DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Can of worms most foul.... You can add the other side of the two headed anti-Semitic monster of that region... The entire Pan-Arabist Ba'Athist movement that has ties to,and a historic admiration of,European Fascist idealogy (Specifically NAZI idealogy)... Yes, well the Mufti was a big Pan-Arabist besides being an SS officer...plus a megalomaniac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Kind of like Himmler escaping the noose and then with British help being allowed to entertain thoughts of his own country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) Yes, well the Mufti was a big Pan-Arabist besides being an SS officer...plus a megalomaniac. The Mufti was a secular Ba'Athist??? I was thinking more of Abdel Gemmal Nasser... By the way,when is a can of worms NOT foul...Conversely,when is it pleasant (fishing bait aside)???? Edited December 28, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 The Mufti was a secular Ba'Athist??? I was thinking more of Abdel Gemmal Nasser... By the way,when is a can of worms NOT foul...Conversely,when is it pleasant (fishing bait aside)???? Nasser and the Mufti were buds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Nasser and the Mufti were buds. Yes...But one was definately secular...The other,not so much. The one thing they probably agreed on was the NAZI treatment of Jews... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Yes...But one was definately secular...The other,not so much. The one thing they probably agreed on was the NAZI treatment of Jews... Nasser helped many Nazis on the run. The Mufti was just the most notable of these monsters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Nasser helped many Nazis on the run. The Mufti was just the most notable of these monsters. So did the United States (Henry Kissinger???).... But I still find it odd that a rabid Islamist like The Mufti would have anything to do with a secular politician like Nasser,who clearly wanted a seperation between Mosque and State... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Is the author suggesting that the proper telling of history has been rendered irrelevent by The Holocaust,or better yet,who might be "controlling" the message??? Maybe I'm reading into your reply, but I don't believe it was as "conspiracy theory" like as your question seems to imply. He argued that all roads from modernity lead directly to the Holocaust. I'm not sure how familiar people here are with the concept of modernity, but let's oversimplify it as "progressive thought." In order to progress, there needs to be a meta-narrative or a grand scheme which quite literally everything and all societies are following. From modernity, you get the idea of some states, people, and cultures being more "progressed" than others. Well the argument here is that progress's rational end was the Final Solution. A society began executing "undesirables" in order to foster human thoroughbreds, so to speak, which they believed would eliminate all social ills. You don't get much more progressive than that. The most frightening aspect is that this was all done for the "greater good." One might think of "useful idiots" here or Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, appropriately subtitled the "banality of evil." So, if you read through the article he mentions how modernity was destroyed by the Holocaust. While that's true, nobody today really understands modernism in this way or don't care. Pollock & Maitland suggested that there is a grand narrative to history and telling some small piece of it tears that "seamless web". Yet, all of these grand narratives and historical expositions on the holocaust cannot even come close to providing people with an understanding of the event the way a survivor's story does. History, in the sense of academic writing, is entirely irrelevant when it comes to conveying what it was actually like in that moment. Historians have held that their distance from events, both spatially and temporally, provided them with an unbiased perspective from which they could tell the "true" story. However, the stories of Holocaust survivors seem to tell us that there is no way to capture one grand metanarrative of the Holocaust. There is no way to tell that one true story, so history writing, while necessary so that we never forget these tragic events of the past, is also completely irrelevant when it comes to really connecting people to those events. While irrelevant, it is still completely necessary to capture history in some way, so that we never forget our past; however, survivor's stories show a dire need for a multiplicity of perspectives, rather than an overaching grand narrative. It's a postmodernist argument. While many people confuse postmodernism as some whacky notion about there being no such thing as "facts," this is actually far from the truth. Historical postmodernism, if you ask me is more about the notion of multiplicity of perspectives creating a fuller image of what is being observed. Say the Holocaust in history is a House. Our historical writing can be exampled in photographs. A grand metanarrative would have a shot of the outside of the house at street level saying, "this is The House." However, you could also take pictures of the interior of The House, a satellite photo of The House, microphotography of the textures on The House, etc. etc. etc. The typical misconception of postmodernism would hold that there can be no facts. We can never know The House because there are just too many different "meanings" of House, as you can see from the infinite ways there are in photographing House in our example. Yet, I would argue that what postmodernism is really arguing is not that there are no such things as facts, but that there is a multiplicity of perspectives on historical "facts" that might approach an infinite number of ways that we can understand those facts. No narrative of the Holocaust, getting back to the original article, can ever be complete, as the experiences of the Holocaust are entirely different from survivor to survivor. Whatever grand narrative is written is completely irrelevant to the person that lived it; that person's account will be entirely different than another survivor's account; their accounts will be different than the Nazi soldier's account; their accounts will be different from the account of Frederick Charles Blair (Canadian Director of Immigration during WWII) who denied Jewish refugees entrance to Canada. It's not to say that there's no such things as facts, but there is an infinite number of approaches to the facts and not any single approach can be all encompassing, thus irrelevant. However, the history must be told, so as not to be lost, and from as many perspectives as possible to gain the best understanding of it, hence possible and perhaps necessary. I'm going to wrap this up here because that was waaaay more than I had expected to write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ummm...Kissenger was Jewish. But I still find it odd that a rabid Islamist like The Mufti would have anything to do with a secular politician like Nasser,who clearly wanted a seperation between Mosque and State... Oh...they had something in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Some folks often claim that there needs to be objective discussion about the Holocaust and that it is being supressed by forces most powerful. But, they never seem to go beyond that and discuss the Holocaust. What's with that? The problem, as I see it from the article, is that an objective discussion about the Holocaust is simply not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ummm...Kissenger was Jewish. Oh...they had something in common. Yes he is... He also is credited with spiriting NAZI's like those in the V1 and V2 rocket programs out of Germany back to the US... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Maybe I'm reading into your reply, but I don't believe it was as "conspiracy theory" like as your question seems to imply. He argued that all roads from modernity lead directly to the Holocaust. I'm not sure how familiar people here are with the concept of modernity, but let's oversimplify it as "progressive thought." In order to progress, there needs to be a meta-narrative or a grand scheme which quite literally everything and all societies are following. From modernity, you get the idea of some states, people, and cultures being more "progressed" than others. Well the argument here is that progress's rational end was the Final Solution. A society began executing "undesirables" in order to foster human thoroughbreds, so to speak, which they believed would eliminate all social ills. You don't get much more progressive than that. The most frightening aspect is that this was all done for the "greater good." One might think of "useful idiots" here or Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, appropriately subtitled the "banality of evil." So, if you read through the article he mentions how modernity was destroyed by the Holocaust. While that's true, nobody today really understands modernism in this way or don't care. Pollock & Maitland suggested that there is a grand narrative to history and telling some small piece of it tears that "seamless web". Yet, all of these grand narratives and historical expositions on the holocaust cannot even come close to providing people with an understanding of the event the way a survivor's story does. History, in the sense of academic writing, is entirely irrelevant when it comes to conveying what it was actually like in that moment. Historians have held that their distance from events, both spatially and temporally, provided them with an unbiased perspective from which they could tell the "true" story. However, the stories of Holocaust survivors seem to tell us that there is no way to capture one grand metanarrative of the Holocaust. There is no way to tell that one true story, so history writing, while necessary so that we never forget these tragic events of the past, is also completely irrelevant when it comes to really connecting people to those events. While irrelevant, it is still completely necessary to capture history in some way, so that we never forget our past; however, survivor's stories show a dire need for a multiplicity of perspectives, rather than an overaching grand narrative. It's a postmodernist argument. While many people confuse postmodernism as some whacky notion about there being no such thing as "facts," this is actually far from the truth. Historical postmodernism, if you ask me is more about the notion of multiplicity of perspectives creating a fuller image of what is being observed. Say the Holocaust in history is a House. Our historical writing can be exampled in photographs. A grand metanarrative would have a shot of the outside of the house at street level saying, "this is The House." However, you could also take pictures of the interior of The House, a satellite photo of The House, microphotography of the textures on The House, etc. etc. etc. The typical misconception of postmodernism would hold that there can be no facts. We can never know The House because there are just too many different "meanings" of House, as you can see from the infinite ways there are in photographing House in our example. Yet, I would argue that what postmodernism is really arguing is not that there are no such things as facts, but that there is a multiplicity of perspectives on historical "facts" that might approach an infinite number of ways that we can understand those facts. No narrative of the Holocaust, getting back to the original article, can ever be complete, as the experiences of the Holocaust are entirely different from survivor to survivor. Whatever grand narrative is written is completely irrelevant to the person that lived it; that person's account will be entirely different than another survivor's account; their accounts will be different than the Nazi soldier's account; their accounts will be different from the account of Frederick Charles Blair (Canadian Director of Immigration during WWII) who denied Jewish refugees entrance to Canada. It's not to say that there's no such things as facts, but there is an infinite number of approaches to the facts and not any single approach can be all encompassing, thus irrelevant. However, the history must be told, so as not to be lost, and from as many perspectives as possible to gain the best understanding of it, hence possible and perhaps necessary. I'm going to wrap this up here because that was waaaay more than I had expected to write. I have to say the 2nd paragraph is possibly the most detatched,clinical view of The Holocaust I have read in a long time... Frankly,I think the event was so cold blooded and cataclysmic that it tends to suck all the air out of the room in a historical discussion about it.This makes a detatched,clinical discussion of the event almost impossible.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Yes he is... He also is credited with spiriting NAZI's like those in the V1 and V2 rocket programs out of Germany back to the US... Better the US than the USSR. But, to call Von Braun a Nazi is a bit of a stretch...and you know that. He had one real choice in regards to joining the Nazi Party. The other involved a stay in one of Himmler's prisons...which he did on occasion if I recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Yes...thus the sugar and tobacco...oh, and of course King Cotton...all grown on plantations in America and the West Indies. And don't forget how the whip snapped across their back for tobacc-o, I'm the Marlboro man, uh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 And don't forget how the whip snapped across their back for tobacc-o, I'm the Marlboro man, uh. Thanks for your input. I'm of German heritage and have zero connection to the slave trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Better the US than the USSR. But, to call Von Braun a Nazi is a bit of a stretch...and you know that. He had one real choice in regards to joining the Nazi Party. The other involved a stay in one of Himmler's prisons...which he did on occasion if I recall. It's not just Von Braun...It's a few of the Boys from Brazil,as well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 It's not just Von Braun...It's a few of the Boys from Brazil,as well.... Who in particular are you thinking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Thanks for your input. I'm of German heritage and have zero connection to the slave trade. Ok, so not trade. You people kept your slaves for your own, personal labour camps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ok, so not trade. You people kept your slaves for your own, personal labour camps. I'm of German decent,as well... And you're about to cross a line... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 (edited) I have to say the 2nd paragraph is possibly the most detatched,clinical view of The Holocaust I have read in a long time... Frankly,I think the event was so cold blooded and cataclysmic that it tends to suck all the air out of the room in a historical discussion about it.This makes a detatched,clinical discussion of the event almost impossible.... To be fair, it wasn't supposed to be a view on The Holocaust itself, but a view on telling history with The Holocaust as its subject in this case. What I'm saying, I believe, is equally true of any historical subject. Yet, it comes into sharper relief with the Holocaust or something like slavery. Edited December 28, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Ok, so not trade. You people kept your slaves for your own, personal labour camps. Being that my family arrived in Canada in the 1870s, that is a physical impossibility. Now piss off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 The problem, as I see it from the article, is that an objective discussion about the Holocaust is simply not possible. Sure it is. What is there in doubt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Who in particular are you thinking about? Project Paperclip and the approximately 2000 NAZI's he assisted in getting out of Germany or got them greatly reduced sentences... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 To be fair, it wasn't supposed to be a view on The Holocaust itself, but a view on telling history with The Holocaust as its subject in this case. What I'm saying, I believe, is equally true of any historical subject. Yet, it comes into sharper relief with the Holocaust or something like slavery. That's because,in both of those cases,the sufferers,or decendents of those who suffered,are stilll with us... It's kinda hard to be detatched when you've got a number tatooed on your wrist and you watched family and friends take a shower but they never came out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 28, 2011 Report Share Posted December 28, 2011 Project Paperclip and the approximately 2000 NAZI's he assisted in getting out of Germany or got them greatly reduced sentences... Well, that wasn't all that uncommon in all circles. Die-hard Nazis given a pass was all the rage as war became suddenly unfashionable. I recall an old Doonesbury cartoon summing up Ronald Reagan's visit to Bitburg something like this... Reporter: Mr President, what does your visit to the Holocaust memorial mean to you? Reagan: Never forget. Reporter: What does your visit to the SS graves at Bitburg relate? Reagan: Forgive and forget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.