5 ms·
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment. The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it othe
by gumby 3y ago
I understand the museum's position. However IMHO they missed an important teaching moment.
The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved.
Yes, the use in mass political* advertising can trivialize the crime by repetitive imagery, and I presume this is the origin of the stance of the museum. But it can also call out the rising risk of such a movement gaining power again.
If the memory souls who perished can be salved at all, it is to ensure that people understand the dynamics that led to what happened and ensure that it will happen nie wieder. So far the record since the end of WWII has not been encouraging in this regard.
* I do think the use of these images in non-political, non-historical contexts should be considered beyond the pale.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI think the point is that shallow references and use of Nazi images in ad hominem attacks does does not contribute meaningfully to any discussion. If you want to use the Holocaust to draw a comparison, it should have substance. Without substance, anyone can make shallow comparisons.
- CodeWriter23 3y agoI think the point is to make it not ok to call powers practicing racism and genocide out for being nazi-like.
- cubefox 3y agoThe Auschwitz museum would probably not have complained about death camp analogies when the comparison was an actual genocide. But that was very far from the case.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoAre we expecting the auschwitz museum to universally and perfectly predict and oppose fomenting genocides? Is that a role they're willing and competent to perform for us? Is that where we want that responsibility to solely reside?
- cubefox 3y agoThe situation here was pretty clear cut.
- autokad 3y agowho decides what is substance?
- s1artibartfast 3y agoWhat I meant by substance is that there is some effort to actually explain a comparison and thought. Not just a statement of fact or reference. Essentially making a case. What I mean is different than accuracy. You could write an essay or book comparing something to Nazism, and be right or wrong, but at least you're making a case. If you're just claiming a comparison without presenting a case, you can also be right or wrong, but you're not doing anything more than throwing a name around and making an ad hominem attack.
- autokad 3y agoic, makes sense. unfortunately political ads are just that. Even if they wanted to, people don't like being bothered with explanations
- s1artibartfast 3y agoI agree. Therefore I encourage people to have to have disdain for Nazi / Holocaust comparisons in political ads. It simply pollutes the discourse and makes it more difficult to actually learn valuable lessons from the Holocaust
- gumby 3y agoAs I noted I agree that that was likely and understandably the museum's thinking. My point is that such shallow ad hominem (or ad generim in that case) reference were precisely how Germany traveled down the path it did. I didn't say the museum should not have objected. I feel they could have used the episode for greater value/understanding.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago> The holocaust was very much a political event, and to treat it otherwise is to excuse the broad public support that political movement had, and the widespread public participation involved. Was it a political event tho? It wasn't something the Nazis were openly announcing they were doing. Sending them to camps was one thing, pretty much every country ended up creating camps to keep people during that time. If they were humanly treated in the camps there wouldn't be so much of an issue. It's that they went to extents that the German masses weren't aware of is what makes the holocaust a wtf. Lots of people use it for political purposes, but was it actually a political event when it was happening or did we just politicise it? The holocaust to me was something they did in secret to their own population. Otherwise we need to group in all interment camps at the time.
- bushbaba 3y agoThe nazi desire to exterminate all Jews was known. Jews were killed in the streets of towns. Some even involved mass killings. Towns bragged about being Jew free. Ignorance does not fly. Yes there was some uncertainty of what happened at the camps. But it was well known even at the time that nazi’s camps meant death.
- john008 3y ago[dead]
- that_guy_iain 3y agoActually, there was only ever a mention of a final solution. No real understanding of what that meant. This resulted in allied forces, who had spies throughout the Third Reich, being completely shocked by the camps when they found them. The fact, Allied Forces who were better informed than the average German Ciziten had no idea what was happening is a major sign that they didn't know. Furthermore, if you read any of the books written by Germans who lived through that time they'll often say they didn't know what was happening and in one book about a kid who went through the ranks of the Hitler youth, I believe he thought they were fine in the camps and thought people just moved away. Now, in other countries such as the Netherlands the story was different but victims often know the full truth instead of getting told a story. Rewriting history isn't that cool. Furthermore, the majority of victims of the holocaust weren't Jewish, they were civilians. [1] [1] https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documentin...
- zeteo 3y agoComparing your political opponents with Nazis is a very violent form of public discourse that should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. If people actually believe it, then it makes physical violence against your opponents seem acceptable or even desirable ("punch a Nazi"). Basically, when you're saying someone is a Nazi then it means you want to treat them like the Nazis were treated after WW2. This implies at least removing their political rights, and possibly imprisoning and executing them as well.
- breakingrules 3y ago[dead]
- cubefox 3y agoAdditionally, comparisons are always statements of similarity, and this is a symmetric relation. If someone says group X is similar to the Nazis, then that, in all likelihood, makes X look worse and the Nazis look better. After all, the person is saying the Nazis were similar in badness to group X, and X might not be very bad.
- NoraCodes 3y ago> should be reserved for actual perpetrators of mass atrocities. Ideally, we would prevent such people from perpetrating such atrocities in the first place. The Nazis were Nazis before they killed millions, and they said they would do it before they did. When people, especially politicians, come out and say, "we must eliminate [demographic group]," we need to believe them and understand that genocide is their goal.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- giraffe_lady 3y agoI am pretty sure the people who are making this comparison have the intent of not allowing them to perpetrate mass atrocities. Reserving the comparison only for the successful genocides is maybe rhetorically ideal but missing the point a bit.