HULK SMASH!!!
Non-story.
Well it sounds like Mel is admitting there was a Holocaust but he just doesn't seem to think it was any big deal. Just another routine bad thing that happens in war time totally mitigated by the fact that other bad things have happened too.
Who the hell cares about Mel Gibson?
He was great in "Man Without a Face."
OT-I just saw Scott Ritter say the truth,and I mean the whole truth,to Wolf. It was great to hear someone not be side-tracked by Wolf's attacks. Did anyone else see it? Were you as impressed as I was at Ritter's grasp of the issues and at the way he expressed himself?
Sounds more like he doesn't understand why he's being asked this question. He does point out atrocities that were greater in scope than the Holocaust...why? I don't know.
When I visited the Museum of Tolerance near Los Angeles, I asked the docent, "We've heard these stories about the Nazi's. Are we demonizing them too much?"
The intensity of his answer was withering. He simply said, "No."
--ventura county, ca
You like Mel, go see his movies.
You don't like Mel, don't go see his movies.
Eyes on the prize, people...we have an election to win and a country to salvage. Mel's beliefs are a gnat's bite on the ass of what this country has become in the past three years.
TFB, he totally was. That scene he did with the little boy doing The Merchant of Venice (oh, lovely irony) was sheer glorious heaven.
But The Patriot sucked out loud.
A.
Holocaust denial is a natural after the victories of the Thug party and an illegal invasion that kills 40,000 subhumans. They are stirring the racist pot, and all the little spirochetes are dancing!
Like any wannabe German, Gibson would be shocked, shocked, to learn that any Jews were being killed. No, nein...they are being invited to leave the country. If they don't go...who can be blamed for what happens to them?
Achtung Juden.
It gets worse if you actually read the NY Post article by Liz Smith. Apparently it was brought up by Noonan because of reports Mel's dad doubts Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews in Germany. Mel never says he disagrees. He does acknowledge that a lot of people died and that there were Jews in camps, but his statement seems to imply that he doesn't think that this necessarily represents a concerted, organized program on the part of the Nazi's to exterminate the Jews.
Of course, how ever else you decide to explain it is beyond me.
Hey just because Jews dominate the discourse don't forget Ukranians, Gays, Catholics, Handicapped, Gypsys.
It was so nice of Jews to steeal this issue from the rest who suffered.
Sharon: I have always been impressed by Ritter when I've seen him, though didn't see him today.
Did you read Joe Conason today-- apparently, Sen Pat Roberts is now giving out the lie that Saddam didn't let in weapons inspectors, justy like Bush. How detached from reality are these people? God help us.
Gibson's become a loon. It's not exactly uncommon in Hollywood--too much money and too many yes-people. Look at Tom Cruise, the scientologist...
Again...non-issue...no Holocaust denial in evidence. Not from what I read anyway.
How detached from reality are these people?
I don't think there's an actual word that could adequately explain the gap.
M - Travolta's the real Scientologist: even starring in films of L Ron Hubbard's more mediocre SF novels.
neils: I think the question is, 'who cares about Mel Gibson now?
I didn't read that except as a Holocaust denial, but as more of an implicit acknowledgement that many non-Jews died as well. Which is true.
I detect no Holocaust denial.
How detached from reality are these people?
Talk to the Dahli Lama...he'll tell you perception is reality...at least for those without insight (or wearing blinders).
What's really interesting about the bit TBogg quotes is how Mel Gibson sails right on from some Jews in the concentration camps to the famines in the Ukraine in the 30s & the twenty million killed by Soviet Russia. Looks to me as if he wants to say that sure, the Nazis killed some Jews (not to mention a few gypsies, etc.) but the Communists killed so many more people than the Nazis anyway, and we should be devoting all our outrage to _them_...
I wouldn't call it Holocaust denial. More like the usual paleo-conservative Holocaust belittling.
If you don't read it as holocaust denial then, frankly, you've haven't read enough by holocaust deniars. This is how the speak - sidestepping the issue in creative ways without ever acknowledging the reality.
Well the communists and the Nazis are both pretty much a part of history so what's the point? Are we saying that the death of 17 millions is less important than the death of 6 million?
"Bird on a Wire" - now that put the 'F' in 'Film'!
Yes, I have always been ashamed of the line taken, which even Jews must swallow in order to bring people like Benny Morris within the pale of decency; "Sure, lots of people died, but only the Jews were important, because if we say the rest, gays Gypsies and a host of other ethnic victims, were equally important it sort of undercuts the hard Zionist line" As for Mel Gibson, is he an actor or something?
Exactly Atrios...Gibson is definitely parsing. He doesn't want to come right out and say it, but his efforts leave quite a stink in the air. Whatta jerk he is...sorry I ever thought he was cool.
"Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor."
Where is there denial? How is he sidestepping the issue? He is saying that he has personal knowledge of the Holocaust and uses that word to describe it.
You like Mel, go see his movies.
You don't like Mel, don't go see his movies.
Eyes on the prize, people...we have an election to win and a country to salvage. Mel's beliefs are a gnat's bite on the ass of what this country has become in the past three years.
Well said.
Here we go again with the numbers game!
Make your own Mel Gibson movie
World War II was a string of enormities in a century of horror. Stalin and Hitler were deliberate mass-murderers, the Japanese militarists practitioners of gross racist attrocity. Postwar, Mao was a mass-killer by ideology. Each was no better or worse-morally--than a thug with knife. They just got a chance to ply their metier on a larger stage.
That said, any European Jew who survived the until 1946 did so against the very best efforts of Adolf Hitler, his Nazi Party, and their anti-Judaic fellow-travelers. In a much world of evil in which they were one of many targets for victimization, that victimization did happen.
Is this what Mel is trying to say? If so, what's the big deal? (And I'm no big fan of Gibson, just a big fan of picking our spots to fight over.)
sharon: please more details for those of us that don't get CNN International.
Some still deny the Native American holocaust.
Besides, Injuns get less cancer!~
Man, I never expected genocide downplayers here. 
Holocuast Denier? Are you kidding?
Just let the man make his movie in peace. You don't like the storyline -- don't go (or protest, or whatever). But don't go attacking his character and throwing nasty labels on him. In a word, Atrios, chill out.
Holocuast Denier? Are you kidding?
Just let the man make his movie in peace. You don't like the storyline -- don't go (or protest, or whatever). But don't go attacking his character and throwing nasty labels on him. In a word, Atrios, chill out.
ha ha
"He worked in a concentration camp in France..."
"worked"?
like it was a job. They even got Mengelecare for their families and domestic partners.
As a Jew, I'm not necessarily offended by his remark, especially since it was quoted by Peggy Noonan, and who the hell knows how well she transcribed it.
And paradoxically, I also agree with Atrios that it is the first step in Holocaust denial. Anotherwords if you can see the genocide of the Jews as exceptional, rather than part of the hideous whole it's the first step towards denial. Or the converse: "hey it happens to everybody" Works either way.
While Jews comprised the largest single group of Holocaust victims, there most certainly were others.
Additionally, more non-Jews than Jews were exterminated:
Romani (Gypsies)
Polish nationals
homosexuals
Jehovah's Witnesses
political criminals
disabled people
religious leaders
"unpatriotic" Germans
couples in "mixed" marriages
Afro-Europeans
Russians
Serbs
Spanish Republicans
trade unionists
Ukrainians
Slavs
prisoners of war of many nations
and others,
were systematically murdered.
Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers"
Connecting dots doesn't always make an intelligible picture, folks. So Gibson said "some", or was quoted as such.
Relax.
I'm sorry, you're trying to find something that's not there in Gibson's words. Some of my family died at the hands of both Stalin and Hitler, and I would certainly use the word "some" in the same context Mel did--in fact I often do because I generally look at the entire tragedy of WWII when the subject comes up. Fine, he moves quickly from the Shoah to the other evil that happened during the same era, right after he says "yes, of course [the Holocaust happened]."
Fuck Mel Gibson and the cross he rode in on.
Alert gay people have hated him for years for his homophobic statements.
He is a typical white rich republican scumbag.
slab,
exactly. "worked in a concentration camp." what the hell.
slab,
exactly. "worked in a concentration camp." what the hell.
Splitting hairs...
The Russians are the ones that everyone forgets about having lost so much during that war.
1 of 3 killed during WWII was Russian.
I can't wait till that bit of fiction hits the screen and becomes yesterday's news. I hope Mel gets all he wants out of it as it's a purely selfish act.
Next Mel will be be tackling how St. Nick killed the Easter Bunny with the candle stick in the pantry. oh nooo...!
of his father,
"Noonan pushed him about the Holocaust because of accusations that the actor's father questions the attempted extermination of all Jews by Hitler. Of his dad, Gibson says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
Holocaust denial? Not even Atrios' "a little bit" of it. What Gibson IS guilty of, however, is failing to recognize the Holocaust as by far the most horrific result of a horrific war.
What I think he is doing is looking at the overall numbers of dead in the war (and apparently in the entire 20th century) and saying the six to eight million in the Holocaust are just part of that overall number, not any more or less important.
This is in fact a moral stance - the life of a Jewish Holocaust victim is worth precisely the same as a Belgian child killed in a bomb raid or even a German submariner sunk in his U-Boat. However, the horror of the Holocaust does not lie in the relative "worth" of the victims compared to others who died, but rather in the racist ideology it represented, the methods by which it was carried out, and indeed in the terrible side of humanity that it revealed.
War is hell, as Gibson says, but genocide is hellisher.
Gibson is showing himself to be quite the strange one lately. I agree that the less said to publicize his movie the better, but I don't think it's a bad idea to point out the unsavory quirks he has...otherwise he just remains "hollywood superstar who can do no wrong".
The Holocaust was not a "result" of WWII.
exactly. "worked in a concentration camp." what the hell.
I'm reminded of Sully's challenge and Atrios' excellent response: if Atrios pointed out where he has criticized the Left, Sully would simply move the goalpost and claim Atrios didn't do it right.
So, exactly how do you think Mel should've answered this interview question? Would any answer he gave be good enough for you?
There aren't "accusation" about his father. His father is a complete and total holocaust denier of the most extreme kind. And he never lied to Mel. see?
Hmm, I do agree that it's a strange answer and worth following up on, considering his faith in his Holocaust-denying dad, and that he's putting out his Passion Play for the masses this year. I dunno.
I deny that this is denial.
Total non-story.
How did it become evidence of holocusast denial to say that the second world war involved the deaths of you know other people too? Is it right that most people seem to have no idea that the holocaust was as much perpetuated against gypsies and homosexuals as it was jews? That doesn't mean we forget what happened to jewish people, but it does mean that its about time that when the holocaust is being discussed other people who also died are remembered.
And I got a say it's slightly creepy the way you Atrios look beyond the man's words, and convict him on the basis that known holocaust deniers use the same language some times.
That's guilt by association. Let's not get in to some stalinist examination of the minutia (sic) of people's words and criticise them for not being sufficiently emotional where we want them to be.
When Gibson states he doesn't believe the holocuast occurred, then link to it and advocate whatever action you think is appropriate. Until then, there's much more important things to consider.
"1 of 3 killed during WWII was Russian."
How many Chinese did the Japanese kill?
NTodd wrote:
So, exactly how do you think Mel should've answered this interview question? Would any answer he gave be good enough for you?
Yes. He was asked point blank if the Holocaust happened. He could have said "Of course." and moved on and I think everyone would have been satisfied. The answer he gave was incredibly evasive.
Wouldn't the proper term for Gibson's comment actually be: "Holocaust Equivocation"?
The Red Holocaust:
America's Mass Graves
Take a look, tell me the difference.
"But The Patriot sucked out loud."
The Patriot sucked because it was written and produced by the crack team that brought us ID4/(new)Godzilla, masters of turning a one sentence story idea into two hours of 'splosions and sappy disconnected drivel.
Braveheart - best-movie-ever.
No hyperbole to be seen hear, move along.
Heard Mel interviewed on a local catholic radio station. He claimed that satan was trying to stop production of his film and had mass everyday to fend him off.
Mel's gone bye-bye.
Wouldn't the proper term for Gibson's comment actually be: "Holocaust Equivocation"?
The Red Holocaust:
America's Mass Graves
Take a look, tell me the difference.
I believe the term is "moral equivalence" ( I must have seen it on TownHall or somewhere )
I must say I don't see the evilness in his disputable contention that the holocaust was a "result" of WWII. Where's the malignancy in what MAY be a error in his history? (I'm a little rusty on my history, but it seems the breakdown of relations with the rest of the world gave the Nazis the chance to carry out the holocaust (the official date people ascribe to the holocaust becoming official policy of the government was the Wannsee conference in 1942), so in one way the war may have been causal factor - but again am a little rusty on the subject)
Make your own Mel Gibson movie
John G - thanks, I needed a good chuckle.
A far from the Tree has this Apple fallen? Here's a biographical sketch of Mel's dad, it may be a bit discomforting to some of us liberals.
Hutton Gibson (born 1919?) is the father of actor Mel Gibson and a writer about religion.
Following a victory on the Jeopardy! game show, Gibson moved his family to Australia in 1968 in protest of the Vietnam War and because he believed that changes in American society were immoral.
Gibson is a member of the "traditionalist" Catholic Church , who believes that the Mass should still be said in Latin and that all of the Second Vatican Council is in error. Gibson holds that the Second Vatican Council was a secret anti-Christian plot by both Masons and Jews. Gibson also holds to other conspiracy theories, such as his claim that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were not carried out by mostly Saudi Arabian Muslims onboard the plane, but rather were carried out by "remote control" by a different party.
Gibson denies that the Holocaust occurred ; he claims that it is impossible for the Holocaust to have happened, since, in his view, there would be no way to get rid of so many bodies. He claims that "There weren't even that many Jews in all of Europe", and says that there were more Jews in Europe after World War II , statements disputed by all historians (charts of world Jewish population show a steep dip between the 1920s and the 1950s). In support of his father, Mel Gibson claims that his father's beliefs do not amount to Holocaust denial.
In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
That sure looks like he's downplaying the Holocaust. Yes, these deaths were tragic, but what do these statistics have to do with the horror of the Holocaust? He's dancing around it.
Should we contact Tom Tomorrow's patriotism police, and tell them we have a case of insufficient holocaust vituperation?
Should we contact Tom Tomorrow's patriotism police, and tell them we have a case of insufficient holocaust vituperation?
Anonymous
I don't see how this is a question of patriotism, Anon.
Now, if Tom has Humanism Police squad at his disposal, perhaps Mel could benefit from a visit.
Franky, I think Atrios was referring to my saying the Holocaust was a "result" of World War II, not Gibson, and I admit it wasn't the best word choice on my part. That doesn't let Atrios (or T-Bogg) off the hook though for saying "gotcha!" at Mel Gibson when his words don't warrent it.
He was asked point blank if the Holocaust happened. He could have said "Of course." and moved on and I think everyone would have been satisfied. The answer he gave was incredibly evasive.
And he answered point blank "of course". What the hell does it matter if he went on to talk about the rest of the tragedy? As I said, I rarely divorce the Shoah from the greater context of WWI and WWII. Are you going to accuse me of being a Holocaust denier because of my tendency?
Franky - That breakdown in international relations occurred after WWI. You could easily make the argument that the entire rise of Hitler and the National Socialist agenda was due to the punitive nature of the Treaty of Versailles. So WWII AND the Holocaust were a result of crazy racists nationalists taking control of that country, but the Holocaust wasn't a "result" of WWII.
OT
but MSNBC is replaying highlights from the deabte, in case you missed it the first time around.
Soviets lost 27 million people and 13 million of those were civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Eur...of_World_War_II
"The Soviets bore the brunt of World War II; the second front in Europe did not begin until D-Day, apart from the invasion of Italy. More Soviet citizens died during World War II than those of all other countries combined. Approximately 27 million Soviets, among them more than 13 million civilians"
Gibson failing to render appropriate (in the eyes of some) condemnation for the Holocaust is not the same as Holocaust denial. There have been several upthread notes on indian massacres...since we are still talking about the Holocaust, does this mean that we deny that indians were killed wholesale?
For those of us familiar with the holocaust-denial set, this is a quote filled with code words -- like "states rights" being a code word for support of racist policies. On its face there's nothing factually inaccurate about what he said. If said by a random joe on the street, without context, there'd be no particular reason to suspect antisemitism or holocaust denial. But when he places a clear downplaying of the holocaust into the context of his religion and his father, he's being a holocaust denier.
Saying, "Well, war is hell, and sure, some Jews died" ignores the systematic, technological and ideological significance.
It's like when people say, "Well, Native Americans killed each other, too! Some were even cannibals!"
I'm also looking back at my post and I can see that my use of the word "result" was intended in the non-causal British use of the word, if that makes sense to anybody ...
Look what happening to market his movie:
http://www.latimes.com/la-et-
pas...1,3515653.story
If you need password, etc. use gore vidal twice.
A couple of points. First, I didn't link the holocaust only with the deaths of Jews, Gibson did. Second, Gibson is well aware of the controversy surrounding him, his father, who has never lied to him, and his movie. If he wanted to remove the controversy he would, as someone said, say simply that it happened. Instead, he points to survivors (And "workers" no less). This kind of dance is precisely the dance that holocaust deniers do, and it isn't because they're simply equating death with death, it's a way of not answering the intended question.
I'm with the people who think you're unfairly criticising Gibson, Atrios. He seems to acknowledge that people were there, that the camps were set up to kill in large quantities.
But it's also good that he acknowledges that not everybody in the Concentration Camps was a Jew; I'm tired of people shoving the other dead aside, for whatever reason. The most popular estimate seems to be that 11 million people died in the camps -- 6 million Jews, 5 million non-Jews. Ignoring the 5 million "others" is moderately outrageous, but it happens all over the place, including among liberals.
When you add to that the millions of Russian civilians who died during the war... WWII was an ugly time. Only by acknowledging all the facets of that can we work to try to ensure that it doesn't happen again.
"But when he places a clear downplaying of the holocaust into the context of his religion and his father, he's being a holocaust denier."
I'm sorry but I don't see that. Noonan asks three different questions about three different topics. His religion is in relation to the movie he made...the answer regarding his father was in relation to how his father and his upbringing effected his FAITH. The Holocaust question had nothing to do with either of those (accept as a reflection of his fathers reported views on that subject). I think if you kept Noonan's questions in context instead of lumping them together you'd have a more accurate picture.
The majority of people killed in the Holocaust were Christians, Not Jews. (see wolf above)
However -- the Jews were killed for being Jews; all of the others were killed for their politics, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.
Are you aware that 500,000 Serbs were killed by the Nazis and their Croatian Bosnian Allies? When Yugoslavia disintigrated, it was like two weeks after the end of WW2.
Mao killed 20 million after the war; I think the Japanese killed at least that many.
"First, I didn't link the holocaust only with the deaths of Jews,"
Yet when gibson mentions non-jewish death you call him a denier.
"Instead, he points to survivors"
And he calls them "Holocaust" survivors. A point you keep leaving out.
Because Gibson was raised by a prominent denier, perhaps what he needs is not condemnation, but a broader education. He has shown himself to be a great researcher when the subject interests him.
Can I just say that Terry Moran rocks? He's doing a story on the deficit, and he says, "Many economists say that the numbers in Bush's plan to halve the deficit just [pause] DONT [pause] ADD [pause] UP."
In today's world, that's as good as it's going to get on mainstream TV.
ignores the systematic, technological and ideological significance.
Bingo!
"Mao killed 20 million after the war; I think the Japanese killed at least that many."
Death toll is not the same as the Holocaust. Mao did not 'kill' 20 million. The national hysteria got out of control, and people all over the country killed their neighbors-- the equivalent of a witch hunt. Few of those deaths were related to racism.
Setting up death camps and organizing it like a bake sale is what makes the Holocaust unusual. There is plenty of genocide, but it's not the same if racism is not driving it.
Rwanda: pure racism. 800,000 people killed, while Clinton fiddled. The racist Serb genocides in the former Yugoslavia also qualify, as does the genocide in Armenia, and the genocide of the American native cultures. These racist genocides are a different thing than the Cultural Revolution. Or the Holocaust.
I don't see any Holocaust denial in Gibson's statement. He makes it clear that tens of millions died during an era of absolute madness in the first half of the 20th century. Let's hope we are not heading for the same tragedies in the first half of the 21st century.
What was the last book anyone here read about the extermination of the Gypsies of Europe by Hitler? Any movies come to mind? Hitler got almost all of them. Usually, there is a sentence or two in the history books saying, "Hitler also killed the Gypsies." How tragic -- for the survivors of the 500,000 Gypsies who were slaughtered by the Nazis -- to find that they are just a footnote in history books.
Here's an interesting article about how they suffered under the Nazis. It was prepared with the assistance of the Holocaust Museum in Washington.
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/ae...-
holocaust.html
(And I may or may not go to see his movie)
Perhaps re-education camps for people like Gibson so that when questioned they can provide the appropriate and accepted response.
I am surprised at a lot of the comments here...normally I would expect a good bashing of this guy who is obviously wacka doodle and thinks it's perfectly ok to prattle on about his views (that I find a bit scary) in the same way he prattles on about the normal inane stuff that movie stars talk about. It kind of makes what he says and thinks okay (by okay, I guess I mean okay to be mainstream) because he's a "star". I find that very bothersome...I don't Atrios is picking on him.
Perhaps re-education camps for people like Gibson so that when questioned they can provide the appropriate and accepted response.
~A~
OUCH!
ignores the systematic, technological and ideological significance.
But is this denial of the Holocaust?
Atrios, my man, you get a lot of idiots on your comment list.
So fot their benefit I'll say this:
Gibson is an extremely right wing catholic who is part of a movement that does not recognize Vatican II. There's good reason to doubt if he has much, if any, respect for democracy. His father, who was his teacher in all this, has come very close to actual Holocause denial, closer than his sone has, skirting around it
just barely. This is all heavy shit. But hey he believes it and there's a long list of great art with lousy politics.
He doesn't even make great art.
Well done, Ben Grimm.
When someone is asked a fair and simple question which can be answered yes or no, and instead, gives a long-winded response that dances around the issue, I'd say there's definitely something funny going on there.
And he answered point blank "of course".
Not exactly. He answered, in part, "Yes, of course atrocities happened. War is horrible."
If some who had never heard of the Holocaust read Gibson's response, I think they'd conclude that sometime during WWII, with millions dying all around, some people had numbers put on there arms and were sent to camps, and some of them died while they were there. If you want to call that 'the Holocaust' then no, Gibson is definitely not a Holocaust denier. If on the other hand, you believe that the Holocaust was a genocidal program which systematically murdered millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other social and racial undesirables, well maybe Gibson didn't actually come out and explicitly deny the Holocaust, but he certainly did a lot of dancing to avoid having to confirm it.
~A~
I don't think he was dening it...but he put it into the context of 'well a lot of people died during the war.' As Atrios points out...that's sort of slippery slope into there wasn't the added bit of evil in 'the final solution' sense of it. Death factories and the such. Instead of asking Gibson about the Holocaust in general...he should be asked about gas chambers and ovens...that would get to the point.
But is this denial of the Holocaust?
~A~
I would use the term 'Holocaust Equivocation'...
but tamayto, tomahto...
So Beth...all of this because he didn't answer the quesion with enough horrified enthusiasm?
This is not a "what if" scenario with people who never heard of the Holocaust. That's a bad comparison. That we all know and accept the Holocaust is factual history could be another reason Gibson wonders what all the big fuss (regarding his views) is about.
Most legitimate histories record that the Nazi holocaust murdered 11 million people from 1933-1945 as part of a systematic genocide. Six million were Jews. The remaining included deemed by the Nazis as unfit to live. Gypsies. Gays. Slavs. the mentally ill. Jehovah's Witnesses. It was a very long list.
I don't see how Gibson's comments amount to Holocaust denial. Carelessly worded, perhaps. But his words don't deny the event or its human cost.
Maybe we should be a wee bit careful in judging the child by the father's beliefs. My dad thinks Reagan was the best president in his lifetime. I hasn't made me a Republican. And I love him anyway.
"I don't think he was dening it"
Yet this is what Atrios accused him of.
Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor."
Doesn't this sentence say I know the Holocaust was real and I know people who suffered during that time?
We may not like his politics in other areas but that's not an excuse to misrepresent his comments here.
"~A~", do you think the Holocaust happened? Do you think it wasn't a big deal? There are some really repugnant statements of this thread. What is wrong with you people? So what if he "says Holocaust"? That doesn't mean he believes it. You're denying the truth about Gibson and his blatant anti-semitism, and it's really disgusting. You're showing your ass on this thread.
"I don't see any Holocaust denial in Gibson's statement...era of absolute madness...Let's hope we are not heading for the same tragedies..."
This is why I applaud atrios for again hitting the nail on the head. Look at all the Holocaust denial on this very thread!
It is NOT a unique, absolute madness. It is sociopathy, and the collapse of a society caused by overwhelming totalitarianism, combined with deep racism. Those factors all exist in our times. RACISM is at the root of it, but the totalitarianism is no different in our times than theirs. No balance of powers? Then watch the racism rise up like the undead viper it is.
Most of you probably haven't been in the streets protesting racism. But I have, and over the last three years it has jumped out of the gym looking fit: the forced election of the Austrian bodybuilder in California, with thugs dressed in full leathers chanting 'women are for fucking'...and all the warhounds chanting 'kill them all.'
It is important to realize that knowledge of history is not equivalent to understanding. The Holocaust was not like all other genocides or mass deaths. That's the line Limbo was trying to sell -- you could as easily die on the highways!
Kudos, atrios. You de Dracula of political bleeders.
Guys and gals...
Aren't we getting a little out of hand? Don't we have enough to worry about without fretting over whether or not a Hollywood actor thinks the Holocaust happened? And do we REALLY care who killed Jesus or what he had for dinner the night before?
Don't get me wrong...the Holocaust was awful and we should never forget it. But let's remember that this country and its leadership - Republican AND Democratic - sat on its hands countless times in the face of genocide and did NOTHING to stop it, much of it in the past 30 years. Let's not forget the ravages of Cambodia, Africa, and the Balkans, for starters
We can't go back and change the course of history and undo the horrors of World War II. I'll lay odds that none of us on this board were even alive during that time. What we CAN do is live in the present and do our damndest to insure that this NEVER happens again.
How do we do that? Get that asshole in the White House out of office and work to re-establish the credibility of this country as the beacon of human rights we can be.
Sermon over. That being said, I thought 'The Road Warrior' kicked ass.
~A~ - you do know that the context is the complaint that his movie plays to the "Jews Killed Jesus" mentality, right?
And you do know that those who deny the extent, extremity of the Holocaust often say with their next breath, "But if it happened, it's because God was paying the Jews back for killing Jesus!"
Mel's dad and his fans know it, and it works for them as good as Trent Lott's comments about the US possibly being better off if it had a President who advocated segregation.
If you don't know that, you should.
And he answered point blank "of course".
Not exactly. He answered, in part, "Yes, of course atrocities happened. War is horrible."
The quote I read had Gibson saying he has friends with numbers on their arms (that's certainly a nod to the Nazi's systematic extermination program), he has a friend who was "a Holocaust survivor" (acknowledging there is a Holocaust and it was bad enough to make survival notable), and said "Yes, of course." Come on, don't misquote him.
If some who had never heard of the Holocaust read Gibson's response...
This was not an educational effort on his part. I would never place such an burden on any interview with an actor.
well maybe Gibson didn't actually come out and explicitly deny the Holocaust, but he certainly did a lot of dancing to avoid having to confirm it.
Dancing around confirming the Holocaust? Jeebus, he flat out said it happened.
"Atrios, my man, you get a lot of idiots on your comment list ..." followed by an extensive list of Gibson's extremist ways.
Thanks, someone, for filling us in on Gibson - and thanks to all who have explained his background - but to call us "idiots" is totally uncalled for. How the fuck were we supposed to know all this shit about Gibson? How the fuck were we supposed to look at what seems on the surface a totally innocuous comment and know that it was filled with Holocaust denying "code"?
So fuck you "someone", you Mel Gibson obsessed fuck.
I can't help but feel that those who seek the moral uniqueness of the Nazi holocaust are downplaying the other holocausts of the century. Rwanda was a genocide as was that carried out by the turks against the Armenians. I understand the genocides, of which I include in the category the nazi holocaust, as the systematic extermination of another race. And I can't help but wonder about people's motives who seek some exceptionalism in the Nazi holocaust. Yes there was the introduction of mass technology for the purpose of slaughter that was absent in the other genocides, but I don't see how that warrants the Nazi holocaust being put in a category all by itself, and somehow more tragic than that suffered in Armenia or Rwanda.
I speak more as one genuinely confused rather than someone looking for a fight.
But, words like "re-education" do send shivers down my spine.
And one further point: the guy's got a whacky old man. How many of you want to be tried in the court of public opinion for the attitudes of your family? Thinking of my grandparents, I would be fucked. So what, Atrios, will make you happy? For Gibson to publicly disown his father? To stand in front of the village and point to the father and say he hasn't been a good revolutionary? Pardon the hyperbole, but once we start trying each other for the sins of our fathers, it seems not long before denunciations like those seen in China, Russia, etc. etc.
ignores the systematic, technological and ideological significance.
But is this denial of the Holocaust?
Yes, I would say that is the very definition of Holocaust denial.
I've come to think that there are two routes taken to denial. First would be denying the nature of a systemitised, mechanised, administrated genocide. (Just something that happens during war route) The other is exceptionalism- it's a little more subtle, but it goes like this: They hated the Jews because of whatever, and know that we know the Jews a little better, or now that we are more educated or whatever it won't happen again, so why worry?
At least that's the way it breaks down for me. Oh, and a third: It wasn't as many as they say. You can use a combination of these- the end result is to downplay modern man's capacity for systemitised, mechanised administrated genocide.
Mel needs to change his name to Howard Dean. To call this Holocaust denial is a gross distortion. For once, Atrios, you're way off base.
Yes, Mel's dad has some very odd beliefs; Mel is not his father. And no, I am not a Gibson apologist, nor am I in any way denying the reality of the Holocaust or its horror.
As has been said above, let's focus on the real issues facing us.
So Beth...all of this because he didn't answer the quesion with enough horrified enthusiasm?
Absolutely not. As Ben pointed out a simple, 'Of course' would have been sufficient. But rather than answer the question, he attempted to reframe it. He redefined the Holocaust as putting numbers on people's arms and sending them to camps where they weren't perfectly protected from the war raging about them. That is not what the holocaust was.
This reminds me so much about the issue the other day, where some other idiot talked about how paying taxes is just like slavery. He admitted that slavery did in fact exist in this country, but characterized it basically as some people withholding some portion of other people's wages. Maybe that's not, strictly speaking, 'slavery denial' but it comes pretty damn close.
"~A~", do you think the Holocaust happened? Do you think it wasn't a big deal?
How the fuck can you ask that? ~A~ has not denied the Holocaust. ~A~ has legitimately questioned the parsing of Gibson's words.
So what if he "says Holocaust"? That doesn't mean he believes it.
Then Atrios could merely post something entitled "Gibson is an anti-Semite". Why does he need to attack Gibson for words that say "of course there was a Holocaust"? If the issue isn't what he says, but what he believes, then I guess this thread would be wicked short.
"I am surprised at a lot of the comments here...normally I would expect a good bashing of this guy who is obviously wacka doodle..."
So, we should all jump in an act like FReepers? I strongly disagree. This is a good topic for further exploration, not something that should turn us into an angry mob. There are several good points here that challenge Atrios' absolutist reaction to Gibson's remarks. Atrios could be spot on; on the other hand he could be reading more into the remarks than necessary.
The reason that the Holocaust enjoys special status, in general, is because it alone is an example of a modern, educated state comitting genocide. Every other instance people mention is states that are barely out of feudalism, if that; they're thus looked at the same way as the crusades.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, proves that it could happen here - it's something we need to be particularly vigilant about because our development doesn't protect us from it. It's very easy to ignore Rwanda, for example, because we see ourselves as "better" or "more developed" than they are; but the Holocaust proves that we aren't.
Modernity does not innoculate a culture against evil, and that's something that wasn't really known until the 1940s. Up until that point, everyone believed that it couldn't happen in modern, industrial countries. And they were wrong.
"~A~", do you think the Holocaust happened? Do you think it wasn't a big deal?"
Yes and Yes...that Gibson's statements as cited do not, in my humble opinion, show evidence of Holocaust denial does not mean that I am denying the Holocaust. That kind of group think mentality and it's associated desire to paint all with the same brush just goes to show that the republicans do not have a monopoly on close-mindedness.
"Most legitimate histories record that the Nazi holocaust murdered 11 million people from 1933-1945 as part of a systematic genocide."
That is false. The Final Solution was only assented to in '39 or so. The earlier thug slayings of political opponents and the weak was an expression of thuggery. The '36 (?) eugenics murders were not really genocide, since that isn't a culture being destroyed.
Genocide is distinguished by both: mass murder, destruction of culture. The Holocaust, on the other hand, was more than genocide. It was more than ethnic cleansing. It was a religion of hatred, come to fruition on a governmental scale.
It does not do to mix these categories up.
Replying to Paul, and Dave in Texas --
About 20 million died after the Chinese Communists came to power in 1949. Millions died of starvation, and they are probably included in this total.
Earl Swisher, a professor of American Policy in the Pacific (1969, CU Boulder) taught at the American Univeristy of Canton in 1925. He was a personal friend of Chou En Lai and others. He described asking his students why the first Chinese revolution (1912-1
failed -- they answered with a single voice, "not enough bloody." The Nationalists made the same mistake, by compromising with the warlords -- the Communists did not. They exterminated the entire old order. Not to condone what they did, but the Communist Revolution succeeded, where the others did not.
Dave -- as to the numbers who died in the Holocaust, I was under the impression that 6 to 7 million Jews were killed, out of a total of 14 to 15 million. Apparently, the total has been revised downward -- which would make the Jews the single largest group of victims.
And the Holocaust was unique, in that it was a systematic extermination -- and regardless of the numbers, Jews were the primary target.
Sorry...Yes I think the Holocaust happened and yes I think it was a big deal...just in case there's any confusion.
Franky, I mentioned the Native American holocaust, and trains were just as important in that genocide as in Germany.
What ought to be mentioned is that the 'anti-war' movement in America (prior to involvement in WWII) was in part funded by the industrialists and bankers who were in bed with the Nazis and wanted to wait until a larger profit could be made from all sides after it became clear what the Nazis were up to.
You know, Prescott Bush - Joe Kennedy, etc.
Edwin Black is the go-to guy on US technology's role in facilitating the Holocaust.
But you probably knew that.
As Ben pointed out a simple, 'Of course' would have been sufficient.
No it wouldn't. If he'd simply said, "of course," I'd bet dollars to donuts that he would still be excoriated for not saying more like, "yes, the Holocaust happened, and 6 million Jews were murdered systematically by a brutal regime."
Do you think any interview is ever conducted with the expectation of a simple, short response to a question that is clearly meant to push buttons? I've seen arguments like this before: somebody gives a short answer and people leap on that person because clearly they're clamming up to hide something.
Face it, everybody has preconceived notions of Gibson (with which I happen to agree), and all y'all are reading into these words for confirmation of your filters.
some other idiot talked about how paying taxes is just like slavery.
I'd say this is apples and oranges. Gibson acknowledging the Holocaust is not like equating slavery with taxes. One is the admission of fact, the other is a false analogy.
So Mooser, just to be clear. Even though I'm aware of the horror of the holocaust, because I don't see the holocaust as particular exception to the list of 20th century genocides, I'm a holocaust denier?
So me and some guy in a white sheet over his head handing out pamphlets entitled "The holocaust: It didn't Happen" are one and the same?
Call me old school, but I'll save my venom for the people who actually deny the holocaust, rather than exmaining people's words and jumping to conclusions about the possible inference others are drawing from them
Damon: Cool it.
Paul: Thank you for pointing out that the Great Helmsman did not "kill" 20 million people. Tired of folks with limited historical knowledge trying to pin things on the man.
Atrios: You are right. Mel Gibson is "slick", and frankly, I don't care if he ever makes another movie. Braveheart was overwrought tripe. I hear his "Passion" sucks big time. The man's a wacko.
Posted again:
~A~ - you do know that the context is the complaint that his movie plays to the "Jews Killed Jesus" mentality, right?
And you do know that those who deny the extent, extremity of the Holocaust often say with their next breath, "But if it happened, it's because God was paying the Jews back for killing Jesus!"
Mel's dad and his fans know it, and it works for them as good as Trent Lott's comments about the US possibly being better off if it had a President who advocated segregation.
If you don't know that, you should.
There are also two seperate issues here...no one is saying that the Holocaust was not a horrible event. And I think we all understand it with the context of it's broader implications regarding the systematic destruction of a specific group (or groups) of people by a modern government. That isn't the subject of this thread. The subject is...did Gibson's remarks constitute denial of the Holocaust?
~A~ - you do know that the context is the complaint that his movie plays to the "Jews Killed Jesus" mentality, right?
I've heard this before...I'll wait to see the movie then form my own opinion thanks.
The quote I read had Gibson saying he has friends with numbers on their arms (that's certainly a nod to the Nazi's systematic extermination program).
Unfortunately, no. That's an acknowledgement that there are still people around with numbers tatooed on their arms.
he has a friend who was "a Holocaust survivor" (acknowledging there is a Holocaust and it was bad enough to make survival notable)
I have a friend whose bumper sticker proudly identifies him as a survior of Catholic School.
and said "Yes, of course." Come on, don't misquote him.
I quoted him as saying "Yes, of course," though I left out the period at the end. On the other hand, you made it sound like "Yes, of course," was a direct answer to the question, instead of in the middle of a rambling discourse, so let's just call it even.
This was not an educational effort on his part.
I disagree. I think that's exactly what is was (or more accurately a miseducational effort). I think he was trying to present a fairly typical denier's view of the Holocaust: yes, people got numbers and some were sent to camps, but it was really no big deal.
The quote I read had Gibson saying he has friends with numbers on their arms (that's certainly a nod to the Nazi's systematic extermination program).
Unfortunately, no. That's an acknowledgement that there are still people around with numbers tatooed on their arms.
he has a friend who was "a Holocaust survivor" (acknowledging there is a Holocaust and it was bad enough to make survival notable)
I have a friend whose bumper sticker proudly identifies him as a survior of Catholic School.
and said "Yes, of course." Come on, don't misquote him.
I quoted him as saying "Yes, of course," though I left out the period at the end. On the other hand, you made it sound like "Yes, of course," was a direct answer to the question, instead of in the middle of a rambling discourse, so let's just call it even.
This was not an educational effort on his part.
I disagree. I think that's exactly what it was (or more accurately a miseducational effort). I think he was trying to present a fairly typical denier's view of the Holocaust: yes, people got numbers and some were sent to camps, but it was really no big deal.
Look, ~A~, I'm not saying that the film does implicate Jews, just to be clear.
I was just trying to offer context.
By the way, Benn. Cheers for the explanation on the importance of the holocaust and its relevance to modern-day societies, something I had overlooked. I see the importance of it, but (and maybe I'm misreading people here) the holocaust seems to me as being presented as more tragic than the others (an interesting reverse of your point: it was only savages that died in the other holocausts, so fuck'em. Just an idea)
"he has a friend who was "a Holocaust survivor" (acknowledging there is a Holocaust and it was bad enough to make survival notable)
I have a friend whose bumper sticker proudly identifies him as a survior of Catholic School."
LOOK LOOK...Holocaust denier! Equating the slaughter of millions with the difficulties of a catholic school...even Gibson never sank so low.
"Franky, I mentioned the Native American holocaust, and trains were just as important in that genocide as in Germany."
Nonsense (and from you, more nonsense). The genocide of the NAs occured long before trains. For most of it, hundreds of years before.
The Plains indians war did involve trains, and the ecocide of the bison. But it was on a tiny scale compared to the massive collision of Europe with N. America, which killed maybe 90% of the natives in 100 years.
The use of trains in Germany is tied to the use of fake showers and the gold bar in Bx's desk drawer. It is not at all the same with America. The Gold Rush genocide of the CA indians was sheer thuggery. It was genocide, by definition, but it does not compare with Holocaust.
Atrios, Beth, _et al_ - I give up. Your mind-reading skills are clearly infinitely superior to mine. Use your power wisely...
Yes I think the Holocaust happened and yes I think it was a big deal.
That was a clear and simple response. Maybe Mel could hire you as his speechwriter.
sumwon
I understand...my point is that some seem to have made up their own minds about Gibson's poitics (antisemetic or otherwise) and are viewing his comments through those rather subjective lenses. I don't see any denial in the statement provided...he might be a raging antisemite for all I know. I'm just saying I don't see any evidence of it in the quote.
or politics...
"I see the importance of it, but (and maybe I'm misreading people here) the holocaust seems to me as being presented as more tragic than the others"
Not more tragic, of course not. More horrific, because it is the industrial revolution of genocide.
It is important that these categories and understandings are repeated and relearned regularly. What Limbo was trying to do by discounting Iraqi (and GI) deaths is just the camel's nose under the tentflap.
We would have to call that genocide-denying, but Holocaust denying, and anti-Jew opinion, is certainly on the rise, as a direct result of Bxco's efforts to elevate hatred to the national level once again.
What I really think - as if anyone cares - is that Mel is a pretty bad actor. It has been my opinion for quite awhile that stupid people are bad actors, and that by and large the really good actors are pretty smart people. I think Mel is one of those who doesn't bring much with him to the party.
Atrios, you da man.
Enlightening.
That was a clear and simple response. Maybe Mel could hire you as his speechwriter.
Then people would accuse me of being an anti-semite just by my association with Gibson...what a shame.
Paul, you may or may not be interested in this:
Native American Displacement Amid U.S. Expansion
A Conversation With R. David Edmunds
University of Texas at Dallas
Expansion and Indian removal created some phenomenal problems for the new American nation in terms of its moral character. How can this unique experiment in the new world -- this nation that prided itself upon its democratic institutions, force Native American people westward? How do you rationalize the taking of and and the usurpation of property?
The argument that was used was, "This had to be done to save these poor Indian people. They don't fit in the East, so we have to move them out beyond the frontier where they can do their Indian thing unmolested. This is the only possible way to save them."
The hypocrisy of this is obvious because many of the people, though not all of them, who were removed were very sophisticated and relatively "civilized" people. For example, the literacy rate of the Cherokee nation is higher than that of the white South up through the Civil War, yet the tribe was moved westward as an uncivilized people, so that their land could be open for American expansion.
Beth - "I think he was trying to present a fairly typical denier's view of the Holocaust: yes, people got numbers and some were sent to camps, but it was really no big deal."
Mel - Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
I think that the anti-Semite label might be more accurate than the denier label. If he was raised by a rabid denier, that's a step up.
Some survived the displacement.
Many did not.
And let's not forget, Paul, that smallpox blankets were weapons of mass destruction
Low-tech, maybe, but it got the job done.
Face it, everybody has preconceived notions of Gibson (with which I happen to agree), and all y'all are reading into these words for confirmation of your filters.
I didn't. I had no idea that Gibson was anything other than your garden-variety softheaded Hollywood flake.
His statement, however, is impossible to misunderstand unless one is being deliberately obtuse. I'm not clear on why wingers would feel the need to leap to Gibson's defense. I can only assume it's a reflex triggered by the politics of the people attacking him.
"You're going to have to go on record. 9/11 happened, right?"
Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who were in New York at the time. My chauffeur had been on an airplane just the day before. Yes, of course, some people died that day. Thousands of people died in 2001. Some of them were Americans in airplanes. Many people lost their lives. In occupied Palestine, several hundred martyrs were murdered by Israeli assassins. From 1992 to 2001, American policy led killed half a million Iraqi children."
Would you be able to see the evasion there?
The problem that fascists have is that fascism has been forever tainted by the murderous excesses of the German strain; when you mention fascism, people think Hitler, not Mussolini. This makes it tough to market fascism, but lord knows the Bush Crime Family is doing everything they can to reverse that sad accident of history.
sheesh...
Come here, speak you piece and feel content in having the opportunity.
Enough with the bashing of others with an opinion of their own that doesn't match yours. We listen, learn, inspire... and become more that we are without each other.
Thanks for the post Atrios, Mel definitely requires some watching. I hope he realizes all the people he will be hurting. I really doubt that was the message that he learned from Jesus.
Not more tragic, of course not. More horrific, because it is the industrial revolution of genocide.
If that's your particular horror...I happen to find it difficult to make a distinction. To me, killing an innocent person by whatever means, is a horrible thing. I can't really put the decapitated photo's of Aricans on a shelf and say, "well, at least they didn't use trains."
The story didn't back up the headline. Where was the "Holocaust Denial"?
"Don't get me wrong...the Holocaust was awful and we should never forget it. "
This, itself, is Holocaust denial. How can people forget what they never understood?
Plenty of people believe that Hitler was a unique evil, instead of an extreme version of a non-unique evil. Hitler was an extreme example of Bx. There is very little difference in the sociopathy, the racism, and the social manipulation and coercion.
Plenty of people believe that the Germans were uniquely fallible. Yet look at the collapse of the last three years! We could slip just the same.
CAN Bxco stun the nation into giving up its government? Could he then find a racism deep enough to turn the country into a military state?
They're f*cking WORKING ON IT, you bet!
Which is why atrios is right on target. First 911, then Holocaust...a pair of threads that seem minor, and then blow up into all kinds of implications that people who are trying to minimize their anxiety and simplify their worldview rush to smudge out.
I'm not clear on why wingers would feel the need to leap to Gibson's defense. I can only assume it's a reflex triggered by the politics of the people attacking him.
I haven't seen any "wingers" on this thread. More name-calling I suppose...talk about attacking people with different opinions! And your example is quite a bit more evasive than Gibson’s and not an accurate analogy at all.
"Don't get me wrong...the Holocaust was awful and we should never forget it. "
This, itself, is Holocaust denial.
No it isn't...unless you write speeches for Bush based on Orwellian models.
When is a denial not a denial...when it's not!
"His statement, however, is impossible to misunderstand unless one is being deliberately obtuse. I'm not clear on why wingers would feel the need to leap to Gibson's defense. I can only assume it's a reflex triggered by the politics of the people attacking him."
Wow. That statement is obtuse. The ones on this thread behaving like fascist Thought Police are the ones telling everyone that we must instantly agree that Mel is a denier. However, I recognize that it would be stupid of me to draw conclusions on one's entire political bent or level of intelligence from this issue, because those conclusions would likely be as totally wrong as are yours.
It's obvious that there are folks here who have a much deeper understanding of the denier modus operandi than the rest of us. Perhaps those folks could explain their position more thoroughly.
Franky' I must not have been clear, which I would like to put down to cleaning a carpet btween posts. I thought I said that an excessive exceptionalism is one method that deniars may use, thus "What the Nazis did to us, that was the only one true holocaust, and no other genocide, unless exactly alike(which is impossible) is a genuine Holocaust."
Down that road is, well, another holocaust. I hope that's clear. I don't appreciate being equated with the KKK.
Okay, ~A~ and Anonymous, I'll rephrase without the accusation of wingerdom so you don't have a side-issue to attack.
"I have friends and parents of friends who were in New York at the time. My chauffeur had been on an airplane just the day before. Yes, of course, some people died that day. Thousands of people died in 2001. Some of them were Americans in airplanes. Many people lost their lives. In occupied Palestine, several hundred martyrs were murdered by Israeli assassins. From 1992 to 2001, American policy killed half a million Iraqi children."
Would you accept that statement as a perfectly ordinary response to a question about 9/11 and not in any way indicative that the speaker is squirming to conceal beliefs that he knows would be controversial?
I'm with you on this one Anonymous...it sounds like there's two seperate denial issues...the denial of an historical event and the denial of the ramifications of an historical event. I've been thinking more the former, perhaps the others are referring to the latter.
Replying to Paul, and Dave in Texas --
About 20 million died after the Chinese Communists came to power in 1949. Millions died of starvation, and they are probably included in this total.
Earl Swisher, a professor of American Policy in the Pacific (1969, CU Boulder) taught at the American Univeristy of Canton in 1925. He was a personal friend of Chou En Lai and others. He described asking his students why the first Chinese revolution (1912-1 failed -- they answered with a single voice, "not enough bloody." The Nationalists made the same mistake, by compromising with the warlords -- the Communists did not. They exterminated the entire old order. Not to condone what they did, but the Communist Revolution succeeded, where the others did not.
Dave -- as to the numbers who died in the Holocaust, I was under the impression that 6 to 7 million Jews were killed, out of a total of 14 to 15 million. Apparently, the total has been revised downward -- which would make the Jews the single largest group of victims.
And the Holocaust was unique, in that it was a systematic extermination -- and regardless of the numbers, Jews were the primary target.
""I have friends and parents of friends who were in New York at the time. My chauffeur had been on an airplane just the day before."
Gibson makes no statement comparable to this.
"Thousands of people died in 2001. Some of them were Americans in airplanes. Many people lost their lives."
Gibson does not equate deaths due to accident or illness with Holocaust deaths. He equates death from other oppressive regimes.
"In occupied Palestine, several hundred martyrs were murdered by Israeli assassins. From 1992 to 2001, American policy killed half a million Iraqi children.""
The only part of your analogy that comes remotely close since both your versions and Gibson's recount the deaths of innocent people from the actions of an occupying force.
"It's obvious that there are folks here who have a much deeper understanding of the denier modus operandi than the rest of us. Perhaps those folks could explain their position more thoroughly."
Aiight.
I knew a guy once, a long time ago, who had an interesting pet peeve: He was infuriated at the injustice of Hitler being so thoroughly demonized when "Stalin killed more people."
This is one of those guys who always has to be the Germans when you play Axis & Allies, y'know? He was always pushing these dog-eared paperbacks about the International Communist Conspiracy, too. (This was around 1980.)
Anyway, as the years pass the guy's Nazi sympathies come more and more to light. He was a full-blown denier and eventually admitted it when good and drunk one night.
And from him I learned to recognize those body-count games "The russians killed so many more!" as the mark of a denier in spin mode.
."it sounds like there's two seperate denial issues...the denial of an historical event and the denial of the ramifications of an historical event. I've been thinking more the former, perhaps the others are referring to the latter."
~A~
She says it better than me, as usual.
You can cry all day about the victims of the Shoah- but if you don't see how it applies to you, as a possible victim, as well as a possible perpetrator, all that kvetching is to no avail.
~A~ |
Laertes,
You may be right...and as NTodd said upthread, maybe your mindreading abilities are supperior to all of ours but I don't see where you leaping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence is justified.
This is a very interesting thread indeed.
I'm reminded of thr brouhaha in response to PETA's ads conflating the killing of chickens with the Holocaust. Condemning the torture and abuse of animals is a compelling enough evil in and of itself, why the need to associate it with the great evil of the Holocaust? Can't individual evil actions be denounced on their own despicable, um, "merits"?
I recall similar responses to the denunciation of the genocide in Kosovo. To suggest that Kosovo is another Holocaust, runs the risk of trivializing the Holocaust, while minimizing the evil of Kosovo. For if Kosovo is a Holocaust, then the Holocaust was like Kosovo, which means that in the Holocaust there were no gas chambers, no death camps, no “final solution” to kill every Jew anywhere simply because they were Jews. Similarly, to require of Kosovo to be a Holocaust in order to characterize it as radical evil, is to deny its essential evil even when it is not a Holocaust. For while Kosovo is not a Holocaust, what happened there—forced detentions, disappearances, expulsions, rape, murder—is evil enough. (I'm paraphrasing from an interesting piece by Irwin Colter in the Canadian Jewish News.)
I do get disgusted by the attitude that "the evil that killed these victims was far worse than the evil that killed other innocent victims." That being said, I think the critical uniqueness of the Holocaust - not necessarily in terms of the enormity of the loss of life but moreso in terms of the systematic and technolgical coldness of the entire effort - leaves this and future generations with far more talking points and lessons to learn than simply "that guy was a bad dictator and killed a lot of innocent people because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, beliefs, what have you."
This is a very interesting thread indeed.
I'm reminded of thr brouhaha in response to PETA's ads conflating the killing of chickens with the Holocaust. Condemning the torture and abuse of animals is a compelling enough evil in and of itself, why the need to associate it with the great evil of the Holocaust? Can't individual evil actions be denounced on their own despicable, um, "merits"?
I recall similar responses to the denunciation of the genocide in Kosovo. To suggest that Kosovo is another Holocaust, runs the risk of trivializing the Holocaust, while minimizing the evil of Kosovo. For if Kosovo is a Holocaust, then the Holocaust was like Kosovo, which means that in the Holocaust there were no gas chambers, no death camps, no “final solution” to kill every Jew anywhere simply because they were Jews. Similarly, to require of Kosovo to be a Holocaust in order to characterize it as radical evil, is to deny its essential evil even when it is not a Holocaust. For while Kosovo is not a Holocaust, what happened there—forced detentions, disappearances, expulsions, rape, murder—is evil enough. (I'm paraphrasing from an interesting piece by Irwin Colter in the Canadian Jewish News.)
I do get disgusted by the attitude that "the evil that killed these victims was far worse than the evil that killed other innocent victims." That being said, I think the critical uniqueness of the Holocaust - not necessarily in terms of the enormity of the loss of life but moreso in terms of the systematic and technolgical coldness of the entire effort - leaves this and future generations with far more talking points and lessons to learn than simply "that guy was a bad dictator and killed a lot of innocent people because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, beliefs, what have you."
By the body count method Saddam Hussein is rather small potatoes.
"She says it better than me, as usual.
You can cry all day about the victims of the Shoah- but if you don't see how it applies to you, as a possible victim, as well as a possible perpetrator, all that kvetching is to no avail.
~A~"
Agreed Mooser,
I do understand the ramifications of the event and I do know that it historically happened. Gibson may believe the latter but not the former. Certainly he acknowledges the historical event...I'm not sure if failure to learn the lesson of history is the same thing as denial.
Hypo: "I have friends and parents of friends who were in New York at the time. My chauffeur had been on an airplane just the day before."
~A~: "Gibson makes no statement comparable to this."
Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France."
They're the same: "I knew people who were close to what happened but weren't killed. Implication: It wasn't all that bad."
Hypo: "Thousands of people died in 2001. Some of them were Americans in airplanes. Many people lost their lives."
~A~: "Gibson does not equate deaths due to accident or illness with Holocaust deaths. He equates death from other oppressive regimes."
The hypothetical statement does not neccesarily refer to Americans dying due to accident or illness. A person defending the statement would parse it as an acknowledgement that American passengers on Airplanes were killed by terrorists. What the statements share is the minimization of the tragedy by touching on it as quickly as possible before moving on to the list of victims that the speaker finds be of greater worth.
The statements are roughly equivalent. The speaker is clearly tap-dancing to avoid expressing beliefs he knows to be controversial. The only difference is the ideology.
When was the last time anyone jumped all over Ted Kennedy (or Robert of JFK for that matter) because their daddy, old Joe Kennedy, was such a great fan of Hitler's that the British demanded that he be withdrawn as their ambassador from the United States just prior to WWII?
So we judge Mel by his dad, but not the Kennedys by their's. Who is making these rules? At least Gibson isn't in government. If the sins of the father are the criteria here, we should be ashamed of some of the Democrats we have elected to public office, and probably never should have voted to JFK, the son of a bigot, at all. And how can Gibson produce a good film when he is the son of a bigot? Real smart, huh.
I am not defending Gibson, but I think this is highly unfair. Atrios, please go after those who actually deny the Holocaust or worship Hitler's ghost, not someone whose outrage at a surprise question didn't quite measure up to the way you would have wanted him to react.
Personally, being of American Indian descent, I am more upset about their genocide by the United States and other colonial powers here in the Western Hemisphere than I am about Hitler's victims. I am tired and resentful of people telling me that the Jews suffered more than my ancestors did and therefore I should feel more outrage for the victims of Germany's extermination policies than for the victims of the 500 years of America's extermination policies against mine. I am tired of being told that my ancesters aren't important. I guess it is a matter of whose shoes you are walking in.
Now come on and tell me my ancestors aren't important and that only the Jewish victims of the Holocaust are and no one else.
Ensley: The statement in question was given by Mel Gibson, not Mel Gibson's father.
If JFK or RFK had any history of sharing or defending their father's monstrous Jew-hatred, I'm not aware of it and I'd be grateful for documentation so that I could downgrade my opinion of the gentlemen.
You're not responsible for the beliefs of your father. When you defend them yourself, you make them your own. And then you are responsible for what you say.
Hypo: "I have friends and parents of friends who were in New York at the time. My chauffeur had been on an airplane just the day before."
~A~: "Gibson makes no statement comparable to this."
Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France."
They're the same: "I knew people who were close to what happened but weren't killed. Implication: It wasn't all that bad."
No...you're reading into it...your example is of people who were near but had no association with the events other than that. Gibson’s example is of people who had first hand knowledge of these events and since he has these intimate friends with first hand knowledge of the events may have a clearer picture of their suffering than you or I.
Hypo: "Thousands of people died in 2001. Some of them were Americans in airplanes. Many people lost their lives."
~A~: "Gibson does not equate deaths due to accident or illness with Holocaust deaths. He equates death from other oppressive regimes."
The hypothetical statement does not necessarily refer to Americans dying due to accident or illness. A person defending the statement would parse it as an acknowledgement that American passengers on Airplanes were killed by terrorists.
Again No...you equated deaths in planes and deaths by an unspecified means as being equitable to the deaths of those in the WTC. Gibson made no such comparison...Gibson compared people who died due acts of violence from other repressive governments (such as Stalin’s) to the Nazi Holocaust. While we may agree that the Holocaust may have been worse than Stalin’s purge due to it's methodical manner...this does not equate to a denial of the Holocaust as an historical event.
Ensley, the reason that the sins of the father are being brought into the light here is because Mel Gibson has stated that his father "never lied to [him]".
So if his father never lied to him, and his father comes verrrry close to denying the Holocaust, that would mean that he believes what his father has said.
And there ain't too many here who would call your ancestors "not important". But the issue at hand is whether or not Gibson's sidestepping the Final Solution, because his work smacks of anti-Semitism and he has yet to say that his father's statements were uncalled-for, even when directly asked (so no, this wasn't a "surprise question").
And I've got to say, it really sounds like he's trying to tap-dance around the question. I'd like to hear an audio version of what he said, cause when he said, "Yes, of course.", that could either refer to the Holocaust or the "atrocities" to which he refers directly afterwards. Inflection makes a difference...
And he really sucks as an actor/director. Just thought I'd add that.
Remember that comedy routine by the only Mel worth talking about?
It was a Cannes Film Festival interview with "Herr Adolph Hartler" of "Narzi Films" who explained "Well it was all a big misunderstanding. We just . . .took some people to camp. Mostly in the summer. Why in my own home we hid a Jewish family. Yes, we hid them for awhile then we turned them over to the Gestapo."
Hey, Atrios: fix the typo in your title, already! HolocAUst
The REAL "Holocaust denial", practiced by almost everyone, is EXCLUSIVELY talking about the Jews who died and not mentioning the not as big but still staggeringly large numbers of Communists, gays, Gypsys, and others who were killed by the Nazis in the same way. Estimates (see here) say 11 million people were victims of the Nazis; only slightly more than half (6 million) were Jews. How many times have you heard about the others?
"I thought I said that an excessive exceptionalism is one method that deniars may use, thus "What the Nazis did to us, that was the only one true holocaust,"
The Holocaust is capital H. One issue not well understood (including by many Jews) is that the Holocaust does not belong to the Jews. It is their tragedy, of course, but the crime is against HUMANITY, not just against the Jews.
Excessive exceptionalism is a route by racism deniers among Jews today. I hear this all the time ("I can't be a racist, I'm a Jew. Kill all the Arabs! They're evil!"). But the Holocaust is itself something 'special,' not an ordinary genocide. And it is important to understand why.
For the record, Holocaust denying is not necessarily deep-seated racism. It is as simple as not noticing the difference between Holocaust and 'ordinary' genocide. It is a form of ignorance. But Gibson is the son of a racist, as Swartzenegger and Bx. And we shall know them by their works, and S and Bx have already proven their racism. Gibson may just be deluded. But most likely, he's a denier, in service of his religion.
Personally, being of American Indian descent, I am more upset about their genocide by the United States and other colonial powers here in the Western Hemisphere than I am about Hitler's victims. I am tired and resentful of people telling me that the Jews suffered more than my ancestors did and therefore I should feel more outrage for the victims of Germany's extermination policies than for the victims of the 500 years of America's extermination policies against mine. I am tired of being told that my ancesters aren't important. I guess it is a matter of whose shoes you are walking in
Excessive exceptionalism allows us to harden our hearts toward the suffering of others. That being said the genocide that you or your loved ones suffer from is always the most exceptional.
I am probably oversensitive to this aspect of the holocaust because I grew up with the phrase "the six million" ringing in my ears, and an awful feeling that we (I am Jewish) held ourselves immune from the holocaust perpetrating desease. And I always had a sick feeling that it was not so. When I had mentioned the awful price Native Americans paid for American expansion, adults would say "Feh, what do they know about suffering? Why in Germany they killed..." That's one aspect of how excessive exceptionalism is harmful, or so it seems to me, in between strokes with the Bissel.
Eli Stephens
How many times have you heard about the others?
Several times upthread Eli...but it is always worth remembering.
He was great in "Man Without a Face." Tinfoil Hat Boy
... "Year of Living Dangerously" ... one of my favorite films. Otherwise, I don't watch Gibson's films at all.
Personally, being of American Indian descent, I am more upset about their genocide by the United States and other colonial powers here in the Western Hemisphere than I am about Hitler's victims.
As you should be. It's too bad that this country is in the same kind of denial (thanks to history books and worse, inaccurate portrayal of Native Americans in movies and other literary *works*).
"Feh, what do they know about suffering? Why in Germany they killed..." That's one aspect of how excessive exceptionalism is harmful"
Interesting Mooser...an example of using the Holocaust to deny other human tragedies. Or am I missing your point?
Eli, your point is valid, if overstated in numbers. But you miss the point in your rejection of the Jewish ownership of the Holocaust.
The Holocaust does not belong to the Jews. Though the Jews were the main scapegoat, there were others 'processed' in the same way.
Now that Zionists have reversed the clock to practice their own ethnic cleansing and racist labeling, your point is all the more important. However, it is crucial not to lose sight of the essential difference between the Holocaust and war deaths or other genocides. It is not so much of a difference that it is unique and unparalleled in the annals of racism. It is uniquely horrible. Dresden was uniquely horrible as well, and so was Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
In the face of so much horror, people naturally find themselves questioning why the Holocaust should be considered different. Only study and understanding will make that point (again, if one has forgotten it).
In the face of so much horror, people naturally find themselves questioning why the Holocaust should be considered different. Only study and understanding will make that point (again, if one has forgotten it).
But is this questioning considered a denial of the Holocaust? Is it possible to misunderstand the ramification of an historical event without denying the event itself? Does this misunderstanding make one an anti-semite or do anti-semites merely ignore the historical record in lieu of their own views?
You've got to keep in mind that Holocaust deniers, or equivicators, usually don't, unless they just want to be historically perverse, deny (or equivocate) the Holocaust for it's own sake. Almost always someone who does the denying, does it for a purpose, usually to justify to themselves that their genocidal program is not the Holocaust, or some other purpose. So they fit the type and manner of denial from among the aspects of the event so that it best suits their purposes.
"Personally, being of American Indian descent, I am more upset about their genocide by the United States and other colonial powers here in the Western Hemisphere than I am about Hitler's victims."
That's quite absurd, given that that genocide for the most part occured 300+ years ago.
The genocide of the various native cultures occured before most Europeans overcame their racism. The attacks on the Jews were emblematic of resurgent racism, and that is one reason why the Holocaust gets so much attention.
But the industrialization of genocide, and the rise of a modern racist state/religion, these are quite different from the disaster in America.
Yet I don't think Gibson has a genocidal program to speak of Mooser. It appears that some on this thread have already determined that Gibson is denying the Holocaust and are using the exact same thought process you describe in order to rationalize their own belief.
Interesting discussion with lots of valid views. Kind of people to give MG the benefit of the doubt, but I feel no such charitable impulse: he has been extreme right wing, with extreme fundamentalist views for years.
In my view he gets bad marks because he implies that the Halocaust was just part of war(which is hell, he so glibly says) as if that is an excuse or explanation. It did not happen because of war, although it occured at the same time. Most of those killed in the concentration camps were non-combatants, most had not resisted in any way and many were German citizens. (Yes, Hitler killed his own people...) They were not at war with Hitler, they were not killed because of the war: they would have been killed war or no war. Many were women, children or middle-aged or even old. They were no threat to anyone sane, just people living, minding their own business. They were not incidental victims of wartime weapons or devestation but were systematically and individually targeted, even the children, which adds to the horror. And it came at a time when people could not believe "civilized" people were capable of such actions.
The fact that there have been other monsters before and since does not lessen the horror one iota.
John G: Love the link!
When I had mentioned the awful price Native Americans paid for American expansion, adults would say "Feh, what do they know about suffering? Why in Germany they killed..." That's one aspect of how excessive exceptionalism is harmful, or so it seems to me, in between strokes with the Bissel.
I never heard this --- the Native American deaths were always justified by 'progress' -- or a blank look saying what can I do about it.
"Now that Zionists have reversed the clock to practice their own ethnic cleansing..."
Paul, while we're on the subject of code words, I read a lot of people comparing the Israelis to the Nazis. You haven't done that, but I do think you're reducing a set of complicated historical events to a simplistic phrase.
That's quite absurd, given that that genocide for the most part occured 300+ years ago.
So if you wait long enough...the deaths of your people won't matter quite as much as those who died most recently, specifically because the newer methods of slaughter are more technologically advanced.
That is absurd!
"But is this questioning considered a denial of the Holocaust? Is it possible to misunderstand the ramification of an historical event without denying the event itself?"
The term is vague enough to register both problems. Denial of the factual event--there are many involved in that kind of parsing. The main form of denial is the nonrecognition of the event for what it was.
"Does this misunderstanding make one an anti-semite or do anti-semites merely ignore the historical record in lieu of their own views?"
Antisemitism would also properly include Arabs as semites. Some deniers are anti-Jew (like Gibson's dad). But, again, the Holocaust does not belong to the Jews as such. It would be as accurate to say it belongs to the Germans. It does not. The features of our humanity include such capabilities. All genocide is a global catastrophe, but the Holocaust was the peak of state terrorism.
BTW, I didn't read all the comments to see if someone had posted it yet, but Mel's dad (who BTW was one of the guys protesting down at the Judge Moore Commandments monument) thinks that the Jews weren't really killed in those camps at all, as it was all a clever conspiracy on the part of the Nazis, who actually smuggled those Jews out and sent them to the Middle East to kill Arabs.
Orcinus has had various entries on this over the past year.
OK, here's Mel:
...Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union.
It may not be holocaust denial, but it's certainly holocaust belittlement.
Which is probably worse.
My question about his quote above is, did Nooner edit out the "yada yada yadas"? Sure sounds like it...
I don't know Mel Gibson and wouldn't recognise Him If I saw him on the street.
But if you heard "the Nazi's did this to us and therefore we have the right to do this, or that, it would make you sick." I've heard that "the Holocaust made us stronger by weeding out the weak and slow"
And you get to the point of wondering if secretly, or subconsciously they aren't almost thankful for the event.
There's enough evil in event like the holocaust to poison almost anyone who comes near it, if they are not careful.
"The genocide of the various native cultures occured before most Europeans overcame their racism. "
Hmmm, no.
Paul, please read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"
My point Paul is that denial is something that is done out of a need for avoidance. It is done consciously or unconsciously. Simple ignorance of the ramifications of an historical event would not be denial...it would be ignorance. I also agree that it’s important for us all to study and learn the lessons of the Holocaust lest they be forgotten. I just don’t think that Gibson’s comments (as cited) show a denial of the Holocaust itself or of it’s ramifications.
I'll hate myself in the morning but I agree with Anon, A, and others. We're assuming a lot here, are we not, with what Gibson said? Holocaust denial? He might believe it, but you can't deduce that from what is said, partially because it takes a real journalist to ask the damn follow-up. And Nooner ain't no journalist.
With regard to just this comment, I agree with first post of the thread by the guy who thinks Bush saved more lives than anybody: this is a non-story.
It may not be holocaust denial, but it's certainly holocaust belittlement.
Which is probably worse.
dave
Dave makes the best point to date...Kudos to you sir!
Night night boys and girls...it's been a very educational experience and I mean nothing sarcastic by that at all.
Till Monday Tata for now.
"It may not be holocaust denial, but it's certainly holocaust belittlement."
What you call "belittlement" is in fact an element of what people call "denial" in this context - "some Jews were killed, but not actually as many as people say, and anyway people get killed in war, and more people died of the 1917 influenza, and ..."
I've been trying to understand why anyone here disagrees with Atrios's point - perhaps this is it. Gibson isn't denying that Jews were killed, or Roma, or people with my initials. But the Final Solution wasn't about people with my initials.
That's quite absurd, given that that genocide for the most part occured 300+ years ago.
I'm sorry you said that, and I'm embarassed for you.
Seems like one of those who think the Jews deserved it.
Of course only nazis would admit as such.
But you had to see this coming.
He's been making more and more movies with conservative or otherwise republican-like themes.
MYOB'
.
""Now that Zionists have reversed the clock to practice their own ethnic cleansing..."
"Paul, while we're on the subject of code words, I read a lot of people comparing the Israelis to the Nazis."
I should have said 'Likud' Zionists.
"That's quite absurd, given that that genocide for the most part occured 300+ years ago."
"So if you wait long enough...the deaths of your people won't matter quite as much as those who died most recently, specifically because the newer methods of slaughter are more technologically advanced."
I did not say those deaths didn't matter. In fact, I consider the destruction of native culture in the America's possibly the greatest tragedy to strike the human race in history. 600 cultures, pretty much gone.
But we are the people living in the time of the UN, which was formed to stop genocide, to stop war against civilians (like Bxco's invasion). No such enlightenment existed in the 1500s (among Europeans, nor among many natives). I do believe that the US attacks on natives must be counted with slavery as crimes that this gov't STILL must try affirmatively to ameliorate.
Any chance the guy worked in a concentration camp? Young enough to teach Gibson Spanish, so must have been a kid at the time.
The Nazis murdered at least 6 million Jews. They did it in a way that transcends atrocity. That said, our own culture has made a pantheon of evil of the Nazis. We all know the names and the archetypes they represent. WW2 is so gigantic it can't help but enter the world of myth.
Maybe Gibson is a pig, but the comment is generally accurate, and shows some knowledge of the scope of human suffering in those times. It does not endow the Jews with super-victim status, and that's what fuels the accusations of denial. Thinking of the Jews as history's ultimate victims is tempting, but maybe a bit myopic. I'm sure glad I wasn't one in Poland back then though.
That's quite absurd, given that that genocide for the most part occured 300+ years ago.
Paul, it certainly occurred to a much greater degree in the 1800's.
""The genocide of the various native cultures occured before most Europeans overcame their racism. "
Well, that was pretty vague. I mean that the general view of human rights for all races (etc.) is fairly modern.
"Hmmm, no."
"Paul, please read "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"
Anonymous"
Read it, and a lot more than that. The genocide peaked in intensity in the 1500s. The racism and genocide has continued to the present day. As a racism protester, I look forward to the day when America can recognize its actions, and ameliorate them to whatever degree is possible. I do believe that the Manifest Destiny boys would have been quite happy to wear Nazi colors.
I do believe that the Manifest Destiny boys would have been quite happy to wear Nazi colors.
Metaphorically anyways. Good posts.
Thanks Paul-I must have misunderstood you.
My concern is with the Jewish "super victim status" because that is the aspect of the holocaust and it's ramifications that I have personal contact with. For instance, I couldn't possibly begin to know how the Holocaust might effect someone who had cause to beleive or know that a relative was a gaurd or worse.
I could guess, or extropolate( or some other word I can't spel) but I don't know. And there's enough bad joo-joo (no pun intended) in that super-victim status that I do know about to give me plenty to think about.
Hey, all those Jews and others were lucky duckies, they didn't have to pay taxes!
Some were Catholics (3 million) that died in the holocaust.
Atrios picking fights and backing it up with a bigoted mindset.
As the first comment made to this board. Non-story.
BTW have you seen the Passion of Christ yet........ didn't think so.
"The features of our humanity include such capabilities. All genocide is a global catastrophe,"
Paul
I can't say it better than that.
from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
15. What was the difference between the persecution of the Jews and the persecution of other groups classified by the Nazis as enemies of the Third Reich?
Answer: The Jews were the only group singled out for total systematic annihilation by the Nazis. To escape the death sentence imposed by the Nazis, the Jews could only leave Nazi-controlled Europe. Every single Jew was to be killed according to the Nazis' plan. In the case of other criminals or enemies of the Third Reich, their families were usually not held accountable. Thus, if a person were executed or sent to a concentration camp, it did not mean that each member of his family would meet the same fate. Moreover, in most situations the Nazis' enemies were classified as such because of their actions or political affiliation (actions and/or opinions which could be revised). In the case of the Jews, it was because of their racial origin, which could never be changed.
BTW have you seen the Passion of Christ yet........ didn't think so.
Loud Mouths, it's another stellar piece of fiction.
But I'm sure it provides entertainment value.
BTW have you seen the Passion of Christ yet........ didn't think so.
Loud Mouths
I hear that's it's true to the Biblical version. What if it is? What does that portend? It's not a movie I even care to see. I'd much rather see 'Touching The Void,' but it's not out in San Diego.
Mel Gibson is self promotes like Andy sullivan does - they hew to teh desperate belief that self-created contorversy sells.
You know I have searched everywhere but I have not found a rat's ass to give to either one of them.
sorry for the spelling failures above.
While watching another Holocaust documentary on the biography or history channel, I started wondering about how many peope watch this type of thing and become blase about the horror of what happened. Then I wondered what became of those people (not always Germans) who participated in the murders. Were they all hunted down after the war or did they just go back to their normal lives? Anyone know any good books about these people?
Schindler's List was a great movie and too horrible to watch a second time. The scene where the camp commandant was randomly shooting prisoners from his balcony was one of most terrifying scenes I have ever seen in a movie.
Dennis, the scenes from Schindler's List are horrifying. You can believe them or not. Most do.
The horror of innocents being killed, randomly or systematically, is still a fact of life.
War sucks. It allows for all kinds of atrocities. That's why it should never be waged for questionable reasons.
Like this one was.
Dennis, the scenes from Schindler's List are horrifying. You can believe them or not. Most do.
The horror of innocents being killed, randomly or systematically, is still a fact of life.
War sucks. It allows for all kinds of atrocities. That's why it should never be waged for questionable reasons.
Like this one was.
Hmmm. Double. Sorry.
Schindler's List was a great movie
I went to go see that movie with my girlfriend, but unfortunately, we didn't get to watch all of it. See, my girlfriend and I started making out in the the theater about halfway through the film. I mean, we had not been alone with each other for a long time because my parents were in town and were staying with me at my apartment. Anyway, we got busted by a real jerk who told my parents about my heavy makeout session with my girlfriend. It's a good thing I'm Jewish, otherwise I might be accused of an anti-semitic belittling of a Hollywood holocaust portrayal.
While watching another Holocaust documentary on the biography or history channel, I started wondering about how many peope watch this type of thing and become blase about the horror of what happened. Then I wondered what became of those people (not always Germans) who participated in the murders. Were they all hunted down after the war or did they just go back to their normal lives? Anyone know any good books about these people?
Though not about one of the people directly involved with the murders, a movie released last year gives a stunning insight into the mentality that had gripped Germany in that period:
Blind Spot (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/
BlindSpotHitlersSecretary-1119906/)
Looking back over this thread it occurs to me that we all could have saved a lot of mess and bother if we'd paid more attention to this from eyelessgame:
For those of us familiar with the holocaust-denial set, this is a quote filled with code words -- like "states rights" being a code word for support of racist policies.
If I had never read any Denial propaganda, I might have found Gibson's reply a bit rambling, but I probably wouldn't have seen it as denying the Holocaust. But in light of Denial teachings, it seems glaringly obvious. He said everything he could to provide an acceptable answer while still conforming perfectly with Denial belief. If you ask, "Was what he said consistent with a belief in the Holocaust?" the answer is certainly yes. But if you ask, "Was what he said consistent with Holocaust denial?" the answer is just as certainly yes.
If someone else had said the same thing, this could conceivably have been a coincidence, but Mel Gibson is familiar with Denial teachings. He knew exactly what he was doing. I can't say for certain that he subscribes to Denial, but he's certainly unwilling to publicly repudiate it.
While watching another Holocaust documentary on the biography or history channel, I started wondering about how many peope watch this type of thing and become blase about the horror of what happened. Then I wondered what became of those people (not always Germans) who participated in the murders. Were they all hunted down after the war or did they just go back to their normal lives? Anyone know any good books about these people?
Schindler's List was a great movie and too horrible to watch a second time. The scene where the camp commandant was randomly shooting prisoners from his balcony was one of most terrifying scenes I have ever seen in a movie.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
Yes. I'm surprised others didn't come to the same conclusion.
There is a substantial difference between "war is hell" and a systematic campaign to roundup and slaughter an ethnic group.
I don't know if "denial" is the right word, but it is at least ignorant in an offensive way.
pie,
I think it's just that some people here aren't familiar with Holocaust denial propaganda. If you think that 'Holocaust denial' simply means 'none of it ever happened', then Gibson's response doesn't look much like denial. But if you're aware of the movement to rehabilitate National Socialism (and fascism in general) by denying its genocidal aspects and are familiar with the particular storylines and language they use, it's impossible to miss.
Beth, I am not at all familiar with that movement. But I am quite sure that Mel Gibson knows what to say and how to say it.
What happens if you take Gibson's statement to its logical conclusion?
The Holocaust was one horrible event in a horrible world war.
Wouldn't this essentially mean that there is some kind of moral equivalency between Hitler and Roosevelt/Churchill?
Weren't Dresden, the firebombings of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki as bad as anything the Nazis did in any given day?
Yes, they were. But it still doesn't make Roosevelt or Churchill the moral equivalent of Hitler.
Yes, the British murdered several hundred thousand people in one day in Dresden and yes we did the same thing in Japan, but no, it's unlikely Hitler would have funded a Marshall Plan for the conquered Jewish or Slavic people.
That's the difference between Hitler and Roosevelt or even Stalin.
Hitler was the only one who dedicated the full industrial capacity of an advanced Western power to wiping out a whole nationality. Not even Stalin or Tojo tried that.
There is a substantial difference between "war is hell" and a systematic campaign to roundup and slaughter an ethnic group.
Face it, you people defend Mel because you think he's cute and you like him. If Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. had said the same you'd have a fit. Carville is right. Liberals spend too much time on the wrong things. This is why the right kicks our butts. They may often be wrong but at least they're consistent.
Hitler planned to exterminate / or enslave the Russians and the Poles and take their land for German "lebenstraum" -- there is no doubt he would have done it and then moved on to the other so-called inferior peoples of the world.
BTW have you seen the Passion of Christ yet...
I'm sorry, Mel's upcoming vanity project has exactly what to do with his statements denying/belittling the Holocaust?
"The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."
--Mel Gibson
I fail to see the story here. Fifty million people died as a result of World War II. Eleven million people died in concentration camps - not just Jews, but homosexuals, gypsies, Catholics, the physically and mentally handicapped and others the Nazis deemed undesirable.
Fifty million people died; some of them were Jews in concentration camps.
It's technically accurate. Atrios, we have bigger fish to fry than this.
One final thought. This isn't about demanding acknowledgement for one particular group of victims. This is about fighting a resurgence of fascism. The Holocaust is the 'Poison' label on fascism and racism. It warns us away from those toxic philosophies. Neo-fascists naturally try to minimize the danger. They insist that the Nazis were no worse than anyone else at that time. They claim that the roundup of Jews and other undersirables was simply part of a giant relocation project and that the concentration camps merely provided temporary work and lodging. They want to make us forget what happened the last time so that they can sell fascism to us again. I don't want to let people forget or minimize the Holocaust because I don't want to see them succeed.
I do not understand why the Holocaust is considered worse than, say, Stalin's intentional starvation of 7-8 million Ukrainians in 1932-33. You might be able to (as some on this list appear to want to) make a case of Holocaust exceptionalism, but every event in history is unique anyway. But is the Holocaust so much worse than the Ukrainian famine that it deserves countless Hollywood movies, education in schools, museum on the Mall, etc., and the Ukrainian famine goes virtually forgotten? It doesn't seem right or fair at all.
"The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."
Those of you accusing Gibson of belittling or denying the Holocaust - if that were his intent, wouldn't he have simply said:
"...some of them were Jews."
He acknowledges that they died while in forced captivity, and not just as "collateral damage" during the war.
You people are only seeing what you want to see. And to the asshole above who says we're defending Gibson because we like him: I am 40 years old. I am proud to say I have never seen a Mel Gibson film, and one of my goals in life is to die without having to do so.
Russia in 1932 was violent, backward, and at the tail end of a bloody civil war. The intentional starvation in the Ukraine was part of Stalin's consolidation of his own power against the whites and against his rivals in the Communist party. As bad as it was, it was rational. The Ukranians *were* Stalin's enemies.
Germany in 1932 was the wealthiest, most technologically advanced country in Europe. Within the space of about a decade, Hitler took a civilized people and used what made them the envy of most of Europe, their brains and work-ethic to do nothing other than set up a mass, industrialized system of extermination. Unlike the Ukranians, European Jew weren't a threat to Hitler. Many of them were loyal German citizens. Wiping them out was irrational. It didn't help Hitler consolidate power since by 1939 he was already the absolute ruler of Germany.
I do not understand why the Holocaust is considered worse than, say, Stalin's intentional starvation of 7-8 million Ukrainians in 1932-33. i>
I really think Peggy Noonan's question was leading and offensive, but what else can you expect from Noonan.
See SWR, I don't see the huge difference. Sounds like a stretch. Sorry. And again, even if you accept that it was worse, was it so much worse that the Ukrainian famine is virtually forgotten?
What Gibson's film has to do with the Holocaust? Gibson's sect believes that Vatican II was payback for letting the holocaust happen. They feel that liberal Jews and Masons blame the Catholic church for the holocaust or for not speaking out against the holocaust while it was happening. The truth is that many right wing Catholics supported fascism and hated liberalism. It is because they feel so defensive about the catastrophe of the holocaust and the Church's role in it that they are so keen to minimize it. They view the current pope as the anti-Christ.
Vatican II removed the traditional anti-Jewish portions of the liturgy and they very much resent this. They feel it was a cave-in to Jewish pressure. Anti-Semitic "Passion" plays were a staple of pre-Vatican II Catholicism. (Perhaps they are annoyed that there are so many "survivors" left to reproach them.) Anyone who is interested can google "The Adelaide Institute" in Australia to find out more about this. It is an eyeopener.
Incidentally, anyone who is interested in finding out about the holocaust might be interested in a book by Marrus, "The Historiography of the Holocaust." This very sober book makes a very good case that nobody really grasped the full import of what was going on during the holocaust. There was a rather understandable failure of immagination on the part of virtually everyone including many Jews.
Famine is horrible. Millions of Africans are dying from AIDS. The Chinese melted their plowshares, killed all their birds, and then had a huge famine.
But famine isn't genocide. It is not destruction of culture per se. It is not intentional (in some cases it is).
People who don't understand the Holocaust tend to deny its special status. That's because they have studied, but they haven't understood.
It is not 'about' Jews, or Jewishness. It is not 'these people' versus 'those people.' There have been few cases of government subversion to this level in the modern world.
We need to stop genocide, banish racism, and eliminate the technological means to destroy people (and the environment) en masse. And we have to ban totalitarianism, block its progress, and certainly prevent evil actors from conspiring against our Republic -- LIKE BXCO.
Never again means that Bx needs to go before a war crimes tribunal. Can we make that happen? It is certainly an extension of Never Again. He made his bed; it is our job to see that he sleeps in it, preferably with the fishes.
"Many of them were loyal German citizens. Wiping them out was irrational. It didn't help Hitler consolidate power since by 1939 he was already the absolute ruler of Germany. "
Dictators like Hitler hold power through outrageous acts that defy comprehension, and threats to keep people from knowing the truth 'out loud.' And they have to keep it up, which is why people fear a MTE this year, an 'October surprise,' or why the US is currently crossing the Syrian border with impunity.
Bx has used this evil method, and proven that it works, but America is not 1932 Germany. We are on the other side, and WE DO REMEMBER. And we HATE dictators or those who would become one.
We talk back to power, and demand TRUTH OUT!
I lost 5 uncles in the fields of France who were on their way to put a bullet through Hitler's head. And I honor them in protest on an ongoing basis.
Bust the lies, and tell the truth, everywhere. The Emperor has No Clothes, and is in fact a traitor.
TRAITORS DON'T DESERVE ELECTIONS!
Having taken some time away from this debate as wisely suggested by a poster above, just want to say that while I still find Gibson's statement to be a poor "smoking gun" that reveals him as a Holocaust denier, I have been educated by many on this board as to his background and the dodgy language of Holocaust deniers trying to avoid giving a definitive answer to questions such as Gibson was asked.
I remain a skeptic about this specific quote by Gibson, but particularly helpful in my understanding of this issue has been a clearer definition by various posters of what Holocaust denial is, absent any that Atrios provided.
I've also enjoyed the discussion of the "exceptionalism" of the Holocaust. The cases made for its uniqueness in the annals of genocide are well-argued, while the frustration of some that other horrific tragedies seem to be overshadowed by the Holocaust, to the point of simply being forgotten, is also understandable.
There's a bit in Art Spiegelman's Maus where he asks his shrink, a survivor, what it was like in Auschwitz ... the shrink goes "Boo!", startling Spiegelman, then says, "It was like that, only all the time." In short, horrific in ways unimaginable to most people on this board, myself certainly included. Pretty fucking scary.
See SWR, I don't see the huge difference. Sounds like a stretch. Sorry. And again, even if you accept that it was worse, was it so much worse that the Ukrainian famine is virtually forgotten?
Well, if the only thing that counts is the number of people killed, why stop at the Ukraine?
Do you see a difference between the firebombing of Dresden and the Holocaust? About 100,000 people (mostly civilians) died in one bombing campaign.
Roosevelt and Churchill didn't have to kill all of these people to stay in power or to win the way. Churchill was voted out of office after the way anyway.
Then add to Dresden, the firebombings of Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the defoliation and utter destruction of Vietnam, American support for Rios Montt and Pinochet, the American funded death squads in El Salvador, and the sheer number of deaths surpass the Holocaust.
But I still wouldn't put the US in the same category of evil as Nazi Germany.
It does not endow the Jews with super-victim status, and that's what fuels the accusations of denial.
I don't believe that's what he was called to put forward. It's pretty simple -
He was specifically asked if he believed that the Jews were systematically persecuted and exterminated. Acknowledging that the Nazis deliberately killed 6 million jews is what's it's about. A straight answer isn't that hard but the detour that followed makes you ask 'where is he going with this and most importantly, why?"
And he responds with "I know some who lived" (reads: well there were survivors so there was nothing systematic or deliberate about it.) In other words some were able to leave and those who didn't were the unfortunate ones trapped in a hellish war and are casualties and victims of that war just like the other millions who died all around Europe.
I do find his answer evasive. But that's just my opinion. This thread is very interesting and educational - another reason I love this blog is the many people who participate in the discussions here are some smart cookies 
and I have learnt a lot.
Here's my understanding of someone in Holocaust denial:
"Yes the Jews suffered a great tragedy before and during WWII. Many died under horrific conditions and so did others. However a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a policy of exterminating the Jews (in other words those deaths were simply casualties during wartime),
b) there is no evidence that there were homicidal gas chambers for murder,
c) the figure of six million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.
Usually it's all 3 arguments that I've seen put forward (I think Gibson's dad has used these as well), sometimes it's just a or b. It's all the same.
a
ps- Roy Neel sent an email out from DFA. I'm off to read that and check the blog. Have a goodnight everyone.
On a tour Auschwitz, Bush turned to his guide, Ms. Swiebocka and asked, "Do people challenge the accuracy of what you present?"
New York Times, June 1, 2003
THE PRESIDENT IN EUROPE: DEATH CAMP; Witness to Auschwitz Evil, Bush Draws a Lesson
SWR: "I do not understand why the Holocaust is considered worse than, say, Stalin's intentional starvation of 7-8 million Ukrainians in 1932-33"
The Holocaust might not be considered worse. It is much better known, though, so it is in peoples' consciousnesses much more than the Ukrainian holocaust.
I'm not sure how to go about this, but here I go.
I think some people aren't really aware of what the camps were or what the Holocuast means in relation to them. The K.Z's (Konzentration Lager) started around 1934 with the establishment of a series of camps meant to hold a mixed bag of petty, criminals, social deviants and political prisoners. Dachau (est. 1934) was a prototype and subsequent training camp for guards and commandants. The "Arbeit Macht Frei" was not so much a mockery of the prisoners as a reminder that if they followed the program, they could be "redeemed" and released. Some were, most were not. They were work camps. Slave labor. Between 1934 and roughly 1943, the system grew tremendously, due to ever greater classifications of "offenders" and area from wich they came (occupied lands). The ever increasing number of deaths came not from an intention to kill, rather from a lack of caring wether the inmates lived or died. Poor food, lack of prpoer clothing, health care, in short, mostly extreme indifference and hard labor. The acceptance of extreme brutality to even the most minor offences, fueled the fire.
The Holocuast is a referrence to a specific program begun in 1943 (Wannsee) as to what to do with those the Reich had deemed "subhuman" and wanted cleansed from their territory. This did include the Romney (Gypsies) and other groups, but by and large, the Jews. This is when some of the K.Z.s took on a new role. Now, instead of just providing expendable slave labor, they were to liquidate the people tagged by the edict of 1943. This is when the wholesale rounding up of the targeted groups began and the trains really started running. They were usually given a priority status, even sidelining trains of essential war materials destend for the front. At places like Auschwitz (most, if not all, of the then designated death camps were not on German soil), they arrived constantly, day and night. 2000-4000 a train load, mostly Jews. The arrivials were met by the camp medical staff (in Auschwitz, Mengele 1943-45) where they underwent the "selection". This consisted of selecting only the most young, healthy individuals needed for replacement labor, special skills needed and those whom happened to catch the eye for a particular reason (with Mengele it was twins or people who could fufill the needs of a particular experiment he had in mind). Over, usually well over,90% of every train load were sent directly to the gas chambers and were killed within 24 hours of arrival. They were not "processed" into the camp in any way. No records, no tatoo.
So, keep in mind when these terms are bandied about, 11 million killed in the camps, 6 million Jews. The camps operated 1934-1945. The "Final Solution" was 1943-1945. The Jews were not a group targeted for death anymore than anyone else, nor were they all in the camps, prior to 1943. To say the Jews (and, in fewer numbers, the Romney and such ethnic groups) didn't suffer anything wors
To say the Jews (and, in fewer numbers, the Romney and such ethnic groups) didn't suffer anything worse is uninformed or just crazy.
Damn, I almost made it. 3030 characters.
Atrios, you are out of your mind. Where do you get 'Holocaust denial' from this?
This piece rates a 10 on the 'mindless reactionary dittohead-o-tron'
No better than Drudge. (hope that hurts)
If you don't know code when you see it, that's your problem, not Atrios'.
Gibson twisted himself into rhetorical knots to give an answer that could be parsed as acknowledging the Holocaust while remaining consistent with denier mythology.
If you can handle the stench, read up on some deniers. You'll learn about the code words and phrases and the ideas they signify.
The two big denier notes Gibson hits are:
1. "Lots more people in the Soviet Union died." In denier mythology, the Holocaust is promoted by communists to obscure their own crimes, and deniers are pissed that the fascists get so much more bad press than the communists.
2. Refusal to acknowledge a systematic extermination of Jews. Read the statement again. Notice how all Gibson admits is that "Some...Jews [died] in concentration camps." This is perfectly consistent with the denier mythology in which many people, jews, gypsies, homosexuals, criminals, were rounded up into concentration camps and many died, but only as a result of war conditions or ordinary brutality.
It's difficult to give a statement that appears to acknowledge the holocaust without somehow offending deniers:
One might say: "Of course the Holocaust happened. The Nazis were monsters and targeted many unpopular minorities for extermination, Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and the mentally retarded."
That's what one might say if one wanted, for whatever reason, to point out that the Nazis killed lots of people who weren't jews. Still, it'd be unacceptable to deniers because it acknowledges both the extermination campaign and that Jews received special attention. And it's not what Gibson said.
Try it yourself: Give an off-the-cuff answer to the question Gibson was asked, and then parse it to see if it's as inoffensive to deniers as Gibson's was. If you make an honest attempt, you'll see that the subject of the Holocaust is, to deniers, a very dense minefield and it's almost impossible to randomly pass through it without stepping on one.
That Gibson did so strongly suggests that he knows the map very well.
I have no dog in the fight over Gibson's stupid movie, but there is absolutely nothing untrue about the remark under discussion. Short version: Millions were killed, some of them were Jews.
Among the biggest rewriters of history, indeed the most vocal practitioners of 'Holocaust Denial' are those who have tried to rub the extermination of gays and gypsies from the record or who try to make a hierarchy of whose 20th century genocide is worse. The denial is disgusting and predjudiced in all its forms.
A swing and a miss.
At issue isn't the truth or falsehood of Gibson's statement. The issue is whether his careful phrasing is evidence of denier beliefs.
It is.
"Any chance the guy worked in a concentration camp? Young enough to teach Gibson Spanish, so must have been a kid at the time."
It was this guy:
http://www.michelthomas.com/
At issue isn't the truth or falsehood of Gibson's statement. The issue is whether his careful phrasing is evidence of denier beliefs.
Perhaps for you. Not being a mind reader, I take statements at face value. If they seem true, they're okay. If they're false, they're not. Interrogating the truth about someone by second-guessing they're hidden motives for saying something is for witchhunters.
correction: Their hidden motives.
"I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
There is no case here for Holocaust denial. Even the fact that he tries to do the disgusting justify-Hitler-in-terms-of-Stalin-math thing is pretty kosher. We're having a very hard time understanding how this is news. Again, if journalists had any balls, they'd do research into the real "Mel Gibson is an [cute] Anti-Semite" story, they'd talk about how his dad is actually openly anti-semitic and Mel has always supported him and refused to talk about it with his father. Mel Gibson's father runs this Austrailian version of a Fred Phelps you're all goin' ta Heyall! church. Instead of this, they go after an unassailably vague quote only the ADL (as in the "only Jews died in the Holocaust" ADL) will lose sleep over. Cowardice.
Lucky Duckies everywhere say, "You want fries with that?"
this grover norquista (above) and the peta types who talk about fast food as a "holocaust" are the real deniers. drunk rednecks putting garbled graffitti on the side of a building are readily identifiable as unimportant scum in need of some detox. peta comparing jews to cattle makes all lefties look like shit. i ate so much dangerously unhealthy fast food in deliberate reaction to that one ad, i'll probably die of mad cow-related brainlessness.
This whole thread is a huge Godwin's law loop-de-loop. Go home, everyone, 'cause you all lost the argument. Mel lost first, though.
i ate so much dangerously unhealthy fast food in deliberate reaction to that one ad, i'll probably die of mad cow-related brainlessness.
Why? Shouldn't you be thinking for yourself?
Mel Gibson is an anti-semite.
Period. End of story.
I thought godwin's law was the scientific sort, meaning the nuttier of two nuts are more likely to reveal their silliness with a wild Basil-Fawlty-esque THIS IS HOW NAZI GERMANY STARTED!!! Not like you can make a troll go home because he "lost," and the raising of any good point (even if it involves 88'ing) can hardly be considered "losing."
When Godwin says you win, what do you win? Boobies? A booby prize? Anything?
Naw, you win nothing. Nothing! Nada! Zip!
Yep, this was how Nazi Germany started, a pissing contest. Hilter didn't win anything either.
As many have pointed out, history provides us with an ample roster of atrocities. What makes the Holocaust worthy of such prominent consideration? Surely, more people died under Stalin, and the Native American culture was more thoroughly eradicated. Some posters have rightly pointed to the industrialization of genocide, but they have not really explained how that affects the comparative moral calculus of various atrocities.
Holocaust Industrialism implied more than just the employment of the railroads in implementing the Final Solution. It represented a near-total complicity of German civil society. From the bureacrats overseeing the classification of target groups to the technocrats assessing the material requirements to the engineers designing the ovens to the physicians carrying out medical experiments, the various institutions which made a modern society function also enabled the execution of a sociopath's dystopian fantasy. Simple yards of felt were turned into totems of genocide. Though I've never read her work, this seems to me to represent what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil." It demonstrates, metaphorically, how readily plowshares may be beaten into swords.
Dismissing other atrocities by comparison does a great disservice to the memory not only of the victims of such atrocities, but of the victims of the Holocaust as well. Those who continue to tell the story of the Holocaust should do so not in pursuit of the mantle of history's greatest victim, but rather as a warning that if it could happen there and then, it could happen here and now.
The Jewish population in Germany at the time was highly assimilated, culturally and politically. Unlike the demographic circumstances surrounding many ethnically motivated atrocities, it's difficult to draw a bright-line distinction between early twentieth century German and Jewish societies. Take the Native American genocide as an example. One can see why the US government wanted it done: to purge the land of a population it saw as incompatible with the nation it wanted to build. The moral calculus is clear. We can see how the benefits are far out-weighed by the costs (lots of land for lots of lives) because we know what the puported benefits represent in practical measurable terms. From it, we at least understand clearly the evils comitted by our predecessors. But the Holocaust defies even the coldest reasoning. What benefit did it bring Germany? It confounds rationality completely
The Holocaust does not represent the atrocity with the greatest death toll. It is not the only wholly irrational act of genocide, nor is it history's only instance of a modern, industrialized manifestation of the banality of evil. But it is the marriage of the three, the Perfect Storm among the many crimes against humanity the world has suffered. For this reason, it resonates with those struggling to comprehend the unimaginable.
As many have pointed out, history provides us with an ample roster of atrocities. What makes the Holocaust worthy of such prominent consideration? Surely, more people died under Stalin, and the Native American culture was more thoroughly eradicated. Some posters have rightly pointed to the industrialization of genocide, but they have not really explained how that affects the comparative moral calculus of various atrocities.
Holocaust Industrialism implied more than just the employment of the railroads in implementing the Final Solution. It represented a near-total complicity of German civil society. From the bureacrats overseeing the classification of target groups to the technocrats assessing the material requirements to the engineers designing the ovens to the physicians carrying out medical experiments, the various institutions which made a modern society function also enabled the execution of a sociopath's dystopian fantasy. Simple yards of felt were turned into totems of genocide. Though I've never read her work, this seems to me to represent what Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil." It demonstrates, metaphorically, how readily plowshares may be beaten into swords.
Dismissing other atrocities by comparison does a great disservice to the memory not only of the victims of such atrocities, but of the victims of the Holocaust as well. Those who continue to tell the story of the Holocaust should do so not in pursuit of the mantle of history's greatest victim, but rather as a warning that if it could happen there and then, it could happen here and now.
The Jewish population in Germany at the time was highly assimilated, culturally and politically. Unlike the demographic circumstances surrounding many ethnically motivated atrocities, it's difficult to draw a bright-line distinction between early twentieth century German and Jewish societies. Take the Native American genocide as an example. One can see why the US government wanted it done: to purge the land of a population it saw as incompatible with the nation it wanted to build. The moral calculus is clear. We can see how the benefits are far out-weighed by the costs (lots of land for lots of lives) because we know what the puported benefits represent in practical measurable terms. From it, we at least understand clearly the evils comitted by our predecessors. But the Holocaust defies even the coldest reasoning. What benefit did it bring Germany? It confounds rationality completely
The Holocaust does not represent the atrocity with the greatest death toll. It is not the only wholly irrational act of genocide, nor is it history's only instance of a modern, industrialized manifestation of the banality of evil. But it is the marriage of the three, the Perfect Storm among the many crimes against humanity the world has suffered. For this reason, it resonates with those struggling to comprehend the unimaginable.
Beth's analysis above is correct.
When faced with a question that obliquely addresses allegations of anti-Semitism via his opinion on the Holocaust, a charge Gibson is concerned to defuse, he puts forward an equivocal statement that can be read as either Holocaust affirmation or denial.
Gibson has had plenty of time, several months, to consider all the public relations angles on such questions. Surely he's well enough informed to make a definitive statement affirming his belief in the Holocaust as conventional wisdom has it (and thought crimes legislation in Canada and throughout Europe mandate be the only lawful expressed opinion on the subject), and put the matter to rest. He did not do so, leaving open the exact question Atrios raises.
While this is not a definitive piece of evidence as to his state of mind and opinion, it is highly suggestive that he didn't want to endorse the CW take on the Holocaust, which is to say, he DOES likely hold some variant of Holocaust denial.
This is simply the most likely explanation of why he failed to put this angle of the controversy to rest for good. Not the only one, perhaps, and maybe he holds a hybrid opinion, that while the Holocaust happened essentially as CW has it, still the denier community has some factual truth on their side, explaining why he chose to emphasize various denier tenets in his response.
But in this context, parsing out Gibson's response is not an over-reaction or inappropriate hypersensitivity, but what his response itself raises to anyone familiar with the deniers' own conventional wisdom.
Assuming anyone has an interest in what Gibson's thoughts on this are. I entirely sympathize with those who question why that is of interest.
Oops, just realized reloading the page aftere posting a comment posts the comment again. Sorry for the doubling.
Just wanted to add: As for Holocaust-related stories that address non-Jewish victims, it's clear there aren't many. One big one, though, is Sophie's Choice.
Anyone who claims that this is not Holocaust denial does not understand the nature of Holocaust deniers' arguments, which proceed exactly along these lines: Sure, Jews were killed in the war, but so were a lot of people; and the 6 million figure is a gross exaggeration. Some of the deniers claim that it's closer to 500,000.
See my post on this today.
Problems with Neiwert: there is a large, powerful lobby interested in denial of the nonJewish Holocaust, and they are certainly louder and more credible than drunk rednecks interested in giving their credibility the instant death of Holocaust denial. So we're cagey about calling this very, very ambiguous statement (in which, for God's sake, he actually points out people he knows who have numbers on their arms. Possibly a Hollywood lie like Madonna the Kabbalist but really, how is claiming you know Holocaust survivors Holocaust denial?!) the very straightforward ugliness any real journalist could get from Mel's bizarre dad and Mel's bizarre unquestioning support thereof.
Also, we aren't terribly familiar with denial arguments, but we thought they involved things like that Mr Death guy claiming to find no human traces on the chamber walls: actual holocaust denial. This is not a poiint we necessarily want to win-we think Mel's an asshole, we hear he also doesn't tip well-but we just don't see it, and we do see a culture that tolerates the most insane proclivities of certain groups. The story is there, it just isn't here.
This is reaching at best at a time when there is plenty of evil to point out.
(after reflection)
Neiwert's Orcinus does an excellent job of comparison, without which this is still an innocuous quote. There must be some "filet au blinky" that can be used to get Mel to "spit it out" the way his father does.
I dated a Jewish guy some time ago, and he was normally a very humorous, sunny, optimistic man. Yet whenever the Holocaust was mentioned on TV or in print, he would look practically sick with fury. He was enraged at his own people for playing the history over and over. He felt that Jews were using the tragedy of the Holocaust to further their own agenda.
I remember when Spielberg made "Shoah," how bitterly angry he was about it. Even though my ex was a terrific filmmaker and normally would never miss any new movie, he refused to attend Speilberg's film. This was a point of principle with him.
He would often speak to the other victims of the war, just as Gibson is doing, and how their deaths had been downplayed by the Jews' overwhelming marketing of the event. He felt the Jews were crassly commercializing the Holocaust for selfish gain. He even once grimly said that there was "no business like Shoah business."
In all other respects he seemed comfortable with his Jewish heritage, his family, and his upbringing.
Was my ex-boyfriend a Holocaust denier?
Sarrah-agree with boyfriend about exploitation, etc, but the whole thing turns on the fact that Gilson's father Hutton is an open anti-semite who speaks regularly at denial conventions, and as it says at Orcinus and elsewhere, Mel stands by his dad. Was your boyfriend responding to unfortunate modern cynicism or to the question of whether deliberate mass murder occurred in the first place?
and as long as history's being made
politically correct for fascists...
(by way of calpundit, see "homepage")
Mel Gibson is an anti-semite.
Period. End of story.
Maybe so. But there was nothing wrong with the statement in question.
I suppose it's a good thing that liberals are as dimwittedly single-minded as their enemies when they dislike someone. God knows, we'll never win by being fair or smart. For the same reason, I suppose we shouldn't linger over such reactionary piffle as Atrios jilted woman scenario for MoDo or the homophobia that attends. . .
Oh fuck, never mind. Go get 'em.
Sarrah --
Of course your friend was not an anti-Semite. Don't be ridiculous. I've known many Jews who equally are disgusted with the Holocaust-martyrdom business. Fine. That's their perogative. A little counterbalance is fine in this regard, IMHO.
At the same time, I come from a background of dealing with neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists -- people who claim that there were no gas chambers, that at best only half a million Jews were killed, that the Holocaust is just a guilt-inducing pretext for Jews to continue their conspiracy to take over the world.
Hutton Gibson and almost certainly Mel Gibson are participants in this faction. Frankly, they too make me sick with fury.
And I bet they would make your friend likewise, were he ever to actually be confronted with them.
Please, let's not pretend they're not out there.
Shoah is not a Spielberg film, director was a Frenchman Claude Lanzman (his name is something like that). Watch the portion on Poland. There is a unique quality to Hitler's evil that has nothing to do with comparing numbers of victims. Nor is there the same quality of evil even with respect to the gypsies. The sui generis quality of the evil applies to what was done to the Jews. Some above have tried to articulate what is different about the Final Solution. I don't know if it can be articulated. But it's the reason the swastika and the Third Reich in general has an enduring fascination not matched by other genocides in history, even where greater numbers of people were killed.
Holocaust deniers always mention other victims of other times and places in order to minimize the uniqueness of Hitler's evil.
I really shocked by many of the comments above. Doesn't anyone read Primo Levi anymore?
Interviewer - Do you think that people today want to forget Auschwitz as soon as possible?
Primo Levi - Signs do exist that this is taking place: forgetting or even denying. This is meaningful. Those who deny Auschwitz would be ready to remake it.
Holocaust deniers always mention other victims of other times and places in order to minimize the uniqueness of Hitler's evil.
I seriously hope you are not trying to say that those who acknowledge the genocide "of other times and places" are holocaust deniers.
"Holocaust deniers always mention other victims of other times and places in order to minimize the uniqueness of Hitler's evil."
AWW, I've certainly been educated in the past day on this tactic by Holocaust deniers. It's particularly vile to me, because I've worked with victims of the Burmese junta in Thailand and know several survivors of the Pol Pot regime. Other victims in other places very much exist - especially sad is the fact that so many were victimized after the Holocaust, the only thing of value to emerge from which was supposed to be "Never again."
If Holocaust deniers are exploiting victims of other mass murders and atrocities to further their anti-Semitic agenda, it's doubly repugnant.
kei & yuri --
My Jewish boyfriend did not question that the Holocaust happened. Like most of the Jews I have known, he had read extensively on the subject when young.
He had a big problem with how the Jews exploited it commercially -- in film, in television, in print. Anything having to do with the promotion of or "education" about the Holocaust literally made this easygoing person burn with rage. I think I was as mystified by his reaction as he was to mine whenever I read or heard about the Pope (cold fury).
I also think he'll probably go see The Passion. Knowing him, he'll probably end up weeping when he watches it.
Mel Gibson isn't a neo-Nazi, a Holocaust denier, or a right-wing extremist. Absolutely no proof has been offered that he is. (And yes, I have read Primo Levi!)
I suspect that Mel Gibson is being villified for making a film about Jesus' crucifixion and death. Hardly anyone who has criticized him or this work has actually seen the film. We'll see how it all pans out after the film is released.
I would recommend the recent New Yorker article on the making of The Passion for more background into this issue. It's a fairly well-balanced and nuanced overview, unlike this thread, which is rather disturbing in its absolutism.
Sarrah:
First and foremost, Hutton Gibson -- Mel's father -- certainly is a Holocaust denier, and a fairly notorious one at that. See here for more details (as well as the NYT interview cited in my current post.
Mel, in the same interview as the one Atrios and Tbogg cite, also says this about his father:
"My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
This isn't hard proof -- but I can also assure you that most Holocaust deniers are incredibly evasive about their beliefs. It takes connecting the dots sometimes -- and Gibson's dots certainly do connect in this regard.
As Tbogg says, he has some explaining to do.
The only reason Gibson's statements about the Holocaust are relevant is because his film insists on renewing the charge of Deicide by the Jews. Yes, he denies the Holocaust. Clearly. Yes, he believes the Jews killed "God." Why does it matter? Well, just because millions and millions of people have died for thousands of years, all over the globe, because of this particular "opinion." Thrown out of countries (England, Spain, Brazil, etc) Denied citizenship, residence, livelihood. And massacred at will. Vatican 2 reversed the charge of deicide. Gibson and family think that's blasphemous.
Does it matter? The papers talk about churches ordering 10 thousand tickets at a time, preparing to proselytize on the basis of it. Writing "tool kits" to take advantage of screenings.
So, yes, it matters. After all, the Jews had been in Germany, before the Holocaust, longer than most of our families have been in America. They felt safe.
I'm not pro-Israel, politically, not pro-Zionist. But lawdie, the haters are coming out of the woodwork these days. It's important to keep our levels of awareness sharp and high, and not pretend it's just show business.
Other victims of other genocides should certainly be recognized--and not least because it feels just the same to the individual victim, regardless of the magnitude of the atrocity at issue in the overall scheme of history. I was referring to a specific mention of Hitler (or the Nazis), to which the retort is almost reflexively, "Stalin killed more people." On one level its intent is to say right-wing tyrants are not as bad as left-wing tyrants. On another level its just dismissive of Hitler's horror as an equal in history's parade of horribles, which it is not.
I'm not so good at articulating this, but never intended to suggest anything but that there can never be enough attention paid to all of the victims of all times and places.
The only thing more bizarre than holocaust denial is obsession with holocaust denials. Gibson was evasive. His answer was weird. It is weird that people are obsessing with his weird answer.
Atrios's proposed follow-up question seems a little obessive about rooting out this one man's views. I could give a fuck whether we get Mel Gibson on the record one way or the other. Is this a priority for our Media? They already focus celebrity views way too much. Let's not encourage them.
We NEED to get the President pinned down on some issues. The media should be able to ask the White House deposition-style questions and object when they get evasive answers. There just isn't the same need with celebrities. Let's stop acting like their views are of paramount importance.
Kop--
I wish I thought it was all beside the point. Bush is the main issue. But the Gibson thing is about churches and the evangelicals who are the backbone of W's support. The state of georgia has just announced it's not going to teach Evolution in its public school system. Is that beside the point, too? To me, it's all the same ball of wax. That Gibson is stupid, crazy, rich and reactionary is something I don't care about at all. That Fundie churches are using his "offering" to fill their coffers, voter rolls, and roll their prayer wheels is worth noticing. It's all one, pal. Bibles for Iraq. And Deicide for the Faithful. Geee-HAD!
oops, meant to say inflaming the faithful and handing them a scapegoat for Deicide.
(hit the post button too fast; sorry)
oops, meant to say inflaming the faithful and handing them a scapegoat for Deicide.
(hit the post button too fast; sorry)
Sarrah, asssuming you're not an anti-semitic troll (and you sure as hell sound like one, dear) your boyfriend suffers from internalized anti-semitism.
It' just like internalized homophobia -- but less widely discussed.
Sarrah: "I suspect that Mel Gibson is being villified for making a film about Jesus' crucifixion and death. Hardly anyone who has criticized him or this work has actually seen the film."
Smoke and mirrors.
He's being "vilified" because his statements reveal that he's a holocaust denier. That he's also taking flak for a related charge is in no way a defense.
Kop: "The only thing more bizarre than holocaust denial is obsession with holocaust denials. Gibson was evasive. His answer was weird. It is weird that people are obsessing with his weird answer."
Shocking bit of moral equivalence there: Pointing out holocaust denial is as "bizarre" as holocaust denial itself.
Is that seriously what you meant to write, or was that a bizarre keyboard accident?
I can't believe after my post some people don't seem to get it. The atrocities in the Soviet Union, through the KZ system, up to and including the Khemer Rouge were the result of not a policy of kill them all, more than a policy of work them to death, we don't care and would be happy to never see them again.
The Holocuast was (as someone posted on the way to a false assumption of other times , people and places) an "industrilized" solution. The point was to kill as many of the targeted groups, mainly Jewish, as possible, with no attempt to gain anything along the way. Not slave labor, a death machine, wich served no other purpose at all, just kill them as fast as you can. Those of Jewish faith are right in this regard. What happened to them was unique (in as far as they suffered this fate in such larger numbers). The Holocuast is not about suffering under the heel of a malviolent master, unconcered about your fate. It's about the deliberate muder of millions of people because of who they were. Once again, the camps operated from 1934-1945. The Holocuast took place between 1943-1945. To say many people suffered in the camps misses the point.
Wow. Sarah's comment was pretty insidious. When I saw David Ehrenstein attack her, I almost defended what she was saying. I almost said something like "well, I'm sick of George Bush exploiting 9/11, does that mean I'm a self-hating American?"
But then I went back and actually read Sarah's post and realized it is anti-semitic. Her "Jewish boyfriend" obviously doesn't exist outside of her own mind. He's a construct she's using to make a point.
I think that's why Gibson is dangerous. You *can* say something that, on the surface, seems reasonable. The Holocaust often is exploited to push a political agenda (although I'd have to say it's been replaced by 9/11). But that's not what Sarah's doing. She's attacking the Jews in code. She does remind me of the typical anti-semitic troll.
Sarrah:
I suspect that Mel Gibson is being villified for making a film about Jesus' crucifixion and death. Hardly anyone who has criticized him or this work has actually seen the film.
This is simply false. The critics cited so far -- Abraham Foxman, Rabbis James Rubin, Gary Bretton-Granatoor and Aaron Rubinger (in the Orlando Sentinel piece), Marvin Hier, theologian John Dominic Crossan, and the Rev. Mark Stanger -- have all seen the film and base their criticism specifically on the content of what they saw. In some cases (Hier's especially) their concerns were amplified by personal exchanges with Gibson himself.
Please get your facts straight.
SWR you are so right--how insightful. Books and movies about the Holocaust are just "marketing" and "exploitation"--as if its making a big deal out of absolutely nothing. "There's no business like Shoah business"--like its all a big fake. I doubt she even knows who Primo Levi is, let alone that she's read his books. This girl works for Mel Gibson.
Actually, there are a number of Jews who fit her boyfriend's description, and the phrase "Shoah business" is commonly used by this subset.
See, for example, the book "The Holocaust Industry," by Norman Finkelstein. Salon carried a piece about it awhile back.
There's a certain legitimacy to their complaints, though I think it's overstated. Unfortunately, it also plays directly into the hands of people like David Irving.
Wow -- so now I'm an anti-Semite! I guess I should have seen this coming. Actually, this accusation is the perfect culmunation of the absolutism I noted ealier.
The New Yorker, which is certainly not an anti-Semitic magazine, did a fascinating piece about this film and Mel Gibson. It fully addresses Mel Gibson's rather peculiar religious ideas. Why not read it yourselves and make up your own minds as to whether he is a Holocaust denier?
Personally, I could never believe David Remnick would give even an inch of his prestigious column type to the life and work of a known Holocaust denier or anti-Semite.
But have it your way. David Remnick must also be an anti-Semite for agreeing to publish this.
Finally, so my boyfriend suffers from internalized anti-Semitism, eh? This, I would have to dispute. He was intensely sensitive to anything that might remotely smack of anti-Semitism. Since he loved and trusted me, I guess at least he thought I wasn't an anti-Semite. I tell you truly, I was more troubled by his anger about Holocaust dramatizations than he. He perfectly understood it, but was loathe to discuss it.
Peace.
Quel Drama Queen!
"Actually, there are a number of Jews who fit her boyfriend's description, and the phrase "Shoah business" is commonly used by this subset."
Pauline Kael to name one.
"Finally, so my boyfriend suffers from internalized anti-Semitism, eh?"
Yep.
" This, I would have to dispute."
Well of course you would.
We have only your say-so as to his existence (which I very much doubt.)
" He was intensely sensitive to anything that might remotely smack of anti-Semitism."
Oh my. A regular Laurence Jarvik, eh?
"Since he loved and trusted me, I guess at least he thought I wasn't an anti-Semite."
Masochism can be complicated, dear.
"I tell you truly, I was more troubled by his anger about Holocaust dramatizations than he."
Your'e so sensitive !
" He perfectly understood it, but was loathe to discuss it."
And aren't we lucky that you're not.
"Peace."
Sorry dear, this is War.
Sorry but I don't really trust people who make an argument from somebody else's point of view.
My black friend said that blacks bring racism on themselves.
My Asian girlfriend told me how all Asian men are sexist pigs (so they must be).
My girlfriend used to be a feminist but she told me that women really like abusive men.
You simply don't have the right to use a member of a minority group as a ventriloquist's dummy to talk about a contreversial issue about that minority group.
Now if you had simply said something like "conservative Jews often cry wolf about anti-semitism in order to further their militaristic agenda," I would have simply agreed with you. I don't think Jews are any more exempt from criticism than any other ethnic/religious group.
A lot of pro-Israel extremists are racist creeps. Some of them are Jews. Some of them are Christians.
But I'm not going to cite a "Jewish friend" to give me more authority.
Wow -- so now I'm an anti-Semite! I guess I should have seen this coming. Actually, this accusation is the perfect culmunation of the absolutism I noted ealier.
I can see why some people are worried about how the film portrays the Jews. They should be worried. No, it's not anti-Semitic. What it is, is entirely shattering. There are no "winners". No one comes off looking "good" except Jesus. Even His own mother hesitates. As depicted, the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day merely do what any of us would have done - and still do. They protected their perceived "place" - their sense of safety and security, and the satisfaction of their own "rightness". But everyone falters. Caiphus judges. Peter denies. Judas betrays. Simon the Cyrene balks. Mark runs away. Pilate equivocates. The crowd mocks. The soldiers laugh.....
The Jews, the Romans, Jesus' friends - they all fail. Everyone, except the Principal Figure.... The complacency of all creation is eternally shattered.
The film grabs you in the first five seconds, and never lets go. The brutality, humiliation, and gore is almost inconceivable.... There is no escape. It's a punch to the gut that puts you on the canvas, and you don't get up....
What you've heard about how audiences have reacted is true. There was no sound after the film's conclusion. No noise at all. No one got up. No one moved. The only sound one could hear was sobbing. In all my years of public life, I have never heard anything like that.
This sounds exactly like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan.
But good makeup artists and a lot of food dye don't necessarily make for authenticity. John Ford made better war movies than Spielberg could ever dream of and there wasn't a lot of outright gore in any of them.
I haven't seen Gibson's movie. Maybe I will. Maybe I won't. But I'm not buying the hype.
I can imagine a hundred ways to retell the story of the Gospels that would move me more than Gibson's crude literalism.
I doubt Gibson's going to surpass Dosteovsky any time soon.
The film grabs you in the first five seconds, and never lets go. The brutality, humiliation, and gore is almost inconceivable.... There is no escape. It's a punch to the gut that puts you on the canvas, and you don't get up....
Yeah, you could put it that way. If you thought the drawing-and-quartering sequence in Braveheart was compelling cinema, you'd probably love this one.
I liked the description from the Rev. Mark Stanger, who described "the protracted scourging" as "gratuitous violence":
I thought it was sickening. At the screening they were handing out boxes of Kleenex -- they should have handed out barf bags.
...There was no reason for this [violence], spiritually or theologically. I thought "The Passion" was really perverse and really depraved. ... Holding this up as somehow emblematic of something central to our belief -- this preoccupation with both sin and blood sacrifice -- is just absolutely primitive.
The violence is literally gut-wrenching. My pious mom was there and she felt a knot in her gut from the violence, but she also felt the movie was poorly made. She called it "plodding.
... I don't see the point of magnifying the violence of his arrest, torture and death. I find it perverse and strange and really vulgar. As Ray Brown says, the Gospels are pretty straightforward. They arrive at Golgotha, and then it says, "Then they crucified him." They just say it in a little short sentence. They don't say, "They yanked one of Jesus' shoulders out of the socket and they bounced the cross around face down after he was nailed to it." I think some of that came from that wacko woman's vision. People who are psychologically disturbed push that into their religious imagination. Religious imagination is very fertile, and it feeds on human need, so you have to be really careful.
... I think ["The Passion"] was meant to be a shocker and a moneymaker. And I don't think it's going to make money, and I think that's why they've had to suck people in. At this showing, there was no room to not like the film. We were supposed to all like it. We were supposed to all be weeping into our Kleenexes. We were supposed to all see this as the greatest opportunity of all time, and then Lee Strobel, "former atheist," who wrote "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith," said ["The Passion"] was "An anointed piece of art." That God "selected" Mel to do this.
Sarrah is right about one thing, the New Yorker piece is fascinating. You can read it here:
http://www.wcnet.org/~bgcc/gibson.htm
It turns out Gibson is not a Holocaust denier, and neither is his father Hutton, who, Mel explains, "never denied the Holocaust; he just said there were fewer than six million". Hutton is indeed a bit eccentric, believing, among other things, "that the Second Vatican Council was “a Masonic plot backed by the Jews,” and that the Holocaust was a tragedy that had been hyped out of proportion." Mel himself, though, seems like a regular down-to-earth guy. He appears bemused and even a little humbled at finding himself the focus of a huge war between between Good and Evil. That's a lot of pressure for anyone, so we can hardly blame him for his occasional violent outbursts and paranoid ravings.
When the interviewer suggests that Anne Catherine Emmerich's depiction of Jews is inflammatory and may invite accusations of anti-semitism, Gibson responds, "Why are they calling her a Nazi? Because modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it's a lie. And it's revisionism. And they've been working on that one for a while." No doubt calling Gibson a Holocaust denier is just another of their revisionist lies.
Once again, Gibson's denials and characterizations are simply not credible.
See here for more on Hutton Gibson. "Not a Holocaust denier" my ass.
All Holocaust deniers "just say" there were "fewer than 6 million." Most put the figure at about 500,000. See David Irving's work as a prime example (and be sure to read Deborah Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust for the details).
The New Yorker piece was either an instance of gullibility or a whitewash.
"I can't believe after my post some people don't seem to get it. The atrocities in the Soviet Union, through the KZ system, up to and including the Khemer Rouge were the result of not a policy of kill them all, more than a policy of work them to death, we don't care and would be happy to never see them again."
Apologies, sac666, but if you where Chinese, Vietnamese or Cham in Democratic Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge the policy certainly was "kill them all" - see Michael Vickery, Ben Kiernan et al for details.
I'm sorry David, my previous post was somewhat tongue in cheek, reflecting Sarrah's insistance that the New Yorker piece contradicted what we've been saying here.
Seriously, I think the New Yorker piece presents a fair and honest description of Mel Gibson and his beliefs. The author doesn't pass judgement on what he sees and hears but simply presents it to the reader without a lot of commentary. What emerges is a chilling portrait of a man who sees conspiracies everywhere and believes the world is a battleground between the forces of absolute good and absolute evil.
Apologies, Beth. I'm working too late and my irony detector wasn't functioning properly.
There are two essential observations missing from most of the glosses here:
1) Genocide is a massive social disruption, obviously. Any society that has suffered such a disruption cannot and should not be considered 'normal' for quite a while, in other words, they are in shock.
It would have been real nice to continue monitoring (the reportedly terminally ill) Hussein in such a way as to avoid further traumatizing the Iraqi people.
The 'solution' of killing 40,000 probably moderate-thinking civilians (rather than the obvious and proper military course of seeking out the extremists) is a warcrime, and exacerbates the obvious lack of US concern for its oil partner's crimes, including installing him in the first place.
2) The narcosis that the German people collectively suffered is of crucial importance to study and understand, since it represents the greatest breakdown of social normality in our record.
Most other genocides were carried out over a short period of time. Rwanda was over in a few months. Cambodia in a couple of years. The action is direct violence, and it involves something we could consider 'mass hysteria' (if that includes racism). If Cambodians kill all people with eyeglasses, surely the culture is demented.
Nazi Germany was something far beyond the scale of mass murder in service to racist ideology or direct racist murder over a short period of time. Unlike in Cambodia or elsewhere, Germany had a 'functional' society gnerally untouched (and little concerned) by the genocide. It is genocide abetted by a middle class, something almost nonexistent in other genocides.
And that is why US warcrime naturally brings up issues of the Holocaust. For Bxco to stir up racist hatreds of Arabs and Jews, in order to profit, while the American public eats their burgers and stare off into their own cultural reflection with loving adoration is EXACTLY failing to 'Never Again' remember. It is dishonoring of the Holocaust, of the sanctity of our promise not to forget, in the same way as Bx's wreath-crapping exercise in Atlanda.
We as a culture run the risk of actually falling into Bxco's Amorality, its sociopathy. "Not in Our Name" is a crucial burden of all, to protest this demeaning of our social conscience.
If they had their way, we would be Rome, with long lines for kissing the Fuhrer's shiny ass, and there isn't a single honest person who doesn't at this point know that is true. NEVER AGAIN!
I'm pleased to see that there is still some reason and critical thinking aflight in America. Granted, not a hell of alot, but, some.
Regardless of the issue, there are certain "polite" parameters set up for debate on every issue. The holocaust is just another one of those issues w/ these parameters. As long as a person makes sure that The Holocaust(and it's always about the Jews, not the gays, gypsies and other "pariahs" that Hitler saw fit to exterminate) is held up as the only example of genocide, then there is never a problem. Ward Churchill has a very long, but interesting book on the matter, contrasting the holocaust w/ the genocide that occurred in North America to the indigenous peoples. It spends a great deal of time discussing the need for the Jewish Holocaust to receive "top billing".
I find it remarkably convenient that to a Zionist, any honest review of the history of WWII brings forth cries of "anti-Semitism". Convenient in the sense that it stifles any critical analysis of the Zionist agenda, Israel and it's war on the Palestinian people.
As much as most(notice I said most, not all) liberals enjoy trumpeting their superior rhetoric and perceived open-mindedness over conservatives(read trolls?), there is a virulent strain of political correctness in most of their discourse.
Well, I've said my piece. Time to duck and cover.
Most of the people who directly use the Holocaust to justify harsher Israeli policies towards the Palestinians or to squelch debate on the West Bank aren't liberals.
They're usually followers of Meyer Kahane or some other Jewish "leader" on the far right.
I also think that the tendency of people in the US to be uncritically supportive of anything the Israeli government does has very little to do with the Holocaust. It's exaggerated.
The US government didn't start to support the Israelis to the extent that it does now until the Johnson administration. Eisenhower, who was in command of the troops who discovered the death camps and the mass graves, didn't really favorable towards the Israelis the way Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan did.
Our support for the Israelis has a lot more to do with the Cold War and British/American imperialism in the Middle-East than it does with the "Final Solution." We started to support the Israelis because they werea reliable client state in the Middle East. 9/11 and the Iranian takover of our embassy in 1979 are much more important to the willingness of a lot of Americans have to see Sharon beat down on Arabs.
As much as most(notice I said most, not all) liberals enjoy trumpeting their superior rhetoric and perceived open-mindedness over conservatives(read trolls?), there is a virulent strain of political correctness in most of their discourse.
Paul, I think you show an ignorance of what the Cambodian genocide really was. Your excellent point that the Holocaust "is genocide abetted by a middle class, something almost nonexistent in other genocides" is very accurate, especially as it pertains to modern genocides. One could argue that the extermination of indigenous peoples in North America and Australia were abetted by a middle class, though those genocides were conducted over much longer periods of time than the Holocaust and were far patchier, lacking the ultra-focused agenda of total extermination that is the great horror of the Nazi Holocaust.
With regards to Cambodia, there is a reason many feel it is the most "Holocaust-like" of genocides since the actual Holocaust. Of course there are many differences, including, because Cambodia was (and is) a developing nation, a lack of a middle class to abet it, as you point out, and an inability on the part of Pol Pot and the KR to match the Nazis in efficiency of murder, though one can only conclude the intent was there.
But there are also similarities. The Cambodian genocide was not "mass hysteria" as you claim. It was not just about people with eyeglasses, though eliminating the educated elite was certainly part of Pol Pot and his lieutenants' plan to consolidate power by eliminating any potential rivals. It was directed from the top by a small cabal of brutal, racist ideologues whose ideology included a goal of an ethnically pure Khmer state that was based on a pathological nostalgia for a semi-mythical age of Khmer glory; the idea of "good or pure Cambodians (base people)" versus "bad or impure Cambodians "; the rebuilding of a "Greater Kampuchea" that involved recapturing old territories of the Kingdom of Angkor long occupied by other nations and peoples; and finally, the specific targetting of ethnic minorities for systematic genocide to serve the paranoid and racist goal of a "pure" Cambodia.
DK's only ally in the world at the time was China, yet it continued to round up and murder the Chinese minority - evidence of a pathology that similar to the Nazis' obsession with Jews, was so deeply ingrained as to cause the KR to take actions counter to their interests as long as their racist goals could be accomplished.
The Cambodian genocide was unique in the extent to which a small elite eliminated all potential rivals and turned an entire nation into beasts of burden. In its own way, it might serve as important a lesson for highly-stratified developing nations as the Holocaust is to us.
I'll just add that as I said before, if Holocaust deniers are exploiting other genocides in other places to downplay the unique crime of the Holocaust, it is doubly repugnant. This does not, however, mean we should only study the Holocaust and remain ignorant of these other genocides, or the lessons to be learned from them.
That wasn't what was on the table, Damon.
And I love the way Holocaust deniers bring up gays -- as if they cared.
Those who DO care, should check out this documentary
David, I'm not clear what you mean, that wasn't on the table ... Paul described the Cambodian genocide as "mass hysteria", which is just ignorant of what it really was.
Mel Gibson spoke the truth in his response. Contrary to what some would have us believe, the people who were herded into concentration camps were not just Jews.
Just to add a comment, all the bitching and moaning about Gibson's new "Passion" movie has only served to ensure its box office success. I wouldn't have given the movie a second thought, but now, I am rather interested in seeing it. Hopefully it is true to the new testament.
"I wouldn't have given the movie a second thought, but now, I am rather interested in seeing it."
LYING TROLL !!!!!!
Bringing up Cambodia is changing the subject, Damon.
The subject is The Holocaust and Hitler's attempt at the complete extermination of the Jews.
Here's a visual aide that should help you out.
Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, executive director of the American Jewish Committee’s Los Angeles office, is trying to understand the film’s deeply religious supporters.
"This is a much larger and more complex issue than simply one of anti-Semitism, which is how some Jewish organizations have construed it," Greenebaum said. "It’s important to deal with the film as a film. Jews need to understand that this is about another person’s religion. It’s not all about us."
Whatever, David. You're a long time commenter on this and other boards, and you know very well that discussion threads can evolve and come to encompass more than the original talking point. Correcting a misstatement is not changing the subject, it's correcting a misstatement. sac666 and paul brought up Cambodia, not me, and in the process they misrepresented what numerous scholars and witnesses agree happened there. It's perfectly fine in the context of this thread to point that out.
"David, I'm not clear what you mean, that wasn't on the table ... Paul described the Cambodian genocide as "mass hysteria", which is just ignorant of what it really was.--Damon"
Have you read Sideshow, Damon?
I wasn't attempting to diminish the Cambodia genocide in my brief comments. I was pointing out that Nazi Germany has more lessons for us to learn (and avoid) than the Cambodian genocide, because the same mind control techniques were in use, and there is an ersatz American middle-class inherently-racist culture that considers all Arabs alike (equally culpable for the acts of a handful).
I called it 'mass hysteria' in the sense that the entire country (C) was in a kind of civil war. That's different than the large middle class in Germany, which was able to view the beating of Jews and others over the handles of their tea cups.
In Cambodia, no class was safe. That was the intended meaning of 'mass' hysteria (admittedly a weak construction).
At NO time did I intend to diminish ANY genocide. But the Holocaust is the most important genocide for us to study, because of its association with the Nazi ideology, vastly more developed than say C ideology, and based on a national religion of the Great Strong Man.
I've found the discussion of Holocaust exceptionalism interesting and informative, but I'm not sure what it has to do with Holocaust denial. The Holocaust is not minimized by comparison to other tragedies; it is minimized by lies about its true nature and extent.
Beth, if the Holocaust is just Jews being punished by God, for instance, then the middle class conformity and disinterest in the German horrors isn't at issue.
By treating the Holocaust as just another tragedy, it ignores the very real threat of another middle class collapse. We already have the middle class that doesn't give a damn when this happens outside the country.
It is only a few small steps to having Dan Rather tell the country that the internment of all Arabs and all protesters is necessary because the Man Chosen by God says so, and it is in the national interest.
"It can't happen here" is surely abetted by "It never happened there."
"It can't happen here" is surely abetted by "It never happened there."
I agree, and that's what I was getting at with "lies about its true nature and extent." But 'it never happened' is a far cry from 'the genocide of Native Americans was, in its own way, just as bad.'
Of course the Holocaust isn't "just another tragedy," but neither is any other major atrocity. Each of them hold important lessons we need to learn in order to avoid similar tragedies in the future.
I'm not minimizing the importance of the Holocaust or the dangers of denial. There's just something a little ghoulish about quantifying horror and creating a competition for 'Biggest Atrocity'.
Well then where do you rankthe U.S. bombing of Cambodia which preceded the PolPot regime and killed many more Cambodians than the famous dictator ever did?
Drawing a blank on that I'll bet.
Your facts are in error, though the numbers are uncertain.
Generally, scholars place the death through Kissinger's warcrime at half a million.
Generally, scholars place the death from Pol Pot at about a million and a half or more. And that's not so surprising, given the difference in aerial bombardment (where there is some chance of escape) and killing fields.
And, Beth, you are still missing the reason why, and should study more.
There is no comparing the Hutu genocide of Tutsis to the Holocaust. Passing out machetes and using commercial radio to tell neighbors which neighbors to kill next is a lot different than a middle class population mostly looking the other way, while the state turns part of the population of the country into ash.
"I agree, and that's what I was getting at with "lies about its true nature and extent." But 'it never happened' is a far cry from 'the genocide of Native Americans was, in its own way, just as bad.'"
No, the genocide of the 600 pre-Columbian cultures was a far greater tragedy, a larger genocide by many times.
But it mostly took place in the 1500s. Europe was itself just a heartbeat or two away from the Dark Ages. That's a lot different than the racism of the Civil War era, or the racism of 1930s Germany. And for our purposes, the Nazi genocide is FAR more important, because of the psychological collapse of an entire culture of modern persons, engineered by radicals in control of the government (to put it mildly).
"the Nazi genocide is FAR more important"...to study...
Bxco is using CIA-improved, computer assisted, Nazi methods. They have succeeded, mostly through terror and threats (building on previous successes in stoking rightward demonization of other societies), in taking over the entire Federal government.
Bx has announced he is divinely inspired, and the conventional media doesn't react, they go along!
Cheney announces endless war, and the outrage is swept under the rug.
The Pentagon coyly announces they are planning a 'Genome bomb,' and restarting the nuke race, and the people, at least on television, seem apathetic and demented, if not full of vigor for the coming Nightmare.
Etc. It is crucial to draw the Nazi link; which is why Krove attacked Moveon with it.
Wake up, America. Achtung, Juden.
Well, history isn’t his strong point: Braveheart is said to contain about 200 errors. And anyone that famous is bound to become a nutcase sooner or later.
As for holocaust-deniers: no doubt there are such people, but has anyone ever met one? They have less influence on public life than the Society of Rabbit Breeders. Seriously, who are the five most influential holocaust-deniers in the English-speaking world? I get stuck after about three: there’s David Irving; there’s Bobby Fischer the chess player; I don’t know about Lyndon La Rouche- he is the kind of person who might be, but his stuff is so unreadable that few will ever find out.
It would be a better use of time to criticize people who believe in astrology, since they are just as loopy but number in the tens of millions whereas holocaust-deniers are six men and a dog. And far from being harmless, astrologers were practically in power during the Reagan years.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
