Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.history,soc.culture.jewish,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Proving the Holocaust: The Holocaust & holocausts (3 of 15)
Summary: Dr. Michael Shermer's article on Holocaust revisionism,
         "Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of Revisionism & the 
         Restoration of History," _Skeptic_, Vol. 2, No. 4, Altadena, 
         California, June, 1994. Published by the Skeptics Society, 
         2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119.
Reply-To: poster
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Keywords: 
Lines: 96

[Followups directed to alt.revisionism]

Part 3: The Holocaust & holocausts

Was the Nazi Holocaust the worst genocide in history? Revisionists claim
that Jews and Jewish historians emphasize both the uniqueness and the
destructiveness of the Holocaust in order to gain moral authority that
grants social power. They rail against statements like this from Abraham
Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, in the January,
1994 issue of ADL's Frontline: "[The Holocaust] is a singular event. It
is not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on
the life of God's chosen children and, thus, on God himself" (p. 2).
This was an unfortunate choice of words that can lead to comments like
this by Louis Farrakhan to Barbara Walters on 20/20: "Because I said the
Holocaust of black people was a hundred times worse than the Holocaust
of Jews, they were angry with me for even comparing this, and it is
because you feel your life is so much more sacred than the lives of the
Gentiles, or the lives of the Asians, Arabs, and Africans" (1994).

   It is true that Jews and Jewish historians do focus on the Holocaust
and anti-Semitism; it is no less true (or conspiratorially suggestive)
that African-Americans and African-American historians are intensely
interested in slavery and racism; or that Native-Americans and Native-
American historians concentrate on their exploitation and destruction by
the U.S. government. All groups are more interested in their own history
than are others, and in a pluralistic society like America it is not
constructive to get caught up in a contest over whose persecution is
worse.      

   By a general definition it would certainly be reasonable for Native-
Americans to claim to have been the victims of a holocaust.
Approximately one million Indians were killed by the U.S. government in
100 years (Brown, 1970, p. 9). The policy of Manifest Destiny led to the
tacit approval to kill, maim, torture, and displace Native-Americans
because of their race (considered savage) and their land (considered
valuable). As Thomas Jefferson observed: "This unfortunate race, whom we
had been taking so much pains to save and to civilize, have by their
unexpected desertion and ferocious barbarities [they fought back]
justified extermination and now await our decision on their fate"
(Diamond, 1992, p. 308). A small "h" holocaust, then, will be taken to
mean the intentional or functional near-destruction of a people based on
race, religion, ethnicity, land, and/or property and wealth.

   Likewise, the enslavement of Africans in the Americas may also be
considered a type of general holocaust. Even though the intention was to
keep them alive (dead slaves are valueless), the functional outcome of
the capture and transportation through the "middle passage" resulted in
an estimated 10 million dead in about two centuries (Curtin, 1969).

   Other terms have been used to describe holocausts. Raphael Lemkin
coined the word genocide in 1945 to describe what the Nazis did to the
Jews, and defined it as an "intentional extermination of a race," but
this is not broad enough to include other motives. Lucy Davidowicz
called it a war against the Jews (1975), but this is not semantically
precise since a war is generally defined as "Hostile contention by means
of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or
between parties in the same nation or state." Neither Jews, nor Native-
Americans, nor Africans were properly armed or organized for hostilities
against foreign or domestic powers. (See the OED for these word usages.)

   Like all historical events, then, the Holocaust is both unique and
universal. Holocausts are a result of a conjuncture of thousands of
events compelling a certain course of action. No holocaust could ever
repeat itself exactly, any more than any other historical event could,
because of the contingent nature of history. But universal necessities
and underlying forces guide, direct, and push events down a certain
path. Thus, the study of one holocaust gives us insights into others, as
well as guidance on avoiding future holocausts.

[Continued in Part 4]

                          Work Cited

   Shermer, Michael. "Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of
      Revisionism & the Restoration of History," _Skeptic_, Vol. 2,
      No. 4, Altadena, California, June, 1994. Published by the
      Skeptics Society, 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001,
      (818) 794-3119.

_Skeptic_ magazine:
http://www.skeptic.com

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor