Author
|
Topic: The new anti-Semitism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 26 May 2007 02:36 PM
Okay, I read the whole thing now. What a fantastic interview! I was especially interested in this, although I guess it's a bit off topic from the thread title, because it touches on class issues, which have never occurred to me before when it comes to Holocaust studies: quote: Q: One last question, as time goes on in the twenty-first century what direction should research on the Holocaust take now? Hilberg: Well, if you had asked that question first, it would have needed a half hour. Rightfully so, the research today is oriented towards finding out details and especially what happened at the local level. This research has already started. It is not very well developed in this country, but it is very much in progress in Europe. The principle researchers of the Holocaust today are Germans and Austrians. There are also some French and Italians. There are not many Holocaust researchers worth mentioning in this country. The second thing that we should and must do is look at those aspects of what happened which are still taboo. What is taboo is the life of a terminal Jewish community in some ghetto and the notion that some people died first, then other people died next, still other people died last, and then, better yet, some of them survived. What accounts for these very discernible developments? Example: the first to die were the poorest of the poor. We have got to face this issue. We have got to realize that it will not do in the academic world to call all of the Jewish dead – as I have heard one Rabbi call them, Kedoshim, which means holy people. This is not my language. We cannot do that. We have to see them as they were and we have not done this. We have had the lectures. This is one aspect in which I do not agree with Elie Wiesel although I have known him for a long time. He says “listen to the survivors and listen even to their children.” I say, yes, we will listen to the survivors. We have listened for quite a long time, but it is not enough. It will not tell us what happened to the people that did not survive. You are not a random sample. This requires a lot of assiduous research through a lot records that have been buried and have not been examined.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 26 May 2007 03:12 PM
Hilberg was the first substantial historian of the Holocaust, and his work serves as a starting point for all subsequent work.A fair number of his specific claims have been undermined, however, as was discussed in another thread recently. The "class" issue tends to become a way to blame Jews for the Holocaust. While there is no clear pattern, there are many instances in which the Nazis forced Jewish leadership to choose who would die. The common pattern was : "We will deport (kill) these 500 children under the age of ten, unless you provide us with substitutes". Faced with this choice many Jewish leaders committed suicide. Eventually, the Nazis replaced them with more compliant ones. So, when this third-level imposed leadership found poor and indigent people to send away to death, that becomes the "class issue". There's nothing wrong with investigating it, as long as you make clear that it was the policy of the Nazis to purposely create this moral dilemma, and then to scorn those who succumbed.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 26 May 2007 03:33 PM
Well, it certainly wasn't always the case that the poorest died first. But the wealthier people generally had slightly more capacity to hold off disaster than did the poorest ones.Especially early on, ie. 1941 or so, it was possible to bribe German authorities to provide a special exemption pass, showing that a specific Jew was "required for war industry". I know this happened in Holland, for example. So, if you had, say, $50,000.00, you could buy an exemption for a year or so. If you didn't have the money, you died. In establishing who died first among Jews, it was MUCH more important what your citizenship was. Most Scandinavian Jews survived the war. Amazingly, Italy was a good place to be from; for the most part, they protected Jews until after Mussolini fell. But if you were from Germany, Poland, Ukraine/U.S.S.R. or Czechoslovakia, you died as soon as the Final Solution began.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 31 May 2007 04:14 PM
quote: That's right, he is. Like many of the best historians of the Nazi holocaust, he is from Central Europe, where the Jewish community had a very cosmopolitan outlook. Today this universaltic approach has been replaced by a more chauvinistic one (as represented by Elie Weisel and Daniel Goldhagen).
That is utter nonsense. One's outlook doesn't depend on where one came from. Hilberg came from Vienna. Weisel came from about 100 miles away. Both birthplaces were within the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time. If they disagree, it's not because of where they grew up. The best large-scale modern history of the Holocaust was written by Saul Friedlander. He was born in Prague and grew up in France. His work supercedes Hilberg's because he had access to, and made use of newly-opened Soviet Archives. So, for example, he can tell us about a 1000 member Jewish Resistance group which waged partisan warfare against the Nazis from forested areas in the Soviet Union. This sort of information is absent from Hilberg. Another excellent historian of the Holocaust is Michael Marrus, who I think is still at the University of Toronto. Again, because he had substantial access to closed Vatican Archives, his work supercedes Hilberg's on that part of the Holocaust. Marrus eventially quit a Vatican-sponsored project because they wouldn't release ALL the files. Still, he had far more access than Hilberg ever did. Daniel Goldhagen has zero rofessional reputation. But it isn't because he was born in 1959, it is because his thesis was far overstated. For example, in Hitler's Willing Executioners, he talks about the lack of help which Germans offered Jews. He underplays the fact that there was a DEATH PENALTY in place for offering any support. An important detail, one might think.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wade Tompkins: I think that only Jews should be allowed to write about the Holocaust. Anything else is appropriation of voice. It's exactly like non-aboriginals writing about aboriginal history, or men writing about the womyns movement.
So, would you be offended if Gypsies and homosexuals mentioned it once in a while? Please remember that many people other than Jews were killed during the Holocaust. Between 1939 and 1945 the Nazis killed over three million Soviet prisoners of war, two million Soviet civilians, over 1 million Polish civilians, over 1 million Yugoslav civilians, 70,000 people with mental and physical disorders, over 200,000 Gypsies, and an unknown number of political prisoners, resistance fighters, deportees, and homosexuals. [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wade Tompkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14185
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
So, would you be offended if Gypsies and homosexuals mentioned it once in a while?
Nope, but Jews might, as the Holocaust is separate from the other attempted genocides of the Nazis.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wade Tompkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14185
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:22 PM
quote: The Holocaust (from the Greek holókauston from olon "completely" and kauston "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה , Khurbn (Yiddish: חורבן or Halokaust, האלאקאוסט , is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.[1]Other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime, including the Roma, Soviet POWs, disabled people, gay men, Jehovah's Witnesses, non-Jewish Poles, and political prisoners.[2][3] Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,[4] or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."
Wikipedia
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:23 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wade Tompkins:
Nope, but Jews might, as the Holocaust is separate from the other attempted genocides of the Nazis.
You're presupposing what you're attempting to prove. Essentially, you're saying that because the Holocaust is separate from the other attempted genocides of the Nazis, therefore the Holocaust is separate from the other attempted genocides of the Nazis. I'm not persuaded by tautologies like this, especially since the reasoning underlying the Nazi extermination campaigns was identical throughout: non-Aryan peoples and the infirm were seen as being subhuman. Jews may have played a particular role in this warped philosophy, but they were united with the Nazis' other victims by their perceived status as untermenschen. Out of curiosity, do you think non-Armenians should remain silent about the Armenian genocide? Or, do you think that people of Aztec descent should refrain from talking about the genocide inflicted upon the Inca? It seems that by your reasoning, no one except the victms of particular genocides should be able to talk those genocides. Surley this would hinder our societies' ethical development, rather than facilitate it. [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wade Tompkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14185
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
You're presupposing what you're attempting to prove. Essentially, you're saying that because the Holocaust is separate from the other attempted genocides of the Nazis, therefore the Holocaust is separate from the other attempted genocides of the Nazis. I'm not persuaded by tautologies like this.
Did you not read the excerpt from Wikipedia above? It's very clear. I didn't make this up, OK? Really smart scholars did. [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Wade Tompkins ]
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wade Tompkins:
Did you not read the excerpt from Wikipedia above? It's very clear. I didn't make this up, OK? Really smart scholars did. [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Wade Tompkins ]
No, actually, I didn't, as we were cross-posting. I should point out the use of the word "most" in the Wikipedia quote. I take it, therefore, that this is a matter of some debate, particularly, I might hazard a guess, among Gypsies and homosexuals. Now that I've answered your question, would you mind answering mine? Should non-Armenians be able to talk about the Armenian genocide, and should Aztecs be able to talk about the Inca genocide? [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wade Tompkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14185
|
posted 31 May 2007 05:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Nenonen:
No, actually, I didn't, as we were cross-posting. I should point out the use of the word "most" in the Wikipedia quote. I take it, therefore, that this is a matter of some debate. Now that I've answered your question, would you mind answering mine? Should non-Armenians be able to talk about the Armenian genocide, and should Aztecs be able to talk about the Inca genocide? [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]
Talk about it? Absolutely. But I do believe I said that non-Jews should not WRITE about it, as in a scholarly way, like history texts and such. Those should be written exclusively by Jews. And only Armenians should write about their attempted genocide by the Turks, etc. You should pay more attention.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Nenonen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6680
|
posted 31 May 2007 06:30 PM
So we've established, I guess, that you believe that members of specific First Nations peoples should never write, in a scholarly way, about the genocides inflicted upon other First Nations peoples. If I've misinterpreted your position, please let me know.Anyway, here's a hypothetical situation: a genocide occurs that wipes out an entire people. Should anyone write about this genocide in a scholarly manner thereafter? If so, are they appropriating the voice of the dead? Should anyone, in other words, be allowed to produce scholarly writings concerning the genocide of the Beothuks? Another questoin: Among the Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, some would have followed Reform Judaism, some Orthodox Judaism, some were secular Jews who disavowed religion altogether, some would have been Marxists while others would have been capitalists, some would have identified themselves according to their nationality rather than their religious background, etc. Granted, the Nazis would have seen them as being identical...but, then again, the Nazis would also have seen them as sharing an identity, as untermenschen, with homosexuals, etc. Given that in many ways these people belonged to radically different groups, and in some cases would have had differences as great as those dividing, say, homosexual victims of the Nazis from Gypsies, should descendents of particular groups of Jews confine their scholarly writings to the way the Holocaust affected their particular groups? Finally, it should go without saying that non-Jewish historians should, if they are real historians, care about what happened during the Holocaust. Unfortunately, there are, among Jews, conflicting views on the Holocaust (not whether or not it occurred, of course, but rather on how it played out, its cultural effects, its political uses, etc). If they can't write about or debate various areas of Holocaust study, how should non-Jewish scholars go about figuring out which of these views is most accurate? [ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: Michael Nenonen ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Wade Tompkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14185
|
posted 01 June 2007 01:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michael Nenonen: So we've established, I guess, that you believe that members of specific First Nations peoples should never write, in a scholarly way, about the genocides inflicted upon other First Nations peoples. If I've misinterpreted your position, please let me know.
Yes, you have misinterpreted my position. See, here's what I believe: quote: I think that only Jews should be allowed to write about the Holocaust. Anything else is appropriation of voice. It's exactly like non-aboriginals writing about aboriginal history, or men writing about the womyns movement.
Did you notice this phrase 'non-aboriginals writing about aboriginal history'? You must not have; I don't know why because it's very clear. So, since Cree and Comanche and Azteks are ALL aboriginals, I believe that only they are qualified to write the history of their peoples, the original inhabitants of the Americas. I guess you would prefer that someone from Europe write their history for them. How very sad
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 June 2007 02:47 AM
Is everyone having fun?All it takes is one idiot to divert a whole bunch of serious people from a serious discussion. Back to the topic. From childhood, I was taught that we must "never forget". It seems to me that the theses of the Wiesels and Goldhagens cast doubt on the universality of that message. That's what I found fascinating, by contrast, about the Hilberg interview. [ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Atavist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14189
|
posted 01 June 2007 05:00 AM
I am not overly thrilled by this interview, myself. Since it come's from Finkelstein's web site, I am not surprised by my reaction, however. My little sister went to UofV, had a tremendous respect for Raul Hilberg as a scholar and lecturer (she audited one of his classes on the destruction of European Jewry, and apparently he has a FANTASTIC memory and can quote quite impressively at length). What bugs me about this is the usual Finkelstein BS - the too often used, tired assertion that criticism of Israel is the "New Anti-Semitism." Here's some news - there IS NO new anti-semitism - just the same old anti-semitsm being repackaged in bad scholarship by Jewish scholars (who should know better) in the same old way to imply that Israel is a victim state... People are a little more politically savvy these days, and criticism of a nation that expands as relentlessly as Israel does while at the same time hypocritically and agressively fencing Arabs into smaller and smaller "ghettoes" does not seem to be misplaced, in my estimation. [ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Atavist ]
From: "Sitting stoned, alone in my backyard..." | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 04 June 2007 09:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Well, yeah. And aren't there also German Holocaust scholars too? There WERE non-Jewish Europeans who resisted the Nazis and the Holocaust program. I understand giving precedence to voices of the victims as opposed to people who belong to the same ethnic group as the oppressors. But the Holocaust is something Europe has had to come to terms with, and a deeply defining event of the last century. How would it be possible, or even desireable, to keep non-Jewish Europeans from exploring this unparalleled event in their history? It's not just Jewish history. It's German and Polish and Austrian (etc.) history too.
It is also not merely ethnic based either. To only look at the Holocoust as a racist event does not place it in its historic context. It was also an attack on develomentally disabled people from all ethnicities. That would have included my oldest son if we had been in Germany at the time.But if we ever forget the other side of the equation, the attack on political foes we then have no reference point for Pinocet and others of his ilk. If my family had lived in Germany both myself and my spouse would have been treated to the Nazi concentration camps if not just liquidated immediately for resisting arrest. That is because we are both active in trade unions and left wing politics. Let us never forget the holocoust in it entirety otherwise the fascists like Pinocet get to say; I'm not a Nazi because I don't kill Jewish people. Killing your political opponenets in a democracy is what both Hitler and Pinocet did and that destruction of democracy by fascists must never be forgotten and is of as great an importance as the racist murders of Jewish people.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 June 2007 09:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by kropotkin1951: But if we ever forget the other side of the equation, the attack on political foes we then have no reference point for Pinocet and others of his ilk.
Well, with all due respect, I don't agree at all. Of course the Nazis murdered their political opponents, as do many other regimes. But we didn't need to wait until Hitler's ascension to power to know that that was wrong. Also, we don't need to call Pinochet a "Nazi". "Fascist murdering tool of U.S. imperialism" is good enough. "Nazism" has come to mean the Hitlerite phenomenon and, by extension, those neo-Nazis who explicitly support Hitler or take up the same "ideology". To identify the Holocaust with murder of one's political opponents, and to call "Nazi" anyone who does so, I think errs in the opposite direction by blurring the specificity of the Hitlerite crimes. I wouldn't agree with that.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|