Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3]


Debating with deniers

autolycus 11 Dec 06 - 12:40 PM
autolycus 11 Dec 06 - 12:43 PM
Uncle_DaveO 11 Dec 06 - 12:49 PM
McGrath of Harlow 11 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,lox 11 Dec 06 - 03:34 PM
Adrianel 11 Dec 06 - 08:47 PM
Mr Happy 11 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM
Little Hawk 11 Dec 06 - 11:07 PM
Paul Burke 12 Dec 06 - 03:18 AM
Leadfingers 12 Dec 06 - 06:21 AM
Dave (the ancient mariner) 12 Dec 06 - 07:00 AM
3refs 12 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM
autolycus 12 Dec 06 - 12:53 PM
GUEST 12 Dec 06 - 01:19 PM
3refs 12 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM
Wolfgang 12 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM
GUEST,lox 12 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM
bobad 12 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM
Herga Kitty 12 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM
Peace 12 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM
autolycus 13 Dec 06 - 03:09 AM
Teribus 13 Dec 06 - 04:30 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 06 - 08:19 AM
Wolfgang 13 Dec 06 - 08:23 AM
jacqui.c 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM
jacqui.c 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 AM
3refs 13 Dec 06 - 10:19 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 06 - 01:02 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 04:05 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 06 - 04:13 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 04:24 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 06 - 05:07 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 13 Dec 06 - 05:28 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 05:54 PM
Greg F. 13 Dec 06 - 05:58 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 06:10 PM
GUEST,MarkS 13 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 06:29 PM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 06:49 PM
Donuel 13 Dec 06 - 06:50 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 06:52 PM
GUEST,lox 13 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM
GUEST 13 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM
Lonesome EJ 13 Dec 06 - 09:32 PM
Lonesome EJ 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM
Dave (the ancient mariner) 13 Dec 06 - 10:27 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:40 PM

A very inflammatory conference is being organised in
Iran to deny that the Holocaust or Shoah ever happened,
apparently as a way of testing Western ideas of free speech.


   Is there anywhere where one can safely debate the denial
with deniers? safely in the sense of being able to debate
without having to fear for oneself.

   I realise,of course, that doing so could well be a total
waste of time and effort (even more than contributing to
our very own 'closed threads' - er - thread.)

It is worrying, as well, that there are so many in the
world who know nothing about what happened in Germany,
and ignorance is fertile ground onto which denials and
conspiracy theories fall and flourish






      Ivor.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:43 PM

Sorry, forgot to prefix with BS - hopefully this'll soon go to the right place, I don't know how to do that.





      Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:49 PM

The deniers can't be argued with, since they start out with a predetermined conclusion, which they consider to overrule any factual data that may be given. No matter what facts you give them, they will take the position that you are deluded. Give it up.

Dave Oesterreich


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:35 PM

There is a dilemma here.

On the one hand entering into a debate with people who deny that the holocaust took place can be taken as implying that the deniers have a case worth debating.   

On the other hand refusing to enter into a debate, and setting up laws against holocaust denial, can also be seen as implying that they have a case, which has to be suppressed, because it might win in a debate.

A further complication enters into it, when the matter of the reality of the holocaust of Jews gets elided with other issues, such as the fate of other groups of victims and the question whether this is sometimes marginalised; and also the impact awareness of the holocaust continues to have on the way actions of Israel in relation to Palestine and on Palestinians have been interpreted.

These are very different issues. Unlike the matter of the reality of the holocaust, there are genuine questions to be explored and debated.

However it is evident that holocaust deniers are liable to seek to associate such questions with their own perverse enterprise, as a way of getting some credibility. And sometimes it seems that other people, who would sooner avoid these issues, prefer to see them associated with holocaust denial, as a way of avoiding them.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 03:34 PM

A private debate is of course a waste of time, but making it public certainly isn't.

Your target audience isn't those who have made up their minds one way or the other, but those who, through some travesty of education, are ignorant of the truth.

The danger of the debate being repressed is that there are potentially more people who are ignorant of the truth, and therefore there are more people to recruit from.

In a public forum like this one, it is therefore essential to explain yourself fully, carefully and politely, lest you alienate someone who might otherwise have been swayed by your argument.

BBC world service, CNN etc have a responsibility to ensure that this information never dies.

The big mistake is to take for granted peoples knowledge, understanding, understanding and agreement.

The next mistake is to get upset when you are surprised to discover that you have made the first mistake.

Knowledge is like anything else. It decays and dies unless it is nurtured.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Adrianel
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 08:47 PM

These people have FAITH, and no amount of (logical) argument or evidence will convince them to change their minds. In the same way, I've found it useless to try to argue religion with someone who has FAITH. Because of the FAITH, they know they are right, and will not be swayed. As Chesterton (?) said of the two women having a discussion across the street, each from her own front door, "They're arguing from different premises, they'll never agree".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Mr Happy
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denier_%28measure%29


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 11:07 PM

It depends how much patience you have, I guess...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Paul Burke
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:18 AM

The Iranian fundies are being provocative, and they are succeeding in provoking. Give the whole thing the attention it deserves.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Leadfingers
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 06:21 AM

And I thought this was about Tights and the thickness thereof !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:00 AM

I listened to an interview on CBC with a gentleman in my home town who survived Auschwitz; who previously had never made it public knowledge that he was a survivor of the concentration camp. One of his customers was talking to him about his daughters school running a project on WW2. When he mentioned he was at Auschwitz, the customer persuaded him to talk to her class, he reluctantly did; something which for him raised so many memories of pain and suffering he never wants to do it again. He reluctantly gave the short interview to CBC to explain why he does not care to recall his experiences. Living proof, but what a hell of a way to live, non of his family survived, only him, and he wonders why every day of his life. I read the letters and reports of so called Doctors Finke and Rascher at Dachau who conducted the most horrific experiments on live human beings. There is a duty to debate with deniers everywhere, Lest We Forget and are forced to relive this history.

Yours, Aye. Dave


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM

"Knowledge is like anything else. It decays and dies unless it is nurtured."
The burning of Witches gradually dissipated during the Age of Enlightenment, as people began to question the reality of many long-held religious beliefs. Estimates on the number of victims range from 3,000 (from a Roman Catholic source) to 9,000,000.

Christian invaders systematically murdered tens of millions of Aboriginal people, from the Canadian Arctic to South America. The exact number is unknown. Natives were murdered by warfare, forced death marches, forced relocation to barren lands, intentional and accidental spread of disease, poisoning, the promotion of suicide through the destruction of their cultural and religious heritage, etc. Even today, Canadian Natives have the highest suicide of any population group in the world.

Let's not forget the Aboriginals of Australia, or the Congolese, or the Hereros(Animists)or the Armenians or the Russians!

Holocausts are not exclusive to the Jews.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:53 PM

I appreciate your first responses,and,as a Jew,I
quite agree with 3refs that there have been other
exx. of genocide,also too terrible.

I still look forward to hearing from anyone who
can answer my question about where it might be possible
to have the debate safely. I don't want to show my
hand in advance, but I have the start of an approach
where I won't be offering facts,evidence or logical argument.






      Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 01:19 PM

No point debating with 10 deniers. One cross word and they ladder up to your knickers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM

"I don't want to show my hand in advance, but I have the start of an approach where I won't be offering facts, evidence or logical argument."

Well if your going to offer up yourself, you might want to think about what happened to the guy who tried it a couple of thousand years ago.(arrh)

If you aren't going to offer up proof, what is left, Faith?

I think all you could debate is the number of lives that were taken, and we'll never really know the extent of any of history's genocides.
Is there anywhere on the planet, at any given time in our history, where man has not tryed to wipe out entire races or enslaved them?

The question shouldn't be "if" it happened it should be "why" it happened!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM

Thousands died in front of our eyes

English translation of an interview with an Auschwitz survivor (more interviews with eye witnesses in the links at the end of this interview)

You should realise that you can't debate and win with the deniers. They have responses to each document or argument. They are (what in science is called) paradoxers. Whatever for you is proof isn't for them. They do not debate the way you are used to debate, so you will only be frustrated, unless...

...you realise that those who listen to such a debate are your target group. Those who want to be convinced before believing what they have learned. Those who have made the experience that sometimes they have not been told the truth. Those who rather believe the minority. In your debates with deniers these basically good people are the group you are really talking to. The deniers will not be convinced by any argument. But if you convince only 10% of those who listen to the debate you have done a great job.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 03:55 PM

"Holocausts are not exclusive to the Jews."

mmm hmmm

"Is there anywhere on the planet, at any given time in our history, where man has not tryed to wipe out entire races or enslaved them?"

mmmm hmmm


All very interesting, but how does it help us to come to a conclusion about whether it is worth arguing with holocaust deniers?

Are you saying that because these things are true that therefore we should not make a fuss when a nation/state sanctions a bogus investigation into whether the holocaust happened or not?

We aren't talking about a playground prank here, we are talking about a politically significant statement of ideology. I am not a jew, but I am insulted by the crass nature of such a stunt since I am a human and it was a crime by humans against humans and serves as evidence of what we are capable of given the right brainwashing.

What is your point?

Why say what you said?

Read the fucking question and the original post and try to give an intelligent answer and not just a "clever" one!

And as for you "ignore them and they'll go away" advocates, I presume you are aware that that is precise;ly the attitude that allowed the original holocaust to happen.

What about young angry muslims in Indonesia, Pakistan, the UK, USA, North Africa, Central Asia from Chechnya through to China etc etc etc ... Intelligent, and subject to persuasion (just like young people everywhere).

If they here only one side of the debate, what point of view do you think they are likely to form.

Now I don't believe in Panic and this information doesn't inspire it in me. What does freak me out is the glib, smug, dissociated, arrogant and offhand way that people are willing to accept emanations such as that one from Iran.

If you don't care then fine, but if your response is "bloody whinging Jews complaining again" then you need to buck your ideas up pronto.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: bobad
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM

Well said lox.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Herga Kitty
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:20 PM

Leadfingers - yeah, I thought it was about the thickness of tights too, when I saw the title thread, but then I opened the thread and realised it was about why I never knew my grandparents.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Peace
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM

Game, set, match!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: autolycus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 03:09 AM

3refs - what is left? The answer is questions.

    I have at least one question, maybe two, that ought to
give deniers a huge problem.


    While in no way wishing to compare, I leart a bit from
the broadcasting of some Platonic dialogues by the Beeb
(BBC) in the 60s.

    The beauty of Socrates' approach was to test to
destruction the arguments of his students by questions.
Mind you, his students are made to answer honestly and
directly, not much like real people today.


    I quite agree,Wolfgang that if spectators learn summat,
that would make it alll worthwhile. The evidence of the
film Twelve Angry Men gives me hope in any discussion.
Dealing with some people in real life does make me give
up, too.


    I think I take it that no-one knows anywhere online
where debating with deniers is available ?






       Ivor


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:30 AM

Can't speak about elsewhere but Witches were not burned at the stake in England or in Scotland, they were tried for the crime they had committed and sentenced accordingly, normal sentence was death by hanging. Burning at the Stake was reserved only for heretics.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:19 AM

As opposed to be being tried for the crime they have been accused of committing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:23 AM

Holocaust Denial

The link list at the end of the article gives several sources. The Frank Miele link goes to a post at a website, where this discussion seems to be held sometimes.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: jacqui.c
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM

Kevin - unfortunately the Whitechapel Murders have become something that some people are enthusiastic about. Probably because they were never solved and were played up by the press of the day. Anyawy, there are gided tours of the area nowadays in addition to the regular rehashes by the press and the books and the films.......


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: jacqui.c
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:30 AM

Sorry - put the above post on the wrong thread - senior moment!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 AM

Deja vu!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: 3refs
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:19 AM

No, I guess you can't debate the deniers!

Perhaps the revisionists?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 01:02 PM

All history is largely a matter of revising previous history, as further information emerges or existing information gets examined in new ways.

The suggestion that a final account of any historical event is possible, so that any fresh look at it is heretical is not compatible with the study of history.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:05 PM

Depends wat you mean by a debate.

Ideally, a debate is an intelligent and constructive exchange of arguments intended to establish a clearer understanding of an isue.

Sometimes though, debating is about making your opponent look like a donkey.

Anyone who insists on holding onto an untenable point of view in the face of overwhelming evidence against it, is asking for a bruising intellectually.

Again, the point isn't to change their minds, but to convince neutral observers that deniers have no leg to stand on and that they and their weak position are laughable and not worthy of the space they occupy.

Invite them onto the radio and assist them to make fools of themselves.

It's all about who's listening.

PS

A revisionist historian is one who argues that the established view of history is wrong and that a different version is right.

Someone who denies the holocaust is doing just that.

The distinction is false.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:13 PM

A carnivore is an animal who eats other animals.

A lion is an animal who eats other animals.

A hedgehog is an animal who eats other animals.

Therefore the distinction between lions and hedgehogs is false.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:24 PM

in the context that they are all carnivores, yes.

In the context of people who deny the holocaust, whether they are "revisionist" or "deniers", also yes.

The deniers wear red underpants, the revisionists wear french negligee.

That distinction is irrelevant.

So your example above falsely portrays my logic and falsely defends 3refs


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

McGrath

In fact, my point was in fact that a holocaust denier IS revising the established view and IS therefore revisionist.

So unlike your example, there aren't two seperate entities to compare in the way that you have compared Lions and Hedgehogs.

To use your way of looking at things, a better analogy would be to look for a distinction between Lions and Cats.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:07 PM

The point is, people who deny the holocaust are liars, not real historians.

The fact that enormous numbers of people were systematically murdered as a deliberate act of policy by the Nazi regime, and that Jews were a particular target selected in this process - that is not open to genuine question. And that is where Holocaust Denial fits in.

But real historians do have to be open to the process of revising existing understandings of history to take account of information that was not previously available or was not taken into account. "Revisionism" is a reasonable label for this process.

This means that holocaust deniers have a motive to try to disguise their lies as "revisionism", and they do this.

This kind of thing has an effect of blurring the distinction between genuine historians who are honestly re-examining historical data and people such as holocaust deniers who have completely different motivations. "Revisionism" gets used as a dirty word for a dirty enterprise.

However there is still a place for investigating the Holocaust - how it came about, what exactly happened, what were its consequences, and how has the narrative that emerged about it affected subsequent events. And all these are topics where a kind of "revisionism" can be appropriate - and it would be wrong to use that term as a way of excluding this kind of investigation.

The same kinds of issues arise in relation to other historic crimes and disasters, which have rightly taken on a major role in the way descendants of survivors have interpreted the world and have acted, such as the Slave Trade or the Irish Famine.

Basically, there is a revisionism that seeks to reveal the truth, and a revisionism that seeks to conceal the truth - and the distinction between these two matters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:28 PM

The Iran conference, of course, was designed to tweak America's nose.
Israeli Jews are present (although that means little). A commission has been appointed to study the holocaust, but my guess is that it will die in the months to come.
Almadinejad has somewhat moderated his statements; his latest- "The Zionist regime will be wiped out soom the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom."

Aside from the rhetoric, the moderate Muslim press supports the existence of the holocaust. 'Al Jazeera' quotes German historians, who believe some 6 million were killed, quoting from original Nazi documents.

http://english.aljazeera.net/News is a good source of Middle Eastern Muslim news and opinions.

A poll currently running shows that 44% believe the Hezbollah will topple the Lebanon government.
53% believe Pakistan is equipping the Taliban.
65% believe that reforms by Turkey, aimed at EU membership, will continue.
The polls may be unrepresentative, but they are not designed to lead to a desired answer (think Lou Dobbs, CNN).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:54 PM

In the faux holocaust "did it or didn't it happen" debate, their are two camps.

Those who say it didn't are and have been known for a while as "the revisionists"

Perhaps that is the distinction you wish to draw attention to, or would you rather assert your right to be a pedant despite the risk of becoming facetious.

I Think you are sincere McGrath, but I think you are slightly irritated by me and you are quick to engage me sometimes on points that you otherwise might overlook.

This side argument has already taken up too much of our time.

Let's check out wolfgangs links and get our teeth stuck in where we can bite some really meaty chunks outof a few genuine arseholes


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:58 PM

A revisionist historian is one who argues that the established view of history is wrong and that a different version is right.

Simplistic, and absolutely wrong. Shows an absolute ignorance of historians and historiography.

ALL history is 'revisionist' in the sense that points of view change as time advances and additional primary documentation continues to be made available. Question is, can the conclusions drawn be supported by believable evidence & historical fact.

As has been stated elsewhere, you don't hear people complaining much about "revisionist dentistry".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:05 PM

I refer you to the post just before yours


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:10 PM

greg,

So does that mean you agree with 3refs that we should debate the revisionists or not?

Context is very important you know.

Especially for a historian.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:19 PM

You cannot debate the deniers because their entire point is to use a debate with you to further advance their ideas.
A better strategy would be to meet them with Ridicule and Mockery.

EG

David Duke is saying these things in order to deflect attention to the fact that he molests mountain goats. (or something equally outrageous.)

Etc

Now it is he who is on the defensive, and he will never be able to advance a denier argument without putting a companion idea (accusation of mountain goat molestation) into the head of his audience members.

These people will go away faster in the face of laughter then in the face of indignation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:29 PM

Absolutely.

Just look at Nick Griffen!

Remember the BNP broadcast where he was standing next to the spitfire?

The nervous ticks in his face?

Not so much mountain goats as mounting goats.

The BNP will never be a force in the UK as long as they remain a laughing stock.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:41 PM

Those who say it didn't are, and have been known for a while as "the revisionists"

And that is precisely what I see as dangerous. Because assimilating the terms "Holocaust denial" and "revisionism" plays into the hands of the Holocaust deniers.

The danger is that every time some historical investigation throws up evidence that some aspect of the accepted narrative is wrong - even relatively minor details - this will be presented as somehow strengthening the case of the Holocaust deniers. The logic being that in this instance "revisionism" has been demonstrated to be correct - and "revisionism" has been identified as equivalent to Holocaust denial.

Sorry if I annoy you with this, lox. I don't think the distinction I am making here is in fact pedantic.
......................................

One example of a situation where a kind of revisionism has been relevant is the one which has insisted that more attention be given to the genocide of Roma (gypsies) in the Holocaust.

I remember talking to someone who had told me how, on a visit to a Holocaust memorial, he came across someone weeping with indignation at the fact that this genocide was mentioned alongside the Holocaust of Jews, because she felt that somehow this was an intrusion and an insult.

The point is, there is scholarly history, and there is popular history, and sometimes the popular history fails to take into account aspects of the scholarly history - and the popular history is the one that can shape the world.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:49 PM

And there is great importance attached to that kind of pursuit.

In fact if you check out the "post holocaust Germany" thread, you will see that it is currently happening right under our very noses.

And very grateful too we are to both Azizi and Peter Schaum I have no doubt.

Please read 3refs post earlier, to which I had initially responded, to understand where my initial "false distinction" problem arose from.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:50 PM

Today in Tehran Iran, the only ambassador of the USA was David Duke. He shared the podium with President Amadijad.

Their Jew hating rhetoric has calmed down a bit. Instead of calling for the death of all Jews in Isreal they actually suggested moving Isreal to Alaska. (yes they actually said that)

Having lost innumerable aunts and uncles in the holocaust I share none of the antisemetic attitudes of these extremist whackos...or even the minor subconcious antisemites like Mel Gibson.

HOWEVER I did say more than once that if it came down to a massive nuclear war or moving moving Isreal to South Carolina, I would be in favor of Fort Sumner guarding the port of New Haifa.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:52 PM

The land of ... erm ... snow?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM

Sorry,

Sould have writen Wilfried Schaum.

Please accept apologies


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 08:49 PM

minor subconcious antisemites like Mel Gibson

What's a SUBCONSCIOUS antisemite, please? For that matter, what's a semite?

Thank you


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:32 PM

McGrath said "The point is, people who deny the holocaust are liars, not real historians."

Well, I don't think you oppose a point of view by immediately denouncing your opponents as liars. These people are very likely deluded, but they may fully believe what they're saying.

There is in fact a body of work that supports the revisionist view of the Holocaust. A search online will reveal numerous references to the "holocaust Myth", including one from Pravda, the official Russian periodical.

The crux of the revisionist argument boils down to the following, as far as I can tell:
1) The wholesale murder of Jews in German camps was never state policy, and there is no written and signed command by Hitler which states this.
2) It is true that Jews were unwanted in Germany, but the program was one of deportation, not slaughter, with many Jews being sent to the USSR, etc
3) The gas chambers were never used for execution. Zyklon B found in the camps was a standard pesticide used in the German Army for delousing.
4) The figure of 6 million deaths is grossly exaggerated. An example is shown with Auschwitz. Initial estimates of dead were in the 1-1 1/2 million at Aushwitz, but were later revised to 300-400,000, but without any corresponding adjustment in the total 6 million figure.

On and on, and, well, you get the picture. My point is, these people are not just denying that anything happened. They are fairly specific, with points that I believe need to be addressed in argument. We can never assume that Truth can be defended by simply shouting "Lies!" We sometimes must do battle on the field of rational discussion.
On CNN, Glen Beck said "the Iranian President is trying to figure out if the Holcaust happened? Here's a clue...rent Schindler's List."
That kind of argument is idiotic. A movie can be many things, moving, transcendent, revelatory...but it isn't necessarily true. Watch "Triumph of the Will."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM

Pravda on the "Holocaust Myth"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Debating with deniers
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 10:27 PM

Not only is there living proof, there are meticulous detailed documents supporting evidence wcjich is available.

The death register from the Mauthausen concentration camp contains rows of neatly printed names. The times of execution are each two minutes apart. The date is April 20, 1942 -- Adolf Hitler's 53rd birthday.

"Every second minute there is another prisoner and this goes on for pages," says Udo Jost, an archivist at the International Tracing Service (ITS) which looks after the world's biggest collection of documents from World War Two.

"They shot 300 prisoners for Hitler's birthday present: not just shot but then registered them by name."

Millions of documents, like this register from the camp near Linz in Austria, sit in the cellars of a converted hotel in the central German town of Bad Arolsen, testament to the chillingly efficient bureaucracy of the Nazi regime.

Some 17 million people are named in the documents -- those who were murdered, those who survived the concentration camps and then the millions who were forced to work on farms and in factories under Hitler's employment policies.

The ITS, under the management of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has been administering the archive and answering queries for around 60 years. Until now, Germany had staunchly opposed opening the archive to a wider public.

But under pressure from Holocaust groups, authorities said last month they would allow historians to use the archive, and also give a digital copy of the 47 million documents it contains to each of the 11 nations which oversee the work of the ITS.

The 11-country board is to meet starting on Tuesday to alter the ITS' mandate, the first step in the process of unlocking the store. Changing the mandate requires unanimous approval.

Much of the archive's material is highly sensitive.

"Believe me," Jost says pointing to drawer after drawer of workers' documents in the basement of the ITS building, "there was no firm of any size which did not use slave laborers."
Mind-numbing bureaucracy

The racks of green movable shelves on the second floor of the archive look like those one might expect to find in a tax office or a library.

The contents, gathered since the end of World War Two from archives across Germany, Russia and the former communist eastern European bloc, have never been seen by the public.

A pink "imprisonment order" details how a Pole ended up in a concentration camp for his affair with a German woman; a sheaf of papers neatly typed by a Gestapo officer records a woman's protest at the sterilization of her mixed-race son, Gregor.

The detail is often absurd.

A lined page with neat handwriting tells how prisoners at the Gross-Rosen concentration camp in modern Poland, were obliged to search each other for lice.

"Block 8, 14 January 1945, 784-strong. 37 lice found in 13 prisoners," the note reads, listing the affected inmates.

"One laughs but in this case, this individual was recorded as having one louse on this day in this camp," Jost says, pointing to a name on the list.

"At least we can confirm that on this day he was in Gross-Rosen and for that fact alone then he would have got 7,500 euros ($9,539) from the forced labor fund."

The German government and industry started paying compensation to slave workers and other Holocaust survivors around five years ago.

Not only does the archive contain information on concentration camps like Auschwitz and Belsen, as well as the fates of millions of Jews, Roma and other victims of Hitler's regime, it also contains lists of postwar displaced persons.

Arthur Berger, an adviser at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, said this area had yet to be researched.

"The basic outlines of history are not going to be changed by this," he told Reuters. "But it is the details, the human interest in these stories which is so important. There is a new richness that is added and that is something that was missing."
Painstaking work

Trucks full of paperwork arrived at the center from across the Allied zones after the war and a team of over 1,000 sifted through them to create a complex card register of all the names.

Three rooms alone are stacked full of cardboard drawers, each containing hundreds of cards marked with name after name.

Among these are former chancellors Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, listed under his given name Herbert Frahm. Both men opposed Hitler.

Archivists believe Bad Arolsen serves to keep the memory of the Holocaust alive.

"Working here you get a different sense of this period in history and also of the responsibility which we have as the children born in the postwar period ... to keep memories alive of these people, these victims," 52-year-old Jost said.

Decades after the end of the war, the requests for information continue to pour in. This has created a backlog at Bad Arolsen and added to the calls for the archive to be opened up to other organizations.

"They are three years behind in giving answers," Berger said. "The survivors are elderly now and in their 80s and 90s and so they deserve answers quickly.

"We owe a moral debt to the families and every country has to try to help them find out finally what happened to their relatives."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

  Share Thread:
More...


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 16 June 11:05 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.