AntiSemitism & Holocaust Denial
Genocide + The Internet: The Good, The Bad, The Questionable
Published October 18, 2009 @ 09:25AM PT
The internet. One of the best things about it is that anyone with a connection and a computer can use it to spread ideas, learn and connect with other people. One of the scariest things? Anyone with a connection and a computer can use it to spread ideas, learn and connect with other people.
Michelle recently highlighted some of the innovative ways that people are harnassing the internet to map conflict to better study and prevent it. (That's the good).
On the other end of the spectrum, the "Balloon Boy" national fascination late last week took a particularly odd and nasty turn when it revealed that instead of floating away with his father's experiment, the boy had instead been hiding in the attic. Thousands upon thousands of Twitter users repeated a short "joke" turning the other recent national fascination, Kanye West's interruption of Taylor Swift, into variations on:
"Yo, Balloon Boy. I'm really happy for you and Imma let you finish, but Anne Frank had the best hiding place of ALL TIME!"
That one person wrote this -- let alone that so many people decided that something like this was worth repeating -- is clearly the bad.
And the questionable? Last week the Polish authority that manages Auschwitz created a Facebook page for the memorial. A spokesman said:
Iranian Prez Denies Holocaust, World Acts Surprised
Published September 19, 2009 @ 09:16AM PT
What's a sure-fire way for an attention-hungry despot to reclaim an errant international media spotlight? Denying the Holocaust, of course.
Iranian Dictator President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad resorted to his tried-and-true strategy yesterday with a speech to party loyalists, referring to the Holocaust as "a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," and launching into a rant about how Israel's days are numbered. Charming, for sure -- and the equivalent of saying to the world, "Don't forget about me! I'm still here and can cause all kinds of trouble for you!"
The remarks were countered with the usual round of international condemnation. Holocaust denial is, indeed, dangerous, especially when coming from the leader of a regime hostile to the state of Israel. But I also can't help but wonder if the global uproar isn't exactly what he wants -- if the renewed attention isn't just indulging the Napoleonic delusions of a short, angry little man. He says, "Jump," we ask, "How high?"
Serious negotiations are underway in the diplomatic backchannels, aimed at containing Iran's nuclear threat and its threat to Israel. On the public front, though, would such efforts be better served by taking Ahmadinejad's hysterical ranting a tad less seriously and letting it push him toward irrelevance?
Holocaust Denial in the Harvard Paper (Oops.)
Published September 11, 2009 @ 03:11PM PT
The editors of Harvard's school newspaper have found themselves under a rather unfortunate spotlight this week, after running an ad from noted Holocaust denier Bradley R. Smith challenging readers to provide proof of the existence of gas chambers.
The editor of Harvard Crimson quickly apologized, claiming that the ad placement was the result of "miscommunication and failed oversight," and that an earlier decision not to run the ad "fell through the cracks" during the summer vacation.
I'm intrigued by this crack -- it's been a while since I was on a school newspaper staff, but my recollection of the lay-out and design process is that it is a rather painstaking endeavor, involving inserting articles, photos, and ads and shifting columns and boxes around until the spread is just right. Perhaps technology has improved sense my days with PageMaker (and I certainly hope that it has), but I can't help but wonder: How did such an ad get dropped on a page in the first place?
I'd be willing to bet that this baptism-by-fire experience will make obsessive proofreaders out of the aspiring journalists. Hopefully the rest of the school year will be notably lacking in material for CNN.
Row Over Holocaust Education in Gaza
Published September 04, 2009 @ 06:52AM PT
Should the Holocaust be included in human rights curriculum for children in Gaza?
The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) caught crossfire this week from Hamas, on one side, accusing the agency of violating its "sovereignty" and perpetuating historical lies by planning to teach the Holocaust to Palestinian children, and from Jewish groups, on the other, who support the idea and reject the statements from Hamas's ever-vigilant Holocaust deniers.
UNRWA shot back against the most vociferous of its critics, accusing the Simon Wiesenthal of falsely attributing inflammatory statements to the agency's head.
It's a public relations nightmare in an already difficult context, to say the least. Regardless of whether or not such a proposal was even being considered -- which remains unclear, as UNRWA has not made public comments on the matter -- the agency will now be forced to make a decision that will seriously displease one side or the other:
To add the Holocaust as a matter of principle, and subject itself to huge dissent, possible reprisals, and a likely boycott of its programs by supporters of Hamas.
To leave the Holocaust out in order to avoid such backlash, but instead take heat from groups that will accuse the agency of kowtowing to ideologies of hate.
In this incredibly charged environment, is it possible to make a de-politicized decision about children's education? (Whether or not that is possible in any context is the subject of another discussion.) Where does the UN's obligation lie: With the population it is serving, or with historical and moral accuracy?
The question really comes down to, then: Whose heat is the UN better placed to withstand?
When is a Nazi not a Nazi?
Published August 13, 2009 @ 03:19PM PT
Following the recent Nazi-theme: A German court carved a gigantic loophole in the country's strict anti-Nazi and anti-defamation laws today, ruling that Nazi slogans are legal...if they are translated into English.
(Excuse me while I collect my jaw from the floor.)
According to the court, the translation of a Hitler Youth motto into English amounts to a "fundamental change," as the German language is (apparently) critical to determining a true Nazi slogan.
I agree with Joshua at FP on this one --- it's not just the words, but the ideas behind them that are dangerous. Does the slogan in English mean the same as in German? Check. Does it draw people's attention to the same affiliation? Check. How is that a fundamental change?
And, way to box your fellow countrymen into a stereotype by implying that Nazism is only a German phenomenon. Most Nazis may have been German (though many where certainly not), but Nazism is a dangerous ideology still potent worldwide. If you're going to have a law banning Nazi hate speech, don't gut it of its utility.
I predict Neo-Nazi print shops going into overdrive.
The Worst Insult
Published August 13, 2009 @ 09:04AM PT
Calling someone a Nazi is one of the worst insults out there. Unfortunately, it's also one of the most pervasive in our culture. From the famous (satirical) Seinfeld "Soup Nazi" to recent political protests, calling someone a Nazi is the go-to way to convey how mean or unfair or overbearing someone is.
Now, the insult has returned - this time resurfacing in the healthcare debate.
Rush Limbaugh recently laid out all the reasons why Democrats are just like Nazis (via the LA Times):
Well, the Nazis were against big business -- they hated big business. And of course we all know that they were opposed to Jewish capitalism. They were insanely, irrationally against pollution. They were for two years mandatory voluntary service to Germany. They had a whole bunch of make-work projects to keep people working [...] They were for abortion and euthanasia of the undesirables, as we all know, and they were for cradle-to-grave nationalized healthcare.
Now I understand that it feels like calling someone a Nazi - or line by line "comparing" their policies with those of the Nazis - makes a powerful point. Except that it doesn't. Really, it only does it minimize the horrific suffering inflicted on the millions the Nazis terrorized and killed. And it's not a particularly effective rhetorical device.
As Fox News notes (while discussing how some Democrats have described protesters' as using "brownshirt tactics"):
But an axiom in political strategy states that whoever uses the Hitler comparison generally doesn't win the debate -- unless he's participating in a debate about Nazis.
And Mike Godwin made clear in Wired over a decade ago
once a discussion reaches a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, its usefulness is over[.]
I say let's keep it that way.
Photo from the Sam Stein on the Huffington Post.
Holocaust Denial on the Internet: Fostering Communities of Hate
Published June 15, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
In an op-ed in the Washington Post last week, following the horrific shooting at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Michael Gerson wrote far more eloquently than I ever have about the links between anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and violence. In particular, he noted how the internet has given new life to anti-Semitic hate speech. In reference to comments left on a previous article on Holocaust denial, Gerson writes:
"Of course, these are the views of a small, self-selected group of the unbalanced -- hundreds out of millions. But the Internet allows these obsessions to gather in fetid pools, as James W. von Brunn (a prolific Web author) knew and exploited. The Internet has helped to create communities of malice."
While the open-ended and open-source quality of the internet can be a wonderful thing, it also allows hate speech to flourish, provided an outlet and forum for connection for those who espouse extreme view, whereas they otherwise might be somewhat isolated. I've noticed the same thing on my own posts on Holocaust denial --- without fail, the comments sections become either anti-Semitic rants (which I delete without sympathy, despite a variety of threats levied against me), or extended whines about free speech, as if those who promote hatred are somehow oppressed. No other subject gains as much attention on my blog as my posts about Holocaust denial.
But as I've written before, Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism --- and Holocaust denial is, in my view, fundamentally anti-Semitic --- are not mere issues of free speech. Gerson writes:
"But these ideas are not harmless, because they can inspire an angry, obsessed bigot who sets out on a June morning to kill Jews -- and murders an African American man who had a wife and young son."
Von Brunn's attack on the Holocaust Museum shows just how dangerous hate speech can be.
[Photo from Reuters: Forensic personnel inspects bullet holes in the glass entry doors at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, June 11, 2009.]
