they back.

    Your marginalization of all genocides other than the Holocaust is deplorable, yet it highlights the need to stop focusing on the Holocaust as your perspective is shared by more than not.

    As I said, it's interesting what a simple 'the' will do. I suppose I can understand your kneejerk reactionism, but you are doing so unnecessarily. You are fighting a war against an enemy that doesn't exist.
    You assume too much.
    Because of 'the'.
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Some people do make it easy, true. Thank goodness I'm not so bitter as to start a thread on why atheists are delusional.

    Hello, Bells. I agree that Nan King was 'geno'cidal, although I'm not sure Armenian were of a different 'genetic' lineage to the Turks who were perpetrating the genocide. Rwanda...if you say so. There were certainly cultural differences between the Hutu and Tutsi, but I profess my ignorance as to what those are. It would be a holocaust, certainly; no idea if it was a 'geno'cide or not. I leave it up to you.

  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Umm. Yes. Gendanken = Xev, so far as I can tell. Does this really matter?

    Ohh, oh: full stop there, my friend. She cited from a Holocaust Denier, not merely any run-of the mill anti-semite like you might find in the corn belt. I called her on it and her response was:


    Which was massively apologetic. How about "OMG I'm so sorry I had no idea I'd cited from a massive Holocaust Denier"? Or maybe the recognition that - coupled with "the Jew" comments - that maybe, just maybe, she's a bit of a hater herself.

    I'm sorry, invert, but if you can't at least come to that point, then there's nothing much I can do for you.

    :shrug: She cited the guy because he was Jewish; it's either cherry-picking or the selection of a source in the hope of avoiding being called anti-Semitic. Now, you may not understand or appreciate this, but I don't deem all people critical of either Judaism or even of the history of the Jewish community as anti-Semites. It's true. I reserve that position for when they make comments like "the Jew" in reference to Jewish people. Of course, we can't ever continue with the actual debate since you're mired down in making accusations.

    Actually we're going to keep it in. It suggests broadly about her sympathies, and even those of a sizeable proportion of people who have the same position, and she cited it.

    Dear me. My mistake. Only 1/3! You may sleep soundly now.

    Maybe not. Yet the Americans were reluctant to intervene partially because it was well removed from their sphere of military deployment, and because of their recent African disaster. You may - will - scoff. But cheering on old Adolf because you think Jewish people got too much press is a bit stupid, really. Are there no other reasons you can be troubled to think of as to why the Holocaust gets such attention today? None at all? Very well, blame it on MGM. And, even if your hypothesis were correct, never you mind what might have motivated such a stance. Not as important as damning the Jesus killers, I suppose.

    No, that isn't really a paraphrase, and no, you're really not as clever as you like to believe. As a matter of fact: fuck you, you pretentious little idiot, and don't accuse your betters of racism. Go on blaming the Jews - that tiny little fraction of humanity that terrifies you so which their incomprehensible cultural language and odd hats - for everything if you are so determined; put rocks through their windows and knock over their mailboxes in finest cornbelt fashion. But don't take the moral high ground via pretension. BTW: "theatrical" is a comment reserved for those lacking an emotional response on the subject.

    Here we can agree! Maybe we've learned nothing after all. However, it's particularly unlikely that we've learned anything when we examine the statement below:

    Easy there, Dr. King: this is a staggeringly ignorant comment. You are unaware of the ghettoization of Jews in Europe for over a thousand years? Your comments genuinely sadden me: not in the way that a chronic offense junkie like Dr Lou might (and hello Lou), but because you actually believe them.

    Illustrate this marginalization of mine, you banal fool.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Is a holocaust worse or the same as a genocide?

    Really. When someone of your...intellect...doesn't see a problem with the phrase "the Jews", and then - far from anything I even remotely suggested - actually marginalizes the kind of oppression the Jewish community suffered for 2000 years leading up to good ol' Krystallnacht - then it would seem the 'enemy' lingers on: quiet but not forgotten. After all: we haven't learned anything from the Holocaust, as you quite rightly point out. And with people like you in our cheering section, we never will.

    Thank you for you very kind commentary. It reminds me of an ambivalent twenty-year-old, too consumed with his person to be much bothered about the moral treatment of those outside his drinking group, unless of course one wished a very deep discussion of some kind. In the same way, you stick to your clique - Gen, for instance - at the expense of reasonability.

  22. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Have we mentioned the Srebenica massacre yet? Fairly distressing. Very big on systematic rape, the Serbs. Only 8,000 dispatched though, so a fairly poor showing number-wise.

    And that's what makes the Holocaust - capital H - such a big deal, I suppose. The mind-boggling numbers. It's sort of lucky, in a sense, that it happened in Germany, as I can't think of any other nation equipped with the levels of logistical, administrative and engineering skills necessary to pull it off. The Japs and the Chinese could certainly match them in terms of fanatical dedication to the task in hand but lack the cold, steely precision that made the German effort so very, very special.

    Rwanda? Any Tom, Dick and Harry can go waving a machete about like some kind of raving maniac - but where's the poetry in that?

    No, it's deffo the Nazis for me - all the way.
  23. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Well, I happen to know better.

    She cited the guy because you weren't satisfied with her original source. Not to avoid being called anti-semitic, but rather to satisfy your need for a valid source.

    Ironic, that.
    What I'm accusing you of is making accusations...

    She has never once denied the Holocaust.
    You can keep it in all you want, but in so doing you fight a fictional foe.

    See the problems of rabidity?
    Who's cheering on Adolf?
    You're slipping into Godwin's Territory now.

    More rabidity.
    Nobody's damning anybody. Merely pointing out that the Holocaust is merely another genocide among many.
    And not the most significant or the one which should be most closely examined for relevance.

    Good point on the emotional response. But, as for the rest, your emotional response is clearly getting in the way of comprehension.

    You seem to have visions of Stormtroopers and Long Knives flashing in your mind.

    All of which, in this particular instance, are illusory.
    A trauma inflicted upon you, and rightly so I admit, is interfering with your ability to perceive rationally.
    You see the term "the jew" and immediately froth at the evil nazi come once more to slaughter your people.

    And look...
    Those poor Rwandans don't even garner a comment from you. Merely a vehicle to transport you to nazi oppression.

    Sure. Jews have had it tough. They're not alone.
    I'm not denying the suffering the jewish people have suffered down the years, merely stating the fact that they are not alone in their suffering.

    They don't have a monopoly on sorrow, I'm afraid.

    Semantics. Holocaust. Genocide. Whatever.
    The point is is that you dismiss all the others as unimportant when compared to the jewish Holocaust.
    I maintain my stance that Rwanda is far more relevant. After all, you and I both stood aside as it happened.
    And you still deny its significance.

    What you call 'marginalization' I call bringing it to its proper perspective.

    The Holocaust is focused on far too much. Should it be forgotten? Absolutely not. Should it be denied? Hell no. But it should be stripped of its mythological status and be returned to reality.
    A genocide among many.

    As long as the Holocaust is held up on a holy pedestal then it has no power to teach as it does not connect with any mundane petty little squabble such as Rwanda. We can stand aside while the primitives slaughter each other since they're not 'us'. Since they'd never be able to reach the genocidal stature that the nazis achieved in their Final Solution.

    I merely wish to keep things real.

    I'm sorry this offends you. But it is the way things are. And it is the only way to stop the rhetoric and make lasting change.

    Just look at the emotional response to a single 'the'.

Share This Page