History of the Holocaust

[GeoffP]

So whats the number? How many would you consider a significant part of the whole group?

A significant part. It's largely up to the beholder, I would expect. Intuition.

Also what is your position when say 300,000 of them are killed, not with the intention of obliteraating the group, but as a demonstration of power? Or because they could?

An interesting question. Mass murder, probably.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

I have no doubts on that score. I'm simply comparing it to the Allied forces employing their own Judenrats under similar circumstances and then attempting to deflect responsibility.

For your inference to be accurate, you would have to first define it as a genocide. Is it one? I'm open to your arguments. And why drag Australia into this?

 

[S.A.M.]

A significant part. It's largely up to the beholder, I would expect. Intuition.

What does your intuition say?

An interesting question. Mass murder, probably.

But not genocide?

For your inference to be accurate, you would have to first define it as a genocide. Is it one? I'm open to your arguments. And why drag Australia into this?

Lets just say that in the process of reviewing material for this thread, I have come to understand that the definition of genocide changes to suit the comfort level of those who might feel accountable for it.

e.g.

In the April 2008 edition of The Monthly, David Day wrote further on the topic of genocide. He wrote that Lemkin considered genocide to encompass more than mass killings but also acts like "driv[ing] the original inhabitants off the land... confin[ing] them in reserves, where policies of deliberate neglect may be used to reduce their numbers... Tak[ing] indigenous children to absorb them within their own midst... assimilation to detach the people from their culture, language and religion, and often their names."[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_wars

 

[Bells]

Does Australia have a holocaust center for Aboriginals? Or Tasmanians?

Holocaust center? No.

We have what are commonly referred to as Koorie centers around the country, which educate and show all about their history and their culture. We also have museums around the country that also help educate non Aboriginals and Aboriginals about their history.


Here is one such place:

http://www.murumittigar.com.au/index.cfm

Then of course we have festivals and events, one of which is NAIDOC week, which is a wonderful festival dedicated to celebrating Indigenous culture and their history.

 

[S.A.M.]

Holocaust center? No.

We have what are commonly referred to as Koorie centers around the country, which educate and show all about their history and their culture. We also have museums around the country that also help educate non Aboriginals and Aboriginals about their history.


Here is one such place:

http://www.murumittigar.com.au/index.cfm

Then of course we have festivals and events, one of which is NAIDOC week, which is a wonderful festival dedicated to celebrating Indigenous culture and their history.

I believe that was the original intent of the museum in Washington, to be a platform to share the contribution of Jewish culture to the US. But they chose to focus on the holocaust instead.

I mean, is there a museum or center in Australia that deals with the genocide or debates on "black armband" "white blindfold" history wars in Australia?

Any museum on the culture of the Tasmanians, who were, I believe, wiped out?

 

[Bells]

Lets just say that in the process of reviewing material for this thread, I have come to understand that the definition of genocide changes to suit the comfort level of those who might feel accountable for it.

Of course it does.

You only just came to that realisation?

It is not just the comfort level of those who might feel accountable for it. It is also for the comfort level of those who are in a position to stop or prevent it but choose not to. Rwanda was a prime example of that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course it does.

You only just came to that realisation?

It is not just the comfort level of those who might feel accountable for it. It is also for the comfort level of those who are in a position to stop or prevent it but choose not to. Rwanda was a prime example of that.

Yes, does that make me naive? I come from a culture where the word does not alter meaning to suit the occasion. We never learned political correctness, somehow.

 

[Bells]

I believe that was the original intent of the museum in Washington, to be a platform to share the contribution of Jewish culture to the US. But they chose to focus on the holocaust instead.

I mean, is there a museum or center in Australia that deals with the genocide or debates on "black armband" "white blindfold" history wars in Australia?

Any museum on the culture of the Tasmanians, who were, I believe, wiped out?

The Tasmanian Museum deals quite a bit with the history of the Tasmanian Aboriginals. And it is taught in schools as a part of Australian history.

There has been a bit more attention on it of late because of the attempts to have the remains of many Tasmanian Aboriginals repatriated to their homeland. The British, as I understand it, have not always been accomodating in that respect.

Aboriginals consider the genocides as a part of their history, a complete history. I don't know of any center or museum that deals specifically with their genocide. I would be surprised if there was one because to many Aboriginals, their centers and museums are a celebration of their culture and being and it encompasses their past and history, no matter how pretty or dark it might be.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, does that make me naive? I come from a culture where the word does not alter meaning to suit the occasion. We never learned political correctness, somehow.

That's because Indians are Übermenschen.

 

[Bells]

Yes, does that make me naive? I come from a culture where the word does not alter meaning to suit the occasion. We never learned political correctness, somehow.

Naive? No. Maybe.

I guess you're just not bitter like I am.

We have seen time and time again how the world will turn a blind eye to genocide. It no longer surprises me when it keeps on happening.

The world will only respond to a genocide if it is in their own best interest to respond to try to prevent or stop it. Look at how long it took the US and many other Western, Asian and African countries to even utter the word "genocide" when hundreds of thousand Tutsi were being slaughtered in Rwanda. They didn't utter the word because to do so would mean they would have a moral obligation to actually respond to it.

 

[S.A.M.]

True. Which brings me to the point of this thread.

Why is there so much attention on how many people died in the holocaust?

Why does anyone care either way?

What difference does it make?

To the ones who care about genocide in general, it will not make a difference if it is 6 or 60 or 6 million. To the ones who don't care about genocide, again, it will not matter if it is 6 or 6 million.

So whats with all the laws and pretence? What purpose does it serve, when, if push comes to shove, the ones who stand for such moral values are willing to look the other way every single time?

 

[Bells]

That question needs to be asked to those who do look away.

Because personally, I cannot understand how one could look away and ignore it or pretend it just isn't happening. Or worse still, lower its meaning by calling it something else so that they do not have to act.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thats true. Sometimes I wonder if it is more moral to opt out of the human race.

Except that it would be cowardly to do so.

Anyway I hope this thread makes people think about some of these issues.

And just for the record, I don't care if it was 6 or 6 million, what the sources are or how the evidence was gathered.

Innocent people suffered and died. Thats a crime, no matter how you dress it up or down.

They shouldn't have to bring you the broken bodies before you acknowledge it.

That's because Indians are Übermenschen.

Thats not been our history so far. In fact, as far as I know, we are known as perennial submissives; cannot think of the last Indian who would have stood for militancy or violence; just look at our heroes [edit: well there is Mangal Pandey of 1857 uprising]. Hence the constant references to Gandhi. ie why can't more people be like that? The kind that keeps coming back for more without retaliating, even when you take a stick to their heads ?

I think the lack of political correctness probably stems from the multitude of languages. When you're surrounded by people speaking at least a dozen languages in your immediate vicinity, its best to be clear about what you mean.

 

[GeoffP]

Lets just say that in the process of reviewing material for this thread, I have come to understand that the definition of genocide changes to suit the comfort level of those who might feel accountable for it.

Oh, in many cases, certainly. But you've seen a relatively non-subjective description. You don't wish to discuss it?

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh, in many cases, certainly. But you've seen a relatively non-subjective description. You don't wish to discuss it?

Lets just say I'm not particularly impressed by the distinctions. Lets say if someone dropped a bomb on your kids school what would bother you more

• a racial attack
• a religious attack
• a terrorist attack
• an accident
• collateral damages
• lots of other children died
• no other children died

My response: who gives a shit? the kids are equally dead any which way.

 

[GeoffP]

But the analogy doesn't really hold in scale. We're talking about a widespread event.

 

[S.A.M.]

See my response on reducing human losses to a numbers game. Or check option 6 of the list.

ie my response is still the same

 

[GeoffP]

The other thing is: an ongoing campaign to exterminate you and all like you would probably be a lot more worrisome even than if it were an isolated incident.

Also, I responded to your response. See my response.

 

[S.A.M.]

The other thing is: an ongoing campaign to exterminate you and all like you would probably be a lot more worrisome even than if it were an isolated incident.

Why? What would make it "more" worrisome? Is there an incremental value on human life if more people get killed?

Are you unable to comprehend murder unless there is a number of sufficient magnitude attached to it?

 

[GeoffP]

Are you unable to comprehend that if it's a genocide, they're likely to come after the rest of your ethnic group - you, your other kids, your parents, your siblings, and so forth?

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you unable to comprehend that if it's a genocide, they're likely to come after the rest of your ethnic group - you, your other kids, your parents, your siblings, and so forth?

But if you're just "collateral damages", they won't? If its just "mass murder" they won't? If its just "precision bombing" they won't?

Who or what makes that distinction?