dogsmilk wrote:
Eugenics is alive and well to this day and has been conducting business since Darwin's day, and no doubt before without being considered a recognised field of science. Do you seriously think that the Americans/Anglo American establishment didn't kill anyone in the name of Eugenics? Do these deaths only count if they take place on home ground? They are killing innocent people today have also been sterilising populations around the world through GM crops, inoculation programs and water treatments using eugenics/social engineering programs.
If you believe the Americans insituted a eugenics based killing program, then please tell me about it because I'm not aware of such a thing.
GM crops, inoculations and water treatments have absolutely nothing to do with eugenics. GM is about making money, inoculation is about preventing disease (yes I'm aware of all the theories, but at least we aren't all dying of TB or whatever any more) and by 'water treatment' i assume you mean flouride. Exactly whether that is harmful I am not qualified to judge (though my dentist has a thing or two to say about the conspiracy theories) but the idea it has anything to do with eugenics would need to be explained. As, from the conspiracy perspective, does the fact the 'elite' use the same water mains we do.
Would abusing then killing one child be a greater or lesser evil than doing the same to three? Surely the issue isn't the number it's the act!
Sure any killing is bad. But a state deliberately implementing a program of actively killing people it decides does not deserve to live is a very bad thing. This isn't some conspiracy theory about vaccines are bad for you are whatever, it's herding people in rooms in hospitals and executing them en masse, then pretending they died of natural causes.
Where did all the native American Indians go? Humm Genocide? Where are all the memorials centers in Europe and the states in recognition of the murder of the Native American people? Maybe that holocaust doesn't count because it's pre WWII.
And what does this have to do with what Nazis did during the war? Does the genocide of the Indians somehow make it better? Yet you just said "would abusing then killing one child be a greater or lesser evil than doing the same to three", but you have now suddenly switched to seemingly suggesting the deaths of millions of people are somehow contextualised by what happened to the Indians.
The genocide of the Indians was downplayed or ignored for years. The estimates of the amount that lived on the continent has risen dramatically over the last century. This reason this has happened is because of painstaking research - genuine historical revisionism which has replaced the older version of events with an evidence based revision based on looking at all available data. Holocaust denial is generally predicated on negationism - thinking of reasons why this or that didn';t happen so you can make something up you'd prefer to believe instead - historians who've revised what happened to the Indians have gone out and performed rigorous demographic studies that have proved the population was many millions larger than had been previously claimed. They established an evidence base that meaningfully challenged vastly inferior evidence that claimed the population was basically a small population of savages. Consequently, there is now a wealth of information amply demonstrating the American continent was home to maybe 100 million+ people who some of whom in some ways surpassed Europeans in their level of sophistication. For example, Tenochtitlan was larger than any city in Europe at the time and totally wowed the Spaniards with its awesome beauty. But it's ok because the Aztecs performed human sacrifice - kind of like saying any invader could have legitmately wiped out Europe on the basis europeans burned witches so they deserved it. Anyway, that information is there - the reason it doesn't get waved about is where politics comes in. It's obviously far easier to acknowledge the Holocaust because the Nazis lost and America was on the side that fought against them. You may well argue there should be more ,emorials to the Indians and less to the holocaust - that is about the politics of memorialisation, not about whether events occurred.
Obviously, it's not very palatable for America to embrace the fact it was built on genocide and some people would prefer to deny it, just as some people would prefer to deny what Nazism led to.
What about the Indigenous people of Australia who are still abused to this day?
What about the Palestinians who subjected to genocide to this day?
What about the displaced people of Diego Garcia?
What about there being a sequel to the execrable avatar?
What about Jimmy Carr's tax evasion?
What does any of this have to do with what happened during world war two?
And though what's happening in palestine could technically be classified as genocide under the broad definition of the term, though Israeli treatment of Palestine us dreadful and should be castigated, I don't think it helps when people try to make out it's somehow comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews during during the war because it blatantly is not. That's not saying it in any way justifies or minimises whatever Israel does - it should be seen in its own terms.
Why is it an offense in many countries to question the history presented by these reputable historians? How is questioning equal to denial see that's where it falls flat on its face! It's emotive and divisive BS a fallacy in a nutshell. The Nuremberg trials were a total farce and the transcripts are there for people to make up their own minds about how justice was administered. History that is prevented from being presented you mean? The whole thing stinks! The bombardment of propaganda has never been reduced, the governments have continued to use the same techniques and much improved ones to this day. Whole populations are being sold government lies daily why do you think the one event which is taboo can't be debated? What other event is there in modern history which has the same laws preventing discussion? Even 9/11 can be discussed and the government data challenged - granted they simply stone wall any legal process but it's still open for debate.
If you look at the legislation in different countries, as I got sick of repeating on the DIF, a number of countries have legislation prohibiting denial of genocide generally or specifically communist atrocities. Yet nobody ever seems to care about this. On the DIF, people only cared about their beloved Nazis. Why Holocaust denial specifically is prohibited depends. For example in Germany it was borne of its close relationship with neo-Nazism, neo-Nazism not being looked on favourably in Germany for obvious reasons. And of course this legislation emerged quite late, considerably later than the emergence of denial. Though as it is, only a tiny minority of the countries in the world have lehislation of this sort. It doesn't affect the UK and US, yet people often act as if it somehow does. People tend to use this as some sort of excuse for the fact only one or two Holocaust deniers have ever performed anything that could meaningfully be called research.
And of course genocide denial tends to irritate people. Imagine your whole family had been murdered during the war and then somebody came along and claimed you're a liar and they weren't murdered at all (they were sent 'to the east' and mysteriously vanished into some hypothetical land of plenty) - that might piss you off a bit. That might motivate you to want to advocate people be stopped from saying such things. Is that really so surprising? You can get taken to court for libelling someone, yet you seem surprised some countries might have laws against claiming Jews (or whoever) made up the genoicide perpetrated against them.
Denial tends to be political. Armenian genocide denial is strongly associated with Turkey. The Timor genocide isn't acknowledged because we let it happen and provided the arms. The genocide of the Indians is barely acknowledged because that is uncomfortable for America. Holodomor denial is strongly associated with old school commies. And Holocaust denial is strongly ssociated with neo-nazis and Jewish conspiracy theorists. Genocide denial is the arena of political convenience.
And what does this have to do with 'the goverment'? I'm in the UK - I can deny the Holocaust all I like and when I read history it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the government'. I probably know more about the Holocaust than most people in 'the government' just because I assume 99% of them don't know anything much about it, any more than 99% of them will know anything much about the Armenian genocide. Because 'the government' does not compile the history.
And wy do people always go on about Nuremburg? There are multiple criticisms of Nuremburg in the abvailable literature, but in terms of the Holocaust though Nuremburg is important, Nuremburg was not about the Holocaust and the Holocaust is not about Nuremburg. In terms of trials, there were a bewildering amount conducted over decades, many of them in Germany conducted by Germans. There is a whole sub history of Germany and its relationship to the Holocaust post war and the various factors involved in how or if it went about pursuing people often involved in terrible deeds. A history most people don't even know exists because they base their opinions on Holocaust denial material they saw on the internet.
SZers.
