It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Holocaust is Overrated

page: 17
36
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NeedToNo
 


What I meant to say is that certain types of conspiracy-theory can be applied to any group...and have been throughout history. If you take the "Protocols" you can fill in just about any race you want to build a case against them. The root of all war is the belief that someone else is evil. The belief that someone else is evil can be "taught", no matter if it is true or not.




posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Ok agreed.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Another question. You said that he Holocaust Museums are seeking awareness (and possibly action). Does that mean people (at least in the Western Hemisphere) are NOT aware of the event? Really? Didn't they learn about it in school?


Well, I think there are different levels of awareness here. What you learn at school is the subject aimed at a teenage audience. Stuff like Anne Frank's diary works well with school kids, because obviously she was a school kid herself, and so on and so forth. I'm not saying school children get a kiddy's version, but it is engineered to the extent that students of a certain age can engage with the subject (and on a more practical level, such that their engagement can be examined, tested, and academically measured).

But I think at that age, and I hope I'm not patronising students here, if I had visited, say, the holocaust memorial in Berlin, or dealt with some of the more harrowing testimonies, some of which have been referred to in this thread...well, I'm not saying I couldn't have coped, but I doubt I would have engaged with the material with the sort of maturity necessary. I visited Berlin several times as a teenager, and have done since in my more mature years
. I love the place now but disliked it then - I think because the whole place came across as a bit of a museum piece. Now I appreciate it as a living and breathing place - which holocaust memory plays a part in. I hope that communicates the difference I mean.

In the same way as a fifteen year old I went on a school trip to Normandy, and visited at least one of the war cemeterys there. I did my best to take it all in, but I'm conscious now that I had to try hard to do so. It was simply beyond my mental capacity to take in the enormity of it all. Perhaps it will always be that way to some extent, but nowadays I'm not sure I would have to try quite so hard to appreciate it.

But that's a slightly personal diversion (and I'm also aware that I'm painting my childhood in a slightly macabre light - it wasn't all war memorials and graveyards, I promise!). The point here is that the holocaust museum in Washington is attempting to spread a different level of awareness to that created in school text books. Have a look at this link and you'll see what I mean. This is holocaust memory and awareness, as it were, in action . It's promoting a conscious, proactive level of awareness, with a view to attempting to prevent its happening again. I don't think that's a glib platitude, I think it's a worthy effort. As I said previously, I concede that awareness on its own is not going to stop genocide - nor is sitting a GCSE, A-Level, or whatever is the US equivalent examination, in the subject. But my conscious appreciation of the events of the second world war began at school with text books - and that grounding frames how I view efforts such as the USHMM's now. And for that reason, I think studying it was worth my while.

LW



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Adolf Hitler had Jewish blood and told Martin Bormann that "no one should ever know where I came from." Martin Bormann took this as "erase all evidence of the Fuhrer's past." With this, he had the house where Hitler grew up demolished and had Hitler's sister commited to a asylum. German people have beat themselves up for decades over the Holocaust, somewhat unecessarily. what I am saying is that, Hitler had his own people killed, as well as many Germans who were homosexuals, mentally challenged, other religious faiths, and those that opposed the Nazi Party. We should not forget that it wasn't just the Jews that suffered. I am not minimising his actions, just making a few statements about the fact the Jews in Germany and elsewhere were not the only group to suffer.

To the author of this post: I understand the title of your post. This is a delicate topic, as proven from the replies. Recommendation Title: More Than Just "ONE" Holocaust. [followed by numbers of casualties by individual "Holocaust's]

BTW: The were many Black German's that lived through Hitler's reign as well [yes, I am Bl-erman] Spaetzle and BBQ baby!



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


The Holocaust Museum in DC was a mandatory field trip for all the AP World History classes at my high school. Most kids at my high school take AP World History in 10th grade (I did too).



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


I have visited the link you provided, and I find it interesting as the definition of holocaust starts lke this:

www.ushmm.org...

"The Holocaust:

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. "

It does go on to mention persecution of other ethnic goups in passing(all restricted within the confines of WWII in Europe), at least to give them some credit. However, I for one(I am sure there are others) cannot wonder about the "monopolizing" of this ancient word and its connotative importance to the jewish experience. No doubt other ethno-nationalistic horrors are subsumed under this banner.

It seems to me the noble effort of public awareness of genocides in general is ultimately a "zero sum game"(humans got limited attention span, as we all know), and as such, it is high time other genocides should be made much more aware, and jewish experience less. Why is it any wonder many posters here think it is comparatively "overrated".

[edit on 30-1-2008 by NeedToNo]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NeedToNo
 


Again though...why does the race matter - really? I'm not taking a dig here, I am genuinely interested.

Look.....take that quote and re-word it slightly without the references to jewish people in, here - look at this



"The Holocaust:

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million people by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that other people, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.


Its still the same message. Is it now "overrated"? The only text changed is that in bold. Nothing else is different.

You have to remember that by far and away the largest numbers killed in the holocaust were that of the jewish people. But they are still people. Does taking the race name out really make that much of a difference?

And if so, why? Any way you cut it its genocide. Is teaching about genocide overrated?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


"Other people", again is within the context of German persecution within the sphere of WWII in Europe.

If you want to play the "numbers game", there are many posts in this thread that disputes this, e.g., estimated Ukranian victimes outnumber this. Besides the horrors of genocides are not necessarily defined by the number of killed, it encompasses the overall horror experience, e.g., rape camps, rape of Nanjing-animalistic experimentations done by the Japanese are characterized by some as "making Mengele look lke a teenage amateur".

In terms of "overrated", we are again stuck with a singular meaningless word fixated to a single experience, when the original poster as well as other posts here made it clear it is a "comparative" notion(by definition) in relation to other genocides. Does "good" exist without "bad" ? Light without darkness ?



[edit on 30-1-2008 by NeedToNo]

*Mod edit - ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

[edit on 30-1-2008 by dbates]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeedToNo
"Other people", again is within the context of German persecution within the sphere of WWII in Europe.


Are you are arguing that the Germans didn't do this? If not, how is that a relevant point?



If you want to play the "numbers game", there are many posts in this thread that disputes this, e.g., estimated Ukranian victimes outnumber this. Besides the horrors of genocides are not necessarily defined by the number of killed, it encompasses the overall horror experience, e.g., rape camps, rape of Nanjing-animalistic experimentations done by the Japanese are characterized by some as "making Mengele look lke a teenage amateur".


I'm not playing a "numbers game". What I'm saying is that genocide is genocide. You appear with this statement to be trying to "sanitise" the killing of 6 million people by saying that the way they died just wasn't quite "horrible" enough. Is that the case?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   


Are you are arguing that the Germans didn't do this? If not, how is that a relevant point?

Absolutely not, I am not a revisionist. I don't belive any posts here so far deny the jewish holocaust ever happend.



I'm not playing a "numbers game". What I'm saying is that genocide is genocide. You appear with this statement to be trying to "sanitise" the killing of 6 million people by saying that the way they died just wasn't quite "horrible" enough. Is that the case?


Please forgive me If I come across this way, which is not what I have so far opinionated(made abundently clear) nor is it my intention. The point here is that other genocides(who can argue that any one of them are not horrible enough) should be made more aware and in the very least given more attention by the perceived jewish "holocaust industry". No need to monopolize such horrors attributed to a single ethnic group, as genocide is a universal (in)human concept.

Let's face it nobody likes to sit in front of TV and watch the same show over and over again, no matter how important it is. Saturation of jewish holocaust in the public sphere of awareness, however horrible, is overdone, and we get the point(never again), and let us move on with additonal perspectives with regards to other genocides, and I belive this is what the thread is about.

Besides how effective is this almost singular importance attached to the jewish holocaust experience(as no other jewish holocaust occured since), and yet we are constantly bombarded by the almost unbearable news of genocides all over the world happening now as we discuss this..



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Excellent post from the OP!
I too have wondered why the focus is only on what happened to the Jews in the prison camps when WW2 atrocities are discussed. I made a similar thread some time ago that somewhat discussed this topic, it was simply titled "There were other Holocausts"?
My son, who is 14 and in the 8th grade, told me just last night that they watched some films that showed original footage of some of the camps being liberated.
He was naturally shocked at how they looked and were treated, just as I was shocked that they showed that film in 8th grade History class but thats not my point here today.
He asked me if it really happened EXACTLY like they had claimed in the films and I told him that I didnt know what film he watched but the mainstream ones are pretty much the same and the general consensus is that yes it did happen as they claimed.
My son knows of my "conspiracy theories" relating to UFO's and other unexplained events, he even agrees with me on some of them but on issues like the Holocaust, 9/11 or anything else controversial, I dont share with him at all because I want him to form his own opinions.
When he mentioned it to me, he acted like the scenes he saw bothered him a little bit, I started to dig a little deeper with him about it but we were interrupted by his g/f calling.
I've been thinking about this today and how to breach the subject again or if i should right now and if so, how I should conduct the discussion because as bad as the Jews had it in WW2 there have been countless other people scattered throughout history that have had it just as bad or worse.
When the teach American History in class they tell of the "Great Indian War" where the US Calvary valiantly fought off hordes of Indians in the West so that our Great Nation could grow and prosper. What a joke!
What happened to the Native Americans was 10X worse than what happened to the Jews!
We werent happy with just killing them, we (as in the US) destroyed an entire way of life, stole there land, forced them into prison camps (reservations) and forced them to conform to our way of life, the ones that didnt were killed.
So tell me this, how is it taboo and in some places illegal to even question a little bit what happened to the jews in WW2 while the extermination of people, like the Indians are completely ignored? To me THAT should be the CRIME!
Thats just one example of many that are either ignored or people just dont care.

Im thinking maybe that I will just not bring it up to my son again, unless he asks. I dont want to put things in his head that he may mention to his teacher, causing me to get a call from the principal to come up there lol.


[edit on 1/30/2008 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

The Holocaust:

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.


This would be perfectly fine if it didn't define "Holocaust" as specifically "the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." This is a problem because it is not inclusive. If it were to say

"The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately twelve million people by the Nazi regime and its collaborators."

then it would be perfectly acceptable. If Jewish deaths made up of say, 80-90% of the total death toll, it would be acceptable to say define "Holocaust" the way it is in the quote. But since they made up of about half of the total death toll (6 of 12 million), to only recognize them without the others is just plain misleading. There are minor references to other ethnic groups, but they are not part of the definition of Holocaust.

And I say this like it doesn't have to be Jews. If 6 million Poles were killed and 3 million Jews were killed (basically switched numbers), and only Poles were mentioned, there would be something wrong there too.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kr0n0s
 


Thanks man, and I understand the dilemma, though I don't have children of my own. I think you probably want to wait a little bit more until he's at least in high school. Don't worry, the subject will come around again. I take this position because I think it might be a little bit hard on him in 8th grade. You should probably slowly expose him to other atrocities and have him come to a conclusion himself, but that's just my two cents.

The Native Americans getting wiped out is also an excellent example of this phenomenon.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by italkyoulisten
 


Good point.

Mod Edit - One line post, please see here - About ATS : Warnings for one line or short responses

[edit on 31/0108/08 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by italkyoulisten
I think the great thing about this thread is that I'm proven right whenever somea random person gets morally outraged and calls me an anti-semite.


Proven right? Not even close. I just find it disgusting that'd you'd attempt to downplay a terrible event by comparing it to other atrocities and claim that it's because of Jewish influence that the Asian atrocities are ignored. Prove it.


Seriously, the Holocaust is a drop in the ocean that is history. It really brings it down to the question of how much free will do we actually have?


We're talking about free will now? Anyone who wants to learn about WWII will eventually come to other atrocities that happened in that period. If they want to learn about it, the material is there. Any real student who has studied the Holocaust would realise it's not only Jews that died in it.


The addict doesn't know he's addicted until it becomes a problem. And even then, he will still believe that he is in control of his own judgment and decision making.


To claim that people who don't think like you can't think for themselves reeks of sheer arrogance.


We're all being conditioned to have responses toward certain subjects without really thinking about it. The Holocaust is one of them. Another subject would be conspiracy theories in general, which is commonly viewed as paranoid loonies. Since questioning anything about the Holocaust implies conspiracy, it becomes like it is on a pedestal or something, like it is holy, as you would be a conspiracy loony AND an anti-semite!


You're claiming that the Holocaust is "overrated" and you claim that the Asian atrocities were ignored in favour of it. Here is a line from your first post on this subject:

I mean, the focus on Jewish deaths should be the first tip off that something is up here.
Now, not that I'm a judge, but since you think that the focus on the Jewish deaths is suspicious, I assume you have evidence?
. Before you get up in a rant at me, have you not heard of Die Endlösung der Judenfrage? It's German for the Final Solution of the Jewish Question and refers to a plan to systematically annihilate the European Jewish population. Here's a link: yad-vashem.org.il...

Hitler hated a lot of different races, but the Jews were the most evil in his eyes and he wanted rid of them. He also used the camps to exterminate other races, poltical dissidents, gay people, and religious folk in order to forward his vision for an Aryan race.


But the question becomes, how much of what we choose and say is based upon true objective reasoning and how much is based upon bias? and is bias created? where do most people learn their biases? Where is the main source of bias?


Bias? I can reel off the names of a couple of prominent historians who have written extensively on the Holocaust subject. Raul Hilberg, Lucy S Dawidowicz, Martin Gilbert, all suffering from bias?
Hell, I have a couple of their books right now, and they are well researched, differing only in number of Jews dead. Of course, they might be Zionists further spreading disinformation as one would throw confetti at a wedding.


You can say that we are taught so much about the Holocaust so we can never forget it, but is that to mean it's ok to forget other equally horrific atrocities that are left out?


No-one said it's OK to leave out atrocities. It's just impossible to list them all in gruesome detail. There will always be history that is too horrible to be covered in school. Remember that teachers are teaching to young people and it would not be suitable to teach a kid about the rape of Nanking for instance, due to the graphic content and the terrible events that occurred in it. The Holocaust is covered, but little is mentioned about the torture and medical experimentation that happened in the death camps. It'd give the pupils nightmares if they found out how they died, and should only be covered by young adults who can distance themselves from it, not hormonal kids who don't have the stomach for it.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by italkyoulisten
 


I agree, good point.

Mod Edit - One line post - Please see here ABOUT ATS: Warnings for one-line or short responses


[edit on 31/0108/08 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Yes we should all concentrate on something that happend 60 years ago and jail anyone who disagrees with the Politically Correct version of the Holocaust, but turn a blind eye to whats happening in the Gaza Strip and the atrocities to Palestinians every day because they have no influence in world affairs and don't really own media outlets nor have any wealth.


The Paradox is that what the Holocaust represented in WW2 is being perpetrated on the minority Palestinian People right now...not 2 generations ago.

I often wonder that if in 50 years the crimes against the people of Palestine will be bought to justice and incarcerated for even questioning that it happened on the Gaza strip ?. Imagine reparations and the extradition of supporters of Genocide from America to the Middle East to face Arabic Courts ?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
Yes we should all concentrate on something that happend 60 years ago and jail anyone who disagrees with the Politically Correct version of the Holocaust, but turn a blind eye to whats happening in the Gaza Strip and the atrocities to Palestinians every day because they have no influence in world affairs and don't really own media outlets nor have any wealth.



No one is saying that - and it's not very constructive to suggest that they are.



The Paradox is that what the Holocaust represented in WW2 is being perpetrated on the minority Palestinian People right now...not 2 generations ago.


That's an opinion which you are representing as fact. Another opinion might be that Israel is perpetrating nothing of the kind, but is attempting to secure its own borders and the threat to its own security, not attempting ethnic cleansing. A better parallel, if you want one, might be the conflict in Yugoslavia a few years ago or the current genocide being perpetrated in Darfur. Both of which conflicts involve(d) an attempt to rid geography of a particular race, tribe or ethnic group.



I often wonder that if in 50 years the crimes against the people of Palestine will be bought to justice and incarcerated for even questioning that it happened on the Gaza strip ?. Imagine reparations and the extradition of supporters of Genocide from America to the Middle East to face Arabic Courts ?


There have doubtless been many crimes committed against many Palestinian people in the ongoing conflict. It is to be hoped those responsible for any war crimes are brought to justice. But I'm not sure who these "supporters of genocide from America" are that you refer to. Can you elucidate?

LW



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeedToNo
I have visited the link you provided, and I find it interesting as the definition of holocaust starts lke this:

www.ushmm.org...

"The Holocaust:

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. "

It does go on to mention persecution of other ethnic goups in passing(all restricted within the confines of WWII in Europe), at least to give them some credit. However, I for one(I am sure there are others) cannot wonder about the "monopolizing" of this ancient word and its connotative importance to the jewish experience. No doubt other ethno-nationalistic horrors are subsumed under this banner.


I think we've covered this matter already, haven't we? If you look at a dictionary, the definition of holocaust is given as "sacrifice by fire". There is in all of the dictionary definitions we found online a "common useage" definition of "the Holocaust", usually written with a definite article and a capital H - to describe the specific event in the 1940s. It's not uncommon for temporary etymology like this to evolve, and there are any number of non-conspiratorial reasons why it does. (For anyone interested in the etymology, btw, there is a quite interesting article here).

But to be honest I don't really see where this line of argument leads. We have multiple words for genocide - even if "holocaust" has been "claimed" by Jewish victims - what difference does that make to our wider understanding and knowledge of genocides across the world? It's true that I tend to hear the atrocities in Darfur referred to as "genocide" rather than as "holocaust" - but if anything the word itself has a more pertinently severe meaning - since it literally translates as the murder of a genus - a whole race of people - whereas "holocaust" could technically refer to an individual.

A quick note on the USHMM - I'm not sure that I agree that the reference to other genocides is a passing one, but I suppose everyone must make up their own minds on that score. It certainly isn't simply restricted to WWII in Europe, though, that's simply wrong. The whole page (linked here) is entitled "Responding TODAY to threats of genocide". How much more contemporary can it be??

LW



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 



I find it very pertinent to ask you my freind are you of/from Israel ?

Blind Freddy can see what is going on there and why the Palestinians broke down the Barricades imprisoning them to get food for their families and children. Who fenced them in ? why do they struggle to get aid ? It seems you are very reticent to believe that attrocities are committed on the Palestinian People by the Israeli forces.

Perhaps you are sympathetic to one kind of Holocaust from long ago but fail to see under your very nose one occurring here and now ?

The complicit parties in the USA I referred to are none other than the very same parties that Lobby to keep the USA in the middle east my freind. I feel it would be a waste of your and my time if I had to name them as if you are unfamiliar with them then you have not done your homework.


[edit on 31-1-2008 by mazzroth]



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join