Comparisons of Israelis or the President of the United States to the most horrific genocidal maniacs in human history are insulting to the memory of the victims of Nazi terror.
Posted on Wed, Aug. 19, 2009
We need a history lesson about Nazis
By LEONARD PITTS JR.
lpitts@MiamiHerald.com
I hope this column makes you sick.
See, we'll be talking about Nazis, something many of us are doing lately. Indeed, just this week a fellow named Joseph e-mailed me about a caller he heard on a radio show. The man, vexed over healthcare reform, likened President Obama to Adolf Hitler. Asked why, he said, ``Hitler took over the car companies, then healthcare and then he killed the Jews.''
Said Joseph: ``I almost swerved my vehicle off the road when I heard that.''
But the caller is hardly unique. Google ``Obama + Nazis'' and you get almost seven million hits. Nor is the phenomenon new. Substitute President Bush's name and you get nearly 2.8 million.
An invasion of sorts
Even granting that many of those hits are benign, it seems obvious the Nazis have invaded American political rhetoric in a big way. As in Rush Limbaugh declaring healthcare reform ``a Hitler-like policy,'' swastikas popping up at protest rallies, a poster depicting Obama with Hitler's moustache and a pamphlet that says: ``Act Now To Stop Obama's Nazi Health Plan!
It's important to remember that the Nazis are passing out of living memory; U.S. soldiers of that era are said to be dying at the rate of 1,200 a day. Which makes it too easy, I think, for a nation of notorious historical illiteracy to remake the Nazis as some kind of all-purpose boogeymen for slandering political enemies and scoring cheap rhetorical points.
So I thought it would be good to make you sick, i.e., to spend a few minutes reminding some and teaching others what you invoke when you invoke the Nazi regime.
For the record, then: It was Nazis who shoved sand down a boy's throat until he died, who tossed candies to Jewish children as they sank to their deaths in a sand pit, who threw babies from a hospital window and competed to see how many of those ``little Jews'' could be caught on a bayonet, who injected a cement-like fluid into women's uteruses to see what would happen, who stomped a pregnant woman to death, who once snatched a woman's baby from her arms and, in the words of an eyewitness, ``tore him as one would tear a rag.''
Ideology over reason
That's who the Nazis were, ladies and gentlemen -- those obscenities plus six million more. They were the triumph of ideology over reason and even over humanity, the demonization of racial, religious and political difference, the objectification of the vulnerable other. And the authors of a mass murder that staggers imagination, still.
You would think, then, that where they are invoked to draw a parallel or make a point, it would be done with a respect for the incalculable evil the Nazis represent. You would think people would tread carefully, not because of the potential insult to a given politician (they are big boys and girls) but because to do otherwise profanes the profound and renders trivial that which ought to be held sacred by anyone who regards himself as a truly human being.
But in modern America, unfortunately, rhetoric often starts over the top and goes up from there. So fine, George W. Bush is ``a smirking chimp.'' Fine, Barack Obama is ``a Chicago thug.'' We have a Constitution, after all, and it says we can say whatever we want. It doesn't say it has to be intelligent.
Historical amnesia
And yes, you are even protected if you liken Obama or Bush to Hitler. Yet every time I hear that, it makes me cringe for what it says about our collective propensity for historical amnesia and our retarded capacity for reverence. Once upon a lifetime ago, six million people with DNA, names and faces just like you and I, were butchered with gleeful sadism and mechanistic dispatch. Six million people.
You and I may no longer respect one another, but is it asking too much that we still respect them?
© 2009 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com
Showing posts with label Nazi terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nazi terror. Show all posts
Monday, August 24, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center
I attended the grand opening of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center April 19, which featured guest speakers President Bill Clinton and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel. The Museum held the ceremony in outdoor tents, and I did not have a chance to see the Museum exhibits that day. The Museum was gracious enough to offer complimentary passes to all opening ceremony attendees, which were valid through May 31 (yesterday). So I took the opportunity to visit, perhaps for the last time; I don't plan on paying admission.
East Parking is closer to the building than West Parking. It's a small lot, and I squeezed into a space reserved for "Fuel-Efficient Vehicles." Since it didn't say "Hybrids only," I figured I was safe. The Museum is still unfinished. There are many "Pardon our Dust" signs throughout the building, indicating exhibits that are yet to open. The completed exhibits are likely one would expect from a history museum. Not so many artifacts--plenty of panels explaining Holocaust background, and many video screens. The video screens show interviews with survivors, archival footage of Holocaust activity and some World War II history. There's a great video of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain receiving a hero's welcome upon his return to London after selling out Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. I didn't actually hear him say "peace in our time," but that was the idea. There's another video with a map of Europe that shows the Third Reich extending its reach across the Continent as the war drags on. The air raid siren that is part of war footage in the video can be heard all over the exhibit floor--very annoying.
Others have noted the Museum's drawbacks. The Museum takes pains to note other "undesirables" murdered in death camps and concentration camps, such as mentally ill, mentally retarded, and Roma (Gypsies). But the Germans did not expend considerable resources, which drained the war effort itself, to kill these people. The Third Reich initiated the Holocaust, made possible through the technological breakthroughs of the 19th Century's Industrial Revolution, specifically to murder Jews. The Reich may well have won the war, or at least been permitted to continue to run its own country, if it had not committed so many men, trains and fuel to murdering Jews. To its credit, the Museum does mention several times the collaboration of citizens of European countries that contributed to the Holocaust effort.
The $45 million Museum was made possible through grants of taxpayer funds and extensive help from Jewish donors. I'm not sure if the Museum's focus away from the inherently Jewish character of the Holocaust is a trade-off to public funding. It's certainly disappointing and not completely honest. The murder of non-Jews was strictly a "while we're at it" exercise. Non-Jews were not the targets of Nazi terror.
In a blatant display of avoiding Jewish character, the museum does not have mezuzahs affixed to its doorways. But it sells beautiful mezuzahs in the gift shoppe--for $80 apiece! Ironic? There are also kippot with the museum logo (its two buildings' angled and curved roofs) on the sides for $12. That's a $4 kippah. Please. Bowing to public outcry, there are apparently kosher options in the café (which I did not visit), but the café still sells non-kosher food.
One thought that kept jumping out at me was the tyranny of a militarized society preying on an innocent, unarmed minority. In the face of our very antisemitic recent history, I don't understand why so many liberal Jews (1) support handgun bans like Chicago's; and (2) don't keep weapons in their homes where they are legal. Some Jews think holding valid passports at all times is very important Just In Case. I think packing heat is important--not because I think the government is coming after me. But what if a crazed mob tore through the streets, heading straight for a Jewish neighborhood? Call 911? In that case, cops show up in time to draw the chalk lines. The best defense against an out-of-control mob is armed self-defense. Vandals damaged synagogues in Rogers Park and Lincolnwood just a few weeks ago. Could the thugs next go after people? We don't know. We shouldn't wait to prepare to defend ourselves. We should demand that right from Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley now.
My friend Gerald wrote a terrific opinion piece opposing the Holocaust Museum. As you can see if you click on that link, readers had plenty to say! I haven't gone through all the comments. Just thinking out loud: why did we build it? Washington has a deeply moving and beautifully built Holocaust Museum. Auschwitz has one for those who do the March of the Living. And of course Yad Vashem is in Jerusalem--a stunning, emotional experience. But Skokie? Let me quickly assess four reasons given:
1. To explain the dangers of antisemitism. I'm not sure Holocaust education helps or if a $45 million museum is worth the cost. Illinois law requires the Holocaust be taught in schools. Do kids need another field trip--another excuse to escape classrooms for a day? I don't envision a situation in which the museum stops someone's antisemitic leanings.
2. To explain the dangers of genocide. The lessons of the Holocaust didn't stop Stalin or Mao, and the world pretty much shrugged as millions of Soviets and Chinese died at the hands of these murderous Communists. Pol Pot wiped out one or two million of his own people. Did anyone notice or care? To stop genocides, we need governments focused on humanity and morality (not destroying Israel). I don't think museums help.
3. To fight bigotry and Holocaust denial. People who believe in conspiracy theories continue to believe in conspiracy theories. In fact, they consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary proof that the conspiracy is a strong one. And antisemitic bigots are not phased by museums.
4. Because the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie in 1979. Yes, they wanted to. And they didn't. They tried to march in Chicago, but as I recall, the cops wouldn't let them because they feared for the Nazis' safety. So let them march! Big deal! Let them march and get it over with. On the day of the ceremonial opening of the Skokie museum, there were Nazi demonstrators about a mile away. They held signs and called us liars. Big deal. Why make their publicity goal easier by making a media circus (and bad made-for-tv movie) out of it? I wish the community had caved in to the ACLU's Jewish lawyer (seriously), issued the permit and found something else to do that day. Yes, Skokie has Holocaust survivors, and many more were alive 30 years ago. So we give them a museum? I don't understand that logic.
The Jewish community of the 21st Century doesn't need a museum. It needs more kids. It needs more visits to Israel. It needs more kids in Jewish schools. It needs kids who think it's cool to be Jewish rather than nerdy or something to hide. It needs girls and women who think being Jewish is beautiful rather than something to have surgically repaired, or a family trait to obscure. It needs men who want to marry Jewish women instead of running in the other direction. I don't want young Jewish boys and girls, men and women to think of themselves as victims. I want them to think of themselves as the next generation of a wonderful tradition of ethical monotheism and an ancient people with a proud history. Of course I mourn and say kaddish for the six or seven million Jews who perished in the Holocaust. I consider them my close relatives. But we have no future if we stand on just the Holocaust and antisemitism. God, Torah and Israel--now we're on to something.
East Parking is closer to the building than West Parking. It's a small lot, and I squeezed into a space reserved for "Fuel-Efficient Vehicles." Since it didn't say "Hybrids only," I figured I was safe. The Museum is still unfinished. There are many "Pardon our Dust" signs throughout the building, indicating exhibits that are yet to open. The completed exhibits are likely one would expect from a history museum. Not so many artifacts--plenty of panels explaining Holocaust background, and many video screens. The video screens show interviews with survivors, archival footage of Holocaust activity and some World War II history. There's a great video of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain receiving a hero's welcome upon his return to London after selling out Czechoslovakia at Munich in 1938. I didn't actually hear him say "peace in our time," but that was the idea. There's another video with a map of Europe that shows the Third Reich extending its reach across the Continent as the war drags on. The air raid siren that is part of war footage in the video can be heard all over the exhibit floor--very annoying.
Others have noted the Museum's drawbacks. The Museum takes pains to note other "undesirables" murdered in death camps and concentration camps, such as mentally ill, mentally retarded, and Roma (Gypsies). But the Germans did not expend considerable resources, which drained the war effort itself, to kill these people. The Third Reich initiated the Holocaust, made possible through the technological breakthroughs of the 19th Century's Industrial Revolution, specifically to murder Jews. The Reich may well have won the war, or at least been permitted to continue to run its own country, if it had not committed so many men, trains and fuel to murdering Jews. To its credit, the Museum does mention several times the collaboration of citizens of European countries that contributed to the Holocaust effort.
The $45 million Museum was made possible through grants of taxpayer funds and extensive help from Jewish donors. I'm not sure if the Museum's focus away from the inherently Jewish character of the Holocaust is a trade-off to public funding. It's certainly disappointing and not completely honest. The murder of non-Jews was strictly a "while we're at it" exercise. Non-Jews were not the targets of Nazi terror.
In a blatant display of avoiding Jewish character, the museum does not have mezuzahs affixed to its doorways. But it sells beautiful mezuzahs in the gift shoppe--for $80 apiece! Ironic? There are also kippot with the museum logo (its two buildings' angled and curved roofs) on the sides for $12. That's a $4 kippah. Please. Bowing to public outcry, there are apparently kosher options in the café (which I did not visit), but the café still sells non-kosher food.
One thought that kept jumping out at me was the tyranny of a militarized society preying on an innocent, unarmed minority. In the face of our very antisemitic recent history, I don't understand why so many liberal Jews (1) support handgun bans like Chicago's; and (2) don't keep weapons in their homes where they are legal. Some Jews think holding valid passports at all times is very important Just In Case. I think packing heat is important--not because I think the government is coming after me. But what if a crazed mob tore through the streets, heading straight for a Jewish neighborhood? Call 911? In that case, cops show up in time to draw the chalk lines. The best defense against an out-of-control mob is armed self-defense. Vandals damaged synagogues in Rogers Park and Lincolnwood just a few weeks ago. Could the thugs next go after people? We don't know. We shouldn't wait to prepare to defend ourselves. We should demand that right from Hizzoner Da Mare Richard M. Daley now.
My friend Gerald wrote a terrific opinion piece opposing the Holocaust Museum. As you can see if you click on that link, readers had plenty to say! I haven't gone through all the comments. Just thinking out loud: why did we build it? Washington has a deeply moving and beautifully built Holocaust Museum. Auschwitz has one for those who do the March of the Living. And of course Yad Vashem is in Jerusalem--a stunning, emotional experience. But Skokie? Let me quickly assess four reasons given:
1. To explain the dangers of antisemitism. I'm not sure Holocaust education helps or if a $45 million museum is worth the cost. Illinois law requires the Holocaust be taught in schools. Do kids need another field trip--another excuse to escape classrooms for a day? I don't envision a situation in which the museum stops someone's antisemitic leanings.
2. To explain the dangers of genocide. The lessons of the Holocaust didn't stop Stalin or Mao, and the world pretty much shrugged as millions of Soviets and Chinese died at the hands of these murderous Communists. Pol Pot wiped out one or two million of his own people. Did anyone notice or care? To stop genocides, we need governments focused on humanity and morality (not destroying Israel). I don't think museums help.
3. To fight bigotry and Holocaust denial. People who believe in conspiracy theories continue to believe in conspiracy theories. In fact, they consider overwhelming evidence to the contrary proof that the conspiracy is a strong one. And antisemitic bigots are not phased by museums.
4. Because the Nazis threatened to march in Skokie in 1979. Yes, they wanted to. And they didn't. They tried to march in Chicago, but as I recall, the cops wouldn't let them because they feared for the Nazis' safety. So let them march! Big deal! Let them march and get it over with. On the day of the ceremonial opening of the Skokie museum, there were Nazi demonstrators about a mile away. They held signs and called us liars. Big deal. Why make their publicity goal easier by making a media circus (and bad made-for-tv movie) out of it? I wish the community had caved in to the ACLU's Jewish lawyer (seriously), issued the permit and found something else to do that day. Yes, Skokie has Holocaust survivors, and many more were alive 30 years ago. So we give them a museum? I don't understand that logic.
The Jewish community of the 21st Century doesn't need a museum. It needs more kids. It needs more visits to Israel. It needs more kids in Jewish schools. It needs kids who think it's cool to be Jewish rather than nerdy or something to hide. It needs girls and women who think being Jewish is beautiful rather than something to have surgically repaired, or a family trait to obscure. It needs men who want to marry Jewish women instead of running in the other direction. I don't want young Jewish boys and girls, men and women to think of themselves as victims. I want them to think of themselves as the next generation of a wonderful tradition of ethical monotheism and an ancient people with a proud history. Of course I mourn and say kaddish for the six or seven million Jews who perished in the Holocaust. I consider them my close relatives. But we have no future if we stand on just the Holocaust and antisemitism. God, Torah and Israel--now we're on to something.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center
One of my Facebook Friends had an extended discussion about the new Museum. I opposed its creation and construction because I felt that $45 million of Jewish money could have been better spent. There are two outstanding Holocaust museums in Washington and Jerusalem. There is another at Auschwitz. I don't think we needed to spend all that money so schoolchildren could have a field trip--to a Holocaust museum. Not something to look forward to! I don't think we need another monument that shows Jews to be victims. That's not my idea of the Jewish model to emulate and aspire to. And no, I don't think the neo-Nazis' attempt to march in Skokie in 1977 is a good enough reason to justify spending $45 mil to build a Holocaust museum. Duly noted: I'm not a survivor. None of my ascendants are survivors or martyrs. I just don't think it would have been such a big deal if they had marched. I attended the museum's grand opening ceremony on April 19. Guess what? A mile away, there were Nazi protestors. (All seven of them.) They had the right to stand in the freezing rain, do their stupid salute, and look ridiculous. And they could have done it in 1977. We shouldn't need a new museum to answer them. The answer to neo-Nazis is more Jews standing proud and tall--like at Walk with Israel today.
My friend decried three significant details of the new museum that seem to detract from the uniquely Jewish character of the Nazi Holocaust: no mezuzahs, open on the Jewish Sabbath (but closed Mondays May-June '09), and a non-kosher cafeteria. Furthermore, the museum (from what I understand) goes to great lengths to compare the Holocaust to other attempts at genocide.
How absurd. Interestingly, I just read this is in direct conflict with the message of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, a Holocaust museum that insists the Jewish character of the Nazi Holocaust is unique. Unfortunately, some museums and some educators attempt to de-Judaize the Holocaust in two ways. They compare the Holocaust to other attempts of genocide. It really doesn't compare, and a justification is "beyond the scope of this post," if I may say so. Another way is to point out that Holocaust victims included Communists, homosexuals and others. Yes, but. As far as the Nazi oppressors were concerned, non-Jews were a "while we're at it" secondary goal. The whole point of the construction of the work camps and death camps was to murder Jews and make the European continent Judenrein, free of Jews. The Germans could have won the Second World War, or at least a conditional surrender, without the Holocaust. When they were clearly losing the war, they could have held on to power if they had stopped committing massive amounts of war-related resources to finishing their Final Solution. Contrary to common teaching, the Nazis did not campaign against the Jews in an effort to seize power. The Nazis seized power in an effort to murder Jews. God, would people please stop twisting history? And I'm not going into how gay the German High Command was, starting with the Fearless Leader himself. An organized campaign against homosexuals within the Reich would have decimated the German military.
So maybe the Illinois Holocaust museum doesn't want people to think of Jews when they think of the Holocaust. That sounds like a terrible thing to say, but maybe that's the whole point.
My friend decried three significant details of the new museum that seem to detract from the uniquely Jewish character of the Nazi Holocaust: no mezuzahs, open on the Jewish Sabbath (but closed Mondays May-June '09), and a non-kosher cafeteria. Furthermore, the museum (from what I understand) goes to great lengths to compare the Holocaust to other attempts at genocide.
How absurd. Interestingly, I just read this is in direct conflict with the message of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, a Holocaust museum that insists the Jewish character of the Nazi Holocaust is unique. Unfortunately, some museums and some educators attempt to de-Judaize the Holocaust in two ways. They compare the Holocaust to other attempts of genocide. It really doesn't compare, and a justification is "beyond the scope of this post," if I may say so. Another way is to point out that Holocaust victims included Communists, homosexuals and others. Yes, but. As far as the Nazi oppressors were concerned, non-Jews were a "while we're at it" secondary goal. The whole point of the construction of the work camps and death camps was to murder Jews and make the European continent Judenrein, free of Jews. The Germans could have won the Second World War, or at least a conditional surrender, without the Holocaust. When they were clearly losing the war, they could have held on to power if they had stopped committing massive amounts of war-related resources to finishing their Final Solution. Contrary to common teaching, the Nazis did not campaign against the Jews in an effort to seize power. The Nazis seized power in an effort to murder Jews. God, would people please stop twisting history? And I'm not going into how gay the German High Command was, starting with the Fearless Leader himself. An organized campaign against homosexuals within the Reich would have decimated the German military.
So maybe the Illinois Holocaust museum doesn't want people to think of Jews when they think of the Holocaust. That sounds like a terrible thing to say, but maybe that's the whole point.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
On what issues may we agree to disagree?
There was an interesting article in RedEye, I think, a while back, focusing on dating and marital partners and how much political disagreement a couple can tolerate. I married a woman who voted for the current president twice, something I never thought I would do. In terms of friendship and respecting other people: while one may not respect certain opinions of others—because, perhaps, those opinions are stupid and horribly wrong—could we respect the right of the opinion-holders to have them? I once thought pro-life/anti-choice advocates were horrible people. Now that my view on abortion is more nuanced—I personally oppose abortion but remain pro-choice—I am more understanding of pro-life advocates’ point of view. (I still think anti-abortion legislation is wrong for women and wrong for America.) On Israel, I realize that most Americans are less Zionist than I am and that most Jews are less hard-line than I am. On that point I can concede disagreement. If someone advocates for the destruction of Israel, however, I take that person for an antisemite and also someone who is not a patriotic American.
When I carefully announced my support of Prop. 8 in California,* I was called a racist and a bigot. If Prop. 8 is framed as a civil rights issue—and its opponents almost universally attempted to make it thus—that characterization certainly implies its supporters are bigots. That would lead one to conclude that 52 percent of California voters are bigots. It’s a sensitive, hurtful situation. Hardly anyone likes to be called names, and “racist” and “bigot” are generally considered to be the pond scum of Americana. (“Liberal” is enjoying the beginning of an eight-year renaissance.) I don’t believe I am a bigot. Can we respectfully disagree on gay marriage? Or are Prop. 8 proponents reaching for their mouse units to click “Remove as Friend”?
About a month ago, I suggested in a Facebook Note that we give the President-Elect a chance to prove himself, and I included those of us who voted against him. One Friend compared me to Jews of the 1930’s who didn’t notice and didn’t act in the face of obvious signs of imminent Nazi terror. I took offense and asked him to retract his accusation and apologize. He refused, and we mutually agreed we would no longer be Friends on Facebook. (I think it was mutual.) I do believe mentioning Hitler or Nazis is a terrible idea in almost all arguments (unless one is discussing the European Theater of World War II or the German government of that time). I especially recoil at the suggestion that Obama is like Hitler, and that by not opposing him at every turn, I am aiding and abetting an American Holocaust, G-d forbid. (And my aforementioned former Friend was one of two people who suggested such to me.)
*”Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”
When I carefully announced my support of Prop. 8 in California,* I was called a racist and a bigot. If Prop. 8 is framed as a civil rights issue—and its opponents almost universally attempted to make it thus—that characterization certainly implies its supporters are bigots. That would lead one to conclude that 52 percent of California voters are bigots. It’s a sensitive, hurtful situation. Hardly anyone likes to be called names, and “racist” and “bigot” are generally considered to be the pond scum of Americana. (“Liberal” is enjoying the beginning of an eight-year renaissance.) I don’t believe I am a bigot. Can we respectfully disagree on gay marriage? Or are Prop. 8 proponents reaching for their mouse units to click “Remove as Friend”?
About a month ago, I suggested in a Facebook Note that we give the President-Elect a chance to prove himself, and I included those of us who voted against him. One Friend compared me to Jews of the 1930’s who didn’t notice and didn’t act in the face of obvious signs of imminent Nazi terror. I took offense and asked him to retract his accusation and apologize. He refused, and we mutually agreed we would no longer be Friends on Facebook. (I think it was mutual.) I do believe mentioning Hitler or Nazis is a terrible idea in almost all arguments (unless one is discussing the European Theater of World War II or the German government of that time). I especially recoil at the suggestion that Obama is like Hitler, and that by not opposing him at every turn, I am aiding and abetting an American Holocaust, G-d forbid. (And my aforementioned former Friend was one of two people who suggested such to me.)
*”Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
