posted
Out of interest, why do so many people insist that we continually acknowledge that the Holocaust was the worst thing that happened, ever? That reporter seems upset because Gibson, while admitting that Jews were systematically killed, didn't seem to consider that an event which has no other historical analogue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom- She wasn't insisting it was the worst thing that ever happened, but rather, since Mel's father denies the holocaust actually happened, and since Mel belongs to a group that splintered over Vatican II, which among other things clears jews of deicide, and the question was posed, why did Mel hedge on it? "Yes, jews were killed but it wasn't so bad..." is... not the answer you want to give when defending against charges of anti-semitism.
No one insists it was the worst thing that ever happened, but to deny that Hitler was trying to exterminate all the Jews in europe tends to be something that people who want to exterminate all the Jews in the world will do.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rip the whole relevant chunk here...
"Holocaust denial is relevant here because of Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson. A prominent member of the "traditionalist" Catholic movement which split off from the Catholic Church over the 1965 reforms of the Second Vatican Council (which, among other things, rejected the doctrine that the Jews were guilty of "deicide") is also known as a Holocaust denier. Of course Gibson shouldn't be blamed for the sins of his father; but in an interview with Peggy Noonan, forthcoming in the March issue of Reader's Digest, he says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."
It was in the same interview that Noonan, who has defended Gibson in the controversy over "The Passion," offered him a chance to end any speculation about his views on the Holocaust: "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?"
Gibson's reply: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
Does this answer exonerate Gibson, or does he damn himself with his own words? Obviously, he doesn't deny that the concentration camps existed or that Jews were killed in them. But George Mason University law professor David Bernstein points out on the Volokh Conspiracy weblog that Holocaust "revisionists" typically do not deny that Jews were killed; they simply minimize the killing, portraying it as another part of the overall death toll of World War II rather than the systematic extermination campaign that it was. In Bernstein's opinion, "Gibson is skirting pretty close" to this kind of minimization."
That last bit is kinda important.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the RD interview the other day, and had the same reaction as the writer of the article Paul linked to.
Gibson can paint himself as "victimized" as he likes. But the fact remains: he has made and continues to make statements that cause many people to doubt his claims of not having an anti-semitic bias.
I think if this film were being made by someone WITHOUT that issue, there would be far less of a concerned outcry.
In other words, IMO, it's not the Biblical accounts that are getting many groups fired up -- it's the messenger.
Tom, his reply implies that something like the Holocaust is simply something goes along with war. That is nonsense. The millions of people -- Jews, gypsies, and all the other 'undesirables' -- were non-combatants, and grouping their systematic torture and murder with "war is bad" is not only fallacious but offensive.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet, the Holocaust IS just another example of people doing systematically horrible things to each other. Is it "revisionism" to acknowledge this?
I consider "revisionism" to be trying to argue that the Holocaust has never happened, and is just part of some Jewish conspiracy to gain the sympathy of the world; it's not "revisionism" to point out that Jews were systematically killed, like a LOT of people. I'm sure that some Jews are skeptical of this motive, but I'm frankly skeptical of Jewish motives, here; they benefit a lot, both internally and externally, by insisting that they're the most oppressed race in history.
It's not anti-Semitic to point out that genocide isn't unique to the Holocaust, nor that the people who supposedly demanded the killing of Jesus were, according to the Bible, predominantly Jewish.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, read Gibson's response again. "The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." Tell me it's NOT dismissive of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust.
If I didn't know the actual numbers, his statement would imply that the Jews were a tiny fraction of the deaths. Moreover, he is including the deaths of combatants and non- in one group.
If you're trying to get people to believe you are not attempting to minimize the historical facts about the Holocaust, this does not seem to be the way to go. Is it anti-semitic? Maybe, maybe not.
Is it really stupid to do this in an interview where he is trying to be seen sympathetically? You betcha!
posted
I think we're all agreed here that OSC is not homophobic. And yet, in an interview where he expected to be called on "homophobia," and specifically argued that he was not homophobic, he made some statements that the reporter believed were blatantly bigoted. Later, he basically admitted on this site that this was because he wasn't willing to compromise his own beliefs in order to sell out, but that he felt it was important to explain those beliefs -- whatever the cost -- to those who might read the interview and see past the biases of the author.
Perhaps Gibson believes it's important that Jews not be permitted to use the Holocaust as a philosophical bludgeon -- as, let's face it, they often do -- and therefore acknowledged the Holocaust as much as he was willing to do in an interview that had nothing to do with the subject.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ignoring the silly assertion that there is a more oppressed group of people in the last 2000 years... (ok, thats probably out of line... editing to admit that).
TOm, do you acknowledge that context matters? Let me give a hypothetical...
"Sir, you've recently passed legislation that makes it easier to stop muslims at our borders. Given your past assertions that non-christians are damned to hell, and the war on terrorism that is focusing on arabic nations, would you like to comment on your beliefs about Islam?"
"Sure, its a religion that a lot of people follow and I have nothing against Islam, but its not the true religion like a lot of other religions and people who follow it are damned, just like jews and hindus and buddhists, and it makes our country safer if we keep muslims from having easy access to our territory."
Would you say that the respondee probably is going to have problems with the islamic community?
[ February 16, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The honest historical truth is that Hitler was NOT the worst person ever to live on this earth as a tyrant. He did NOT kill more people as a tyrant than anyone else in history.
And, finally, as horrible as the Holocaust was, there were wars where far more non-combatants died than in WWII. In fact, the idea of "non-combatants" is a relatively new consideration. Up until the "genteel" wars of the Romantic era, and even past them, anyone who was not on your side was your enemy and worthy of death.
In a rarity, I have to agree with TomD on this one. Too many Jews act as if Hitler is alive and well and the camps are ready to go again.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think American Indians have far worse complaining to do than modern Jews. They never even got what they consider their homeland back.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, the idea of "non-combatants" is a relatively new consideration. Up until the "genteel" wars of the Romantic era, and even past them, anyone who was not on your side was your enemy and worthy of death.
Including people who were citizens of YOUR country? Who had fought ON YOUR SIDE in earlier wars?
Calling the Holocaust and the camps part of the battles of WWII is simply ridiculous. So is counting the deaths thereof.
quote: Too many Jews act as if Hitler is alive and well and the camps are ready to go again.
He doesn't need to be. Too many are too willing to take his place.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess we won't know until we see the movie. I understand how it could be construed anti-semitically.
But the fact is, in all the gospels, the Roman Soldiers supervised the crucifixion. The Romans were as intimately involved in the mess as the Jews. If he messes with that point I'll have major issues.
posted
"Including people who were citizens of YOUR country? Who had fought ON YOUR SIDE in earlier wars?"
Yep, even them. Happened all the time in Greece and Rome, and especially Greece. People really must study World History more.
I do want to say that I respect the serious feelings Jews have about anti-semitism. It is a real problem. However, I think that this particuar "fight" is only doing more damage than leaving it alone would do. What might have been a blip has (no matter if it is or isn't anti-semitic) become a rallying cry.
posted
I admit that it's been a while since I last studied Greek and Roman history. But I think you are equating shifting alliances with turning on a specific segment of the population.
If that is not the case, I would enjoy having my memory refreshed regarding the historical precedent(s) you were referring to. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Spartans fought with the Greeks, and then went against them. There was constant civil war between them and everyone else. Eventually they wiped out all of their rivals (who were fellow Greeks) and took over, but by that time they were weakened and another group came in and took over -- later to form the Roman Empire.
They weren't the only ones. It really depended on the nations. I guess you could call it "switching alegences," but I think that simplifies the situation.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While there was a concept of "Greek" at the time, I think you're misunderstanding history a little bit; the city-states of greece were all out for themselves, though they regularly formed alliances together in addition to fighting against each other. None of them fought for Greece, though some of them allied to fight those they considered culturally inferior, culturally destructive, or both.
I think in your first sentence you mean the Athenians, possibly, because Sparta was most definitely allied with a good chunk of greece from a certain point onward (the Pelopponesian city-states).
Also, while Sparta conquered Athens, that certainly didn't last until the Romans came in. Athens got its power back when it allied with Thebes. That relatively quickly led to the return to individual city states, which led to the conquest of Greece by Macedon. The split up of that empire was what eventually gave way to the Romans. Not the spartans at all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh, I hate to intrude on this one, and I can't speak to the Greek/Roman theory, but the Cultural Revolution was committed by Chinese against Chinese; the Khmer Ruge atrocities were committed by Cambodians against Cambodians; Stalin's purges were committed at least ostensibly within the same country.
As sad as it may be, Hitler was not unique. Saying so does not minimize the enormity of his crimes.
posted
Dagonee, I agree. And if Gibson had compared the Holocaust to other genocides (such as the ones you just mentioned), I would object a whole lot less.
But to class it under the heading "war is bad" is just absurd to the point of offensiveness.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka and I talked by AIM and I wanted her to know I wasn't blatantly attacking her, or didn't intend that to come across. I can't imagine what it's like being Jewish since I'm not, so I realize she is taking some of this a lot more personally than we all can.
That said, I have to jump back in to the discussion and say that I also *gasp* agree with Tom. I think Gibson is being villified a bit for a statement that was in fact entirely true. Tens of millions of people did die in World War II and some of them were indeed Jews in concentration camps.
You may not like the exact wording, but did he say anything that wasn't true? You know, what if I were a descendant of someone who lost their life in WWII (my grandfather fought,but survived) and it upset me and hurt me that the suffering of the jews was emphasized more than the soldiers who laid their lives down?
Does it make me anti-semitic to say "Yes, Jews died in concentration camps and it was a horrific event. However, the deaths of tens of thousands of young boys who fought, died and were buried in a foreign land hits home and hurts me more, because coming from a military family I can really relate to that."
Am I anti-semitic? Does it mean I hate jews to say such a thing? I sure hope not.
Gibson is not jewish, the realities of the Holocaust don't stare him in the face everyday as it does to someone who survived it or who had relatives that didn't survive it. It's unfair to expect he will feel the exact same way about it as you did, because he does not have your perspective.
He did not deny the HOlocaust happened.
quote:I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union
I read this as "I don't deny the Holocaust happened, how could I? I know people who were in concentration camps. It was an atrocity. However, I am equally moved by the suffereing of the millions who starved and were killed or persecuted under communism."
That's not denying jews suffered. That is saying that Jews suffered but they aren't the only ones that ever have.
And I absolutely agree with that. What happened in concentration camps was despicable. The thought of it turns my stomach. Footage from them, sites of bodies stacked like cordwood moves me to tears.
So do the pictures of babies starving in Africa, or abandoned because their parents died of AIDS and no one can care for them. So does the Vietnam Wall. So does the pictures of the firefighters who died in the World Trade Center.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm watching an ABC primetime special on this movie, featuring an interview with Mel Gibson. I've never seen him like this. Wow. He's lucid, charismatic, funny, open and very intelligent. He'd make an amazing politician, if ever he set his mind to it. I wish our president could handle an interview like he could.
One thing of substance that struck me in listening to him: right or wrong, he's really doing what he believes. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good or bad thing, but it's very rare that a big-budget movie gets made that is such a focused and unadulterated expression of conviction. This isn't a film that was made because the market was ready for it, or focus groups showed that it would profit. It's a pure statement of the passion (pardon the pun) of a single human being. So, whether it's good or bad, it should be a unique and interesting experiment. He sold me a ticket, at least.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think he put the denial of the holocaust thing to bed, I think made it quite clear that he believed it happened, and when Diane Sawyer said "six million" he said "Sure".
That's a pretty clear statement that he believes not only did the holocaust occur, but that millions of Jews lost their lives.
As for his father's views, I didn't hear Mel once say he agreed with all of his father's beliefs, I just heard him say over and over that he loves his father.
I was very, very impressed. I don't think he said many things tonight that I would disagree with, as far as his explanation of his beliefs.
The comment and impression of Jack Nicholson was hilarious. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted quickly last time so that I could get back into the room before the commercials ended. I would like to add a couple of things.
I firmly agree with Mel's right to make this movie, and I find it refreshing that something like this is getting made. I believe that religion has the potential to be the most powerful force in existance, for good and evil, in the shaping of the human soul. In our PC world, so much gets made of the evils carried out in the name of religion-- the Crusades, North Irish terrorism, 9/11 and so forth-- that we often forget that Gandhi, Mother Theresa and the ordinary person whose belief in God gives him the strengh to stop drinking and abusing his family could never have happened without some form of religious catalyst. It's nice to see a public figure who does more for his beliefs than give a shout-out to God for his Oscar.
As for the charges of antisemitism, I'm not too concerned about them. My faith treats racism as a sin, and when he said that his does too, I believed him. I do believe that there were Jews (and people of every other race) who, historically, did things that they shouldn't have. As Mel said, someone killed Jesus, and there were no Norwegians in ancient Jerusalem. The only difference I see in this story is that Jesus was there personally to forgive them for their actions. I'll be surprised if that part doesn't make it into the movie. In any case, I don't see how the simple statement that that there were once Jews who did something bad has any effect on how we feel we should treat their 80th generation descendants. I realize that Passion Plays have stirred up anti-Jewish sentiment in the past, but so far all this one seems to be doing is opening the discussion of the problem, which is a good thing. I'll have to see the movie-- and I will-- before I comment more definitively. But from what I've seen so far, I don't have a big problem with it.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the charges of antisemitism, I'm not too concerned about them.
I am assuming, from this comment, that you are not Jewish. So why should you be worried? I have to admit, I am with rivka in being a bit worried about this.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it important for a Christian to think about who was responsible for Christ's crucifixion? I think that it is, but not for the reasons that are often given.
Christ was killed by a combination of (1) representatives of the Romans, the most secularly advanced civilization of the time, and (2) leaders of the Jews, God's people, the people to whom the Lord had given His revelations.
In other words, Christ was killed by a group of the best and most advanced peoples in the world. The best that humanity had to offer at the time -- and they still screwed up, which to me speaks to the sinful nature of humankind in general.
If you want to translate it into your own personal context, imagine that Christ came today and was executed by a combination of the United States government and [whichever religion you believe holds the truth].
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also thought the interview he had with Diane Sawyer was great. He was much more animated than I expected -- almost hyper. But he had an answer for every question.
I simply rolled on the floor laughing when, at one point, when Diane was kind of beating a dead horse with a repetitious question, he said, "Read the gospels, Diane!" In other words -- know what they say before you ask me what they say! I thought that was chutzpah, and I loved it.
posted
"In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
See, this is where he ticks me off. Yeah, several million in the Ukraine starved. However, the Ukrainians weren't targeted for extermination. They, unlike the Jews, were actually unfortunate "casualties of war." In the category of "the crappy things that happen when there is a world war." You know, supply lines get cut, people starve. "We made a mistake in the co-ordinates and hit a civilian building instead of a munitions plant." That kind of "casualty of war." The Jews, were not "casualties of war." They were systematically targeted and exterminated. To say anything less than that is to minimize what happened.
Yes, it is horrible that, what, 50 million people died in WWII. However, 6 million of them were not casualties of war. They were exterminated.
Unless of course you agree that the 9/11 victims were just casualties of war. A number to be added to the total number of dead in whatever we end up calling this war in the history books. And if we do that, then hey, the US, in freeing the middle east of a brutal dictator really hasn't sustained all that many casualties. Less than 5,000. Pretty good for war. Too bad about those people, but war is hell and all. (Could we also stop with all the 9/11 memorials? Their deaths were just part of war, and their deaths no different than anyone elses.)
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say I agree with Tom. With all due respect to my Jewish friends, other groups have been victims of Genocide, even non-combatant citizens of the country in question. Like, say, the Armenians-- nearly wiped out by the Turks. They don't get as much press, because, frankly, the Turks were more successful in killing them. Very few survivors to tell the tales.
Similar situations with the hutus and atrocities in eastern europe. Those stories have given me sleepless nights. It's awful, the horrible things people do to others because they are different. We hear more about the Jewish Holocaust because it happened at a time when there was a greater capacity for World News and evidence of what was happeneing wasn't restricted to eyewitness accounts. Also, it was stopped before they managed to actually succeed in killing a whole group of people, so there were survivors who could testify about the killings.
I had a friend in Chicago who lost family members in the former Yugoslavia. They were killed for no other reason than being ethnically Albanian (blonde, fair skinned Muslims). I felt for them, as I do for my Jewish friends whose families were decimated by the Holocaust. The ugly truth is, though, that it is not unusual for a country at war to eliminate groups within itself that it has decided is a threat. The US did it to Japanese and German Americans in WWII. Of course, that only consisted of making them live in camps and seizing their property, though some did die there, possibly due to less than ideal medical care. All in all, not the nicest place in American History.
I have a smidge of Native American in me, and I do feel much more sensitive to atrocities committed on them than maybe I would be otherwise. I mean, some of the ethnic Cherokee living in Rome, Georgia had farms and owned stores and were forced to give it up and go West on the trail of tears. Property seized and sent away to live or die where the White Man wouldn't have to watch them do it.
Anyway, my point is that other groups have suffered, too, and that we tend to relate most to those groups that we are somehow a part of.
And, has anyone considered that Mr. Gibson may be unwilling to say that he does not agree with his father because he doesn't want to hurt the man who raised him? Maybe he just doesn't want the headline to read, "Mel says, 'Dad's a kook'".
I mean, there are close members of my family who are kooky, but I would never admit that in the press, for crissakes.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:As for the charges of anti-Semitism, I'm not too concerned about them.
I am assuming, from this comment, that you are not Jewish. So why should you be worried? I have to admit, I am with rivka in being a bit worried about this.
Saying that I'm not concerned about anti-Semitism is not the same as saying that I'm not concerned with the charges of anti-Semitism in a movie that looks to me to be innocent of said charges. I had a Black person once tell me he thought Toy Story was racist. I can't remember the reasoning he used, but I wasn't concerned about that either. Does that mean that I hate Black people?
I appreciate the fact that Jewish people have the same rights as I do, and that they were viciously persecuted in the past. But that doesn't mean that I have to fly into a fury every time a film depicts a Jewish person (or even a group of them) in any way other than kind, heroic, brilliant and sinless. Keep in mind, all the protagonists in this film are also Jewish. I don't remember Jesus being born in The Netherlands, and recruiting his apostles from Sweden and Germany.
One other point: I'm a Mormon, and can trace my ancestry back to the time when my forefathers were murdered for their religion. My wife is an Albanian, a race which has already been mentioned in this thread as having a rich history of suffering as noncombatants. I appreciate the suffering of my family's ancestors. But I don't demand that my ancestors' suffering never be compared with anyone else’s, and I don't freak out every time I hear a story about a Mormon or an Albanian doing something I'm not proud of. People are people, and every race in the world has been persecuting and being persecuted, doing heroic and abominable things to other humans since time began. We all need to lighten up.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that I and others keep saying, "I don't think the movie is anti-semitic; I worry about the REACTION to it" and keep getting responses along the lines of, "But the movie's not anti-semitic just because it bothers you!"
*sigh* Straw men everywhere . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it make me anti-semitic to say "Yes, Jews died in concentration camps and it was a horrific event. However, the deaths of tens of thousands of young boys who fought, died and were buried in a foreign land hits home and hurts me more, because coming from a military family I can really relate to that."
I don't think this makes you anti-semitic, but it does turn my stomach. On one hand, you have full-grown men who are sent off to defend their country, given every weapon and tool and every chance of success. On the other hand, you have entire families dragged from their homes and butchered. And yet you feel the need to say that the deaths of the American Soldiers hit closer to home because, well, you don't share the same religion as the other people who were killed? You share a heck of a lot more with the mothers who watched their babies get killed than you do with the 19 year old boys who drove tanks and dropped bombs out of planes.
The casualties of WWII were atrocious, absolutely. But the Holocaust victims were NOT casualties of war. Saying that the deaths of innocent families naked in gas chambers were no different than the deaths of the men with guns in their hands is terrible.
posted
We see a similar reaction in Mormons when, for example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is brought up.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayelar, that's basically human nature; tragedy is always more keenly felt when it's closer to you. I don't cry when strangers die in car accidents, but I DO cry when my family dies in one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but in this case, they're all strangers. Saying that the deaths of strangers who were really very different from you, except that you have family members currently in the military, hit closer to home than the deaths of people who were really very much like you, except that they practiced a different religion, seems rather odd.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
What freakin' world war were these deaths in 1932-33 a "crappy thing" that happened during? The one that ended in 1918 or the one that began in 1939? Is there a WW 1.5 I didn't learn about in school.
Why in hell does it "tick you off" that someone points out 20 million (or whatever the actual number is) deaths caused by a totalitarian regime?
quote:This was a peacetime famine that could have been averted.
quote:Though the harvest of 1932 was slightly better, it was not enough to avert a full-scale famine, one that was clearly avoidable by the simple processes of reducing state quotas and providing grain to needy villages.
quote:Stalin was well-informed about the critical situation in Ukraine, the Kuban region and the North Caucasus. He resolved not to alleviate the desperate plight of these villages. People were permitted to starve to death in a country that was exporting grain. This was a far cry from famines in war-torn areas like the Sudan (though here also the famine was artificial).
quote:Historians today do not know how many died in the Ukrainian Famine. The leading demographer on the subject has verified that the minimum figure is 4 million, but the maximum is not known. During wartime discussions, Stalin informed Churchill almost casually that 10 million peasants had died during the upheavals of the 1930s.
Note that the famine numbers do not include the purges that happened soon after.
I’m not saying the Famine was better or worse than what the Nazis did, because I think it’s ridiculous to compare such things. There’s a point where wrongs are so great that anything above that point can just be called evil.
posted
I don't think Belle chooses to be more affected by the deaths of soldiers than by the Jewish families. She is because the idea resonates stronger with her, calling her terrible seems a little strong considering all she said was that she is hit harder by things she feels are closer to her.
quote:And if Gibson had compared the Holocaust to other genocides (such as the ones you just mentioned), I would object a whole lot less.
But to class it under the heading "war is bad" is just absurd to the point of offensiveness.
This is what I'm talking about. It's terrible that so many people died during WWII, and every other war that's ever been fought. But you cannot compare casualties of war with victims of mass genocide. They are completely different situations, and trying to lump them together is absurd. In Gibson's case, it also points to a modern-day form of denial which is very troubling. You can't just excuse it away.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you miss the point in Gibson's statement where he talked about his personal interaction with Holocaust survivors?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's interesting that I and others keep saying, "I don't think the movie is anti-semitic; I worry about the REACTION to it" and keep getting responses along the lines of, "But the movie's not anti-semitic just because it bothers you!"
*sigh* Straw men everywhere . . .
'Tis a good point. But I think that one reason your point is getting lost is that, so far, there hasn't been any bad reaction to it. Perhaps when the movie opens, crazy Christians will start stoning Jews and burning their houses down (as has been done in the wake of passion plays before--I'm not trying to be sarcastic). But so far the only effect I've seen the movie have is the catalysis of discussion between Jews and Christians about their relative histories and feelings for one another. I would hate it if this movie was provocative enough to inspire anti-Semitic violence. I would love it if this movie were provocative enough to inspire Jews to learn more about Christian beliefs and history, and Christians to learn more about Jewish beliefs and history, so that we could all understand each other's feelings better and be a little more empathetic. Maybe I'm living in a fantasy world. I guess we'll see on the 25th.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm going with a bunch of friends to the Feb. 25th 9:55 p.m. showing at the Century 16 theatres in Salt Lake City. If anyone in the area is interested, we'd all be pleased to have some cantankerous Jatraqueros in our midst. Get some tickets at Fandango and tell me to look out for you.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ALR, do you consider the near-extermination of the Jews to be worse than the basically-successful extermination of the Armenians?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In support of Dagonee and in rebuttal to Jack:
(I wrote this last night, but was unable to post because the forum broke.)
quote:Yeah, several million in the Ukraine starved. However, the Ukrainians weren't targeted for extermination. They, unlike the Jews, were actually unfortunate "casualties of war."
As a Slavic studies major, I must respond to this statement in the interest of accuracy.
The Ukrainian famine victims were NOT casualties of war. (The famine in Ukraine was deliberately engineered by Stalin in order to destroy Ukrainian resistance to collectivization (and nationalism), and took place several years before Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.) Here is a link from the Library of Congress.
Most figures that I have seen say that one in four Ukrainians died in the famine. And of the children, one in three.
Also, from what I have read, both the Ukrainian and Armenian genocides were part of the inspiration for Hitler's "Final Solution."
Also, Gibson stated, in the quote under discussion:
quote:During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."
Posters on this thread have assumed that he was talking about the deaths in WWII in the Soviet Union. In fact, he may be referring to the deaths caused not by the war but by Stalin's reign of terror. The figures are nearly identical. About 20 million Soviet citizens lost their lives in the war; another 20 million on top of that were purged during Stalin's rule.
[ February 18, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I'm not going to compare the relative worthiness of mass genocides. I think they're all about equally horrendous.
What I do have a problem with is the lumping together of mass genocides with war casualties, two completely different situations.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is what I'm talking about. It's terrible that so many people died during WWII, and every other war that's ever been fought. But you cannot compare casualties of war with victims of mass genocide. They are completely different situations, and trying to lump them together is absurd. In Gibson's case, it also points to a modern-day form of denial which is very troubling. You can't just excuse it away.
They're still deaths aren't they? I don't think I'm following you, what is it about death through war that makes it better than death in a concentration camp? It seems to me that if someone dies it is a very bad thing, I don't care if it was on the battelfield, in their homes due to starvation, or in a concentration camp. I suppose if you were trying to judge the culprits of the death then it matters... but to me death is death no matter where it is.
quote: We see a similar reaction in Mormons when, for example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre is brought up.
Funny you should mention this. I considered bringing it up in the post I'd made just prior to yours. Thing is, I'm from Southen Utah. My family had a cabin in Mountain Meadows when I was a kid. I understand the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was a terrible thing, and I have no problem being reminded of that fact. Mormons are human beings, and we've done some horrible things in the past, quite contrary to the way we're taught to behave ourselves. I've never flown into a fury at having the story brought up, nor accused anyone of anti-Mormon feelings for doing so. The way I see it, as long as I'm not personally blamed, remembering my own mistakes and those of my ancestors helps keep me humble and, ideally, keeps me from participating in anything like that again.
I'm not trying to draw any analogy, though, between bringing up the MMM and putting on a Passion Play. As far as I know, no Mormons have ever been killed in the wake of the mention of MMM, and I realize that the two situations are not historically analagous. But since you brought it up, I just wanted to throw in my two bits about the reaction of myself and other Mormons I know to the mention of the incident.
[edit: for more details on the official Mormon position on the mention of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, look here. A couple photos I found interesting in the website's gallery:
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
He doesn't need to be. Too many are too willing to take his place.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
