I wonder if there is a place for learning from history--including and perhaps especially from the Shoah? It seems that there is a difference between equivalences and lessons. An equivalence would be like "Here's a picture of concentration camp children behind a fence and here's a picture of illegal aliens behind a fence." with the impl…
I wonder if there is a place for learning from history--including and perhaps especially from the Shoah? It seems that there is a difference between equivalences and lessons. An equivalence would be like "Here's a picture of concentration camp children behind a fence and here's a picture of illegal aliens behind a fence." with the implication that they are the same thing. A lesson on the other hand is saying here's something that happened before that led to bad things and we're seeing something similar now which is likely to lead (or has led) to bad things. Pascal was saying "We're already there--just like the Nazis." whereas Carano was saying "This is something that could get us to a bad place" without necessarily getting as bad as Nazi Germany.
So, is there a way to learn from history? Or can it simply not be allowed to be made explicit? Or is the Shoah something that is such a terrible one-off that no one is allowed to learn anything from it?
I think learning from history is possible, but I think it's difficult to get right and very difficult to persuade people based on it. One problem is that history is vast and our information is very incomplete, biased, and contradictory. So it is often possible that the same or similar events can be used to make opposing points. Another is that the further back in time we go the less similarities we have with the people involved. Carano used events from (roughly) 1930-45 to make her point. How much do today's people and society have in common with then? I think very little. Human nature is probably unchanging, so some lessons can be learnt, but not many.
If we look at what Carano posted, is she right, is there a lesson there, might it persuade anyone?
"Because history is edited" = correct, it's too big not to. "most people today" to "simply for being Jews" = is I think half correct. Most of the history that is taught about Germany/Nazis concentrates on second half of 1933-45, from the start of the war, not on the first six years. The Nazi goverment did work at gradually getting the German population used to the idea of not just killing all the Jews (and several other groups) but to widespread use of slave labour and many other atrocities that in 1933 probably would not have been accepted by the German people. (Although concentration camps existed from almost the beginning of the Nazi government.) But, Jews (and others) were rounded up in many other countries too, German propaganda didn't do the work there. In some cases it was just fear of German reprisals for sheltering Jews, but also many Europeans were highly anti-semetic and enthusiastically helped. "how is that different from hating someone for their political views?" = wrong. It is different because political views are a choice, being Jewish under the Nazis wasn't. Jews who converted to Christianity were still considered Jews and killed. The Nazis (and their helpers) hated Jews for being Jews, not because of any choice they made.
The Holocaust/Shoah is a one-off in its size. The Armenian and Tutsi genocides are very similar, though smaller. In particular, in all three genocides, the war effort was actually hindered by the killings but the killings were given priority. Trying to use any of these examples to make any point other than that people can do amazingly evil things is probably futile. Any lesson/equivalence will seem to be hyperbole, and can be easily dismissed as such. Pascal's effort at equivalence is an example, it’s so hyperbolic it's impossible to take seriously.
The general point Carano is (perhaps) making, that the road from hating what people think, to shaming people for what they think, to hating the people themselves, to then treating them as second class people (an other), to dehumanizing them, to then killing them, is the path the German people went down, is true. That propaganda helped is also true. That path is a well trodden path with thousands of examples from history. If she had picked some other example, one that led to a few deaths plus a series of terrible governments, say Italy in the 1970s and 80s, maybe it would have been better. The problem with that, is that far less people know about them, so the lesson/point is lost.
Carano's general point could also be used as a reason to silence people. If propagandists are part of the problem, shouldn't we look to silence them? So the same events can be used to argue for free speech, people shouldn't be silenced for what they think; but also for censoring, people shouldn't be exposed to propaganda because it can make them hate.
I wonder if there is a place for learning from history--including and perhaps especially from the Shoah? It seems that there is a difference between equivalences and lessons. An equivalence would be like "Here's a picture of concentration camp children behind a fence and here's a picture of illegal aliens behind a fence." with the implication that they are the same thing. A lesson on the other hand is saying here's something that happened before that led to bad things and we're seeing something similar now which is likely to lead (or has led) to bad things. Pascal was saying "We're already there--just like the Nazis." whereas Carano was saying "This is something that could get us to a bad place" without necessarily getting as bad as Nazi Germany.
So, is there a way to learn from history? Or can it simply not be allowed to be made explicit? Or is the Shoah something that is such a terrible one-off that no one is allowed to learn anything from it?
I think learning from history is possible, but I think it's difficult to get right and very difficult to persuade people based on it. One problem is that history is vast and our information is very incomplete, biased, and contradictory. So it is often possible that the same or similar events can be used to make opposing points. Another is that the further back in time we go the less similarities we have with the people involved. Carano used events from (roughly) 1930-45 to make her point. How much do today's people and society have in common with then? I think very little. Human nature is probably unchanging, so some lessons can be learnt, but not many.
If we look at what Carano posted, is she right, is there a lesson there, might it persuade anyone?
"Because history is edited" = correct, it's too big not to. "most people today" to "simply for being Jews" = is I think half correct. Most of the history that is taught about Germany/Nazis concentrates on second half of 1933-45, from the start of the war, not on the first six years. The Nazi goverment did work at gradually getting the German population used to the idea of not just killing all the Jews (and several other groups) but to widespread use of slave labour and many other atrocities that in 1933 probably would not have been accepted by the German people. (Although concentration camps existed from almost the beginning of the Nazi government.) But, Jews (and others) were rounded up in many other countries too, German propaganda didn't do the work there. In some cases it was just fear of German reprisals for sheltering Jews, but also many Europeans were highly anti-semetic and enthusiastically helped. "how is that different from hating someone for their political views?" = wrong. It is different because political views are a choice, being Jewish under the Nazis wasn't. Jews who converted to Christianity were still considered Jews and killed. The Nazis (and their helpers) hated Jews for being Jews, not because of any choice they made.
The Holocaust/Shoah is a one-off in its size. The Armenian and Tutsi genocides are very similar, though smaller. In particular, in all three genocides, the war effort was actually hindered by the killings but the killings were given priority. Trying to use any of these examples to make any point other than that people can do amazingly evil things is probably futile. Any lesson/equivalence will seem to be hyperbole, and can be easily dismissed as such. Pascal's effort at equivalence is an example, it’s so hyperbolic it's impossible to take seriously.
The general point Carano is (perhaps) making, that the road from hating what people think, to shaming people for what they think, to hating the people themselves, to then treating them as second class people (an other), to dehumanizing them, to then killing them, is the path the German people went down, is true. That propaganda helped is also true. That path is a well trodden path with thousands of examples from history. If she had picked some other example, one that led to a few deaths plus a series of terrible governments, say Italy in the 1970s and 80s, maybe it would have been better. The problem with that, is that far less people know about them, so the lesson/point is lost.
Carano's general point could also be used as a reason to silence people. If propagandists are part of the problem, shouldn't we look to silence them? So the same events can be used to argue for free speech, people shouldn't be silenced for what they think; but also for censoring, people shouldn't be exposed to propaganda because it can make them hate.
For a different take: https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/01/opinion/IHT-when-the-holocaust-is-incomparable-it-becomes-unworldly.html
Why in the Hell (my home) has not any one of you smart people responded to this persons request? ???????