NationStates Jolt Archive

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.

Because none of the others have groovy one-word names like 'Holocaust'. :p

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.

Because it was a huge tragedy on this planet and if we dont emphasize how wrong it is someone might do it again.

Ever heard "if we dont study history we are bound to make the same mistakes."?

Anyway, people like the Dutch arent that different from Nazis, they use Euthanasia on babys born with problems, and it is legal in all cases.

Because where all hypocrits, we'll stand up and say that it was wrong, and that if we could we'd have stopped it, but once we can stop it, we run away and hide.

Did you even read my post, 12345543211? o.O

*pokes Lunatic Goofballs* Apparently the Khmer Rogue got a whole new word invented after what they did - autogenocide. That's a creepy word.

Anyway, people like the Dutch arent that different from Nazis, they use Euthanasia on babys born with problems, and it is legal in all cases.

1) That has nothing to do with the topic
2) Link?
3) Unless Holland has become a totalitarian state recently, I would guess that it's not compulsory. Parents may be allowed to do it, but they certainly aren't forced to.

Did you even read my post, 12345543211? o.O

*pokes Lunatic Goofballs* Apparently the Khmer Rogue got a whole new word invented after what they did - autogenocide. That's a creepy word.

SOunds sexual.

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.

I agree with you, it's sad really.

Oh, behave LG! :P

Holocaust memorials aren't just for the people that died during the holocause of world war 2.

They're a testament to the strength and will of the people that survived the holocaust.

Genocide is a constant in human history, at least up until the time of this writing anyway.

All the memorials in the world won't stop it entirely, only action can. What memorials CAN do however, is help people to realise that genocide is wrong however you look at it in the end. That it's been done before, to no avail, in reality - its pointless and the cost it bears is a multitude of human suffering.

Regardless of whether other people stop and realise this, its important to encourage them to, and for us ourselves to realise it.

We let this genocide happen because the U.S. and her allies can only do so much, and the UN frankly is sitting on its hands and letting these things happen.

I'm not saying the US, UK, et al. should invade every country in the world that has human rights issues, nor am I saying that we are addressing these problems in the right order, but honestly, we are the only ones doing anything.

As long as the UN covers it's eyes and ears and pretends like nothing is going on, things like those you brought up will continue to occur.

In World War Two, the Nazis found the most eager collaborators for their genocide in western Europe, in France, Denmark, Holland, etc. Perhaps they have not forgotten, but they choose not to act.

I really like bacon. Any one else?

/insert thread hyjacking

Holocaust memorials aren't just for the people that died during the holocause of world war 2.

They're a testament to the strength and will of the people that survived the holocaust.

Genocide is a constant in human history, at least up until the time of this writing anyway.

All the memorials in the world won't stop it entirely, only action can. What memorials CAN do however, is help people to realise that genocide is wrong however you look at it in the end. That it's been done before, to no avail, in reality - its pointless and the cost it bears is a multitude of human suffering.

Regardless of whether other people stop and realise this, its important to encourage them to, and for us ourselves to realise it.That'd be what I think too. I just get down about the fact that we do tend to let most genocides slip from our concious and forget about them - just smile and think of happier thoughts. x_x

And also I get annoyed how the media blows certain happenings out of proportion just for a sensationalist news story, and completely missing the point of the Holocaust memorial in the process.

Don't forget the Kuwait genocide of Palistinians. And still the US supports Kwait. Doing the best we can my ass. The UN, the US, basicly everyone is guilty of overlooking/ignoring genocide. Like someone said, it's easy to condem it, but when it comes time to do something, where's the public outcry? Without public outcry to do something, the goverbments sure as hell arn't. It's not just govs and nations, but all the world's people that have responcibility in this.

Memorials are a useless gesture that sever no purpose. Lets be honest no-one cares and we never learn from history even if we do remember it. Its a nice gesture because memorials are simpler than fixing the problems.

Memorials are a useless gesture that sever no purpose. Lets be honest no-one cares and we never learn from history even if we do remember it.

I'm assuming you meant to say that they "serve" no purpose.


Not everyone in the world shares you fatalistic outlook, Nag. There are those who try to act on what they have learned, and there are some who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to change, either because they don't want to or simply don't care. Which camp do you fall into?

Don't forget the Kuwait genocide of Palistinians. And still the US supports Kwait. Doing the best we can my ass. The UN, the US, basicly everyone is guilty of overlooking/ignoring genocide. Like someone said, it's easy to condem it, but when it comes time to do something, where's the public outcry? Without public outcry to do something, the goverbments sure as hell arn't. It's not just govs and nations, but all the world's people that have responcibility in this.

What kuwaiti genocide of Palestinians? I know they kicked a bunch of Palestinians out of the country after the First Gulf War for the PLO's support of Saddam, but i don't remember any genoide. In fact Prime Minister Abbas recently apologised to the Kuwaiti government for this support - hardly the act of the victims [imagine Sharon saying sorry to Germany]

You're not thinking of the Jordanian massacre of Paestines are you?

Just because we don't have a memorial for every genocide in history doesn't mean we should remove the ones we have in place. The holocaust killed six million, and the fact that a memorial is in place to acknowledge this massive wrong is a sign that the government won't turn a blind eye to genocide. Well, unless it hurts our political image in the world (*GRUMBLE* Republicans *GRUMBLE*). Keep in mind, it took tens of years for people to even accept that the Holocaust in fact occurs, let alone make a monument to those brave souls who survived it.

We let this genocide happen because the U.S. and her allies can only do so much, and the UN frankly is sitting on its hands and letting these things happen.

I'm not saying the US, UK, et al. should invade every country in the world that has human rights issues, nor am I saying that we are addressing these problems in the right order, but honestly, we are the only ones doing anything.

As long as the UN covers it's eyes and ears and pretends like nothing is going on, things like those you brought up will continue to occur.

In World War Two, the Nazis found the most eager collaborators for their genocide in western Europe, in France, Denmark, Holland, etc. Perhaps they have not forgotten, but they choose not to act.

Rawanda had plenty of notice. Gen. Dallaire gave ample warnings and the troops needed were not that large.

The American rep on the security council was instructed not use the "G" word as it would force action. In 100 days 800000 to 1 million people were more or less hacked to death.

Even after the killings were done, the americans said we shall investigate the claims of genocide.

Bash the UN all you want but the US is a part of the equation.

"You're not thinking of the Jordanian massacre of Paestines are you?"

I may be. I read a newspaper article a while back (Either NY Times or Post) which named several countries that killed Palistinians, and I remeber that Kwuait killed a quarter of a million folk. I just named them instead of Jordan et cetera because they get alot of US support, and my point was that we do not "do all we can." As The Black Forrest pointed out, the Rwanda genocide is a perfict point of that.

The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war

1988? ie. before the Gulf War, no?

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again. Because the World Remebers the Two simple Phrases but has Forgotten the reason for those two simple phrases...

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?

Who says it doesn't? I don't know anyone that's 'forgotten' the Holocaust. The memorial does a fine job of preserving the memory of it, I'm sure, not to mention it's being the topic of every other thread.


Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.

Yeah, well when you say "we" as in, "the entire world," "we" are fucking guilty of every possible crime conceivable and inconceivable, daily. It's easy to convict the world without getting into specifics.

There's a very simple formula for determining how this works:

Choose -

A] White skinned people being massacred. Send in the marines .... NOW!
B] Brown skinned people being massacred. Oh, how horrible, please pass the potatos.

There ya go.

Enjoy.

There's a very simple formula for determining how this works:

Choose -

A] White skinned people being massacred. Send in the marines .... NOW!
B] Brown skinned people being massacred. Oh, how horrible, please pass the potatos.

There ya go.

Enjoy.
I've noticed that too. *sigh*

It's like all the moral outrage over what've happening in Zimbabwe, versus the detachment with which people look at say, Darfur.

Memorials exist for lots of reasons. Some people use them for short term gain. Some use them to honestly remember. Some are built to teach. Others to simply to be there.

Your right. it's deplorable that there has been further genocide sence WWII. But the memorials don't just mean "lest we forget" and "never again". To me, the holocaust memorals are for a rapidly departing group of people who have tattoos of numbers imposed on them by a group popularly elected. They remember when good men did nothing, hoping to avoid human nature, and let evil win. IT's not just remebering one event, or even a human condition. To me, they're a prayer to the future.

"This is what happened, oh children yet to be born, let it be known. You're as human as we. You have the same possiblity for evil. And the same possiblity to do else wise. Please think of these events when making your choices."

Amen.

I've noticed that too. *sigh*

It's like all the moral outrage over what've happening in Zimbabwe, versus the detachment with which people look at say, Darfur.

Whenever I hear a major western politician speak of events in Africa or the Middle East or even events in Kashmir and the Far East, I play T.S. Eliot's poem, The Hollow Men, in my head at full volume to drown them out.

Simply because the next time I hear a Great White Chief speak with utter indifference to the plight of a million people, dismissing them with catch phrases and buzzwords as though they're little more than percentage points in the popularity contest that is the US government, I will raise around myself a mighty army and declare my own jihad against indifference - and not a polite jihad.

So .... say it with me now ...

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

...

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

There's a very simple formula for determining how this works:

Choose -

A] White skinned people being massacred. Send in the marines .... NOW!
B] Brown skinned people being massacred. Oh, how horrible, please pass the potatos.

There ya go.

Enjoy.
Our nation was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free... So, we kept our black African people, in order to fight and kill the white English people, so we could move west and steal the land from the red Indian people, and then move south and steal the land from the brown Mexican people, which would give us a place to take off and bomb the yellow Japanese people! You know what the motto for this country oughtta be? "YOU GIVE US A COLOR, AND WE`LL WIPE IT OUT!"

and the ever popular...

"The war got good ratings. It was on every channel and cable. We like war. We like it because we're good at it. We're good because we get a lot of practice. This country's only 200 years old and we've already had 10 major wars. That's an average of one war every 20 years!

We're good at it. And it's a good thing. Because we're not much good at anything else! We can't make a decent car anymore. Can't make a VCR or a TV worth a fuck. Got no steel industry left. Can't provide decent health care for our old people. Can't educate our young. But, we can bomb the hell out of your country alright! Especially, if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that. That's our hobby That's our new job in the world - bombing brown people!

Iraq, Panama, Greneda, Lybia - you got some brown people in your country? Tell them to watch out! Or we'll god damn bomb them. Who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed? The Germans. They're the only ones. And that's because they wanted to cut in on our action - dominating the world. Bullshit! That's our fucking job!" :D

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"


Never again...in our country.
We'll never forget...as long as the veterans are still alive

Only 50% (51,4%) of Germans under 24 could explain what Holocaust means.
BUT I don't know what they asked and which answers were the "right" ones. As Holocaust has more meanings than the killing by the Nazis of millions of Jews during WWII

Whenever I hear a major western politician speak of events in Africa or the Middle East or even events in Kashmir and the Far East, I play T.S. Eliot's poem, The Hollow Men, in my head at full volume to drown them out.

Simply because the next time I hear a Great White Chief speak with utter indifference to the plight of a million people, dismissing them with catch phrases and buzzwords as though they're little more than percentage points in the popularity contest that is the US government, I will raise around myself a mighty army and declare my own jihad against indifference - and not a polite jihad.

So .... say it with me now ...

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

...

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Exactly. There's always "World Leader Pretend" by REM.

"It's amazing what devices you can sympathize

This is my mistake, let me make it good

I raised the wall, and I will be the one to knock it down"

And you just have to love the condescension that you can sense when western leaders talk of events in the "south."

::shrugs:: The memorial will probably generate some revenue through tourism.

I think the real issue shold be more Hatred to the Russians for the Atrocities they commited against the Jews and Polish people!
Remember the Polish Officers shot into Ditches???

Or how Stalin said they were Russians in the Death Camps to give increased Hatred towards the German Civilians when in actual fact they werent Russians but the same 'low lifes' that Stalin had been Purging

And what about Churchills Willingness to help the Russians after Russia invaded Poland and Britain had to evacuate 130,000 or so Poles from Poland?
Is that a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Memorials are a useless gesture that sever no purpose. Lets be honest no-one cares and we never learn from history even if we do remember it. Its a nice gesture because memorials are simpler than fixing the problems.


I beg to differ, Nag...memorials are only useless if people treat them like a holiday. It's the people that make it a memorial. If you think a memorial is useless, then it is. If you take ten minutes out of your day, think about it while your driving to work, going for a run, or even taking a shower, you have just acknowledged a memorial. you don't have to acknowledge it publicly and attend a memorial service at your church, synogogue, mosque or temple, but just think for a second. Why is this day different? or Wow, I cannot believe a human being would actually do something like that. It's our job to take responsiblity for the events of the future that are impacted by the past. WE are not helpless and we can make a difference. Governments and media make things like Darfur and the Khmer Rouge seem like no big deal, but we have a choice to learn more about it and do something about it, no matter how small a difference we make. At least you'll have made a difference.

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.
Because it so happens that the Holocaust now stands as a standard for measuring of evil. If it wasn't for the Holocaust, the world would not care for Saddam gassing Kurds or Arabs slaughtering the blacks of Darfur. Before the Holocaust, nobody gave a damn for hundreds of thousands of Armenians massacred in Turkey or for the millions deliberately starved to death by Stalin during the Ukrainian famine. It was the Holocaust that made the world care. It is the memory of the Holocaust that ensures that the world continues to care.

Don't forget the Kuwait genocide of Palistinians. And still the US supports Kwait.
You are, of course, referring to the Black September events in Jordan, not Kuwait (and yep, that was pretty bad, they killes something like 200 people per day for several months, and in the end expelled several hundred thousand people out of the country). And the US was no friend of Jordan back then.

I never understand why the Holocaust part of the Nazi atrocities is remembered above all the others. Hitler killed more than twice as many people during the invasion of Russia than were killed by the Final Solution. At the conclusion of WWII some 2,000 villages west of Moscow no longer existed. 2 million citizens of Stalingrad were massacred in cold blood. A million more starved to death during the Siege of Leningrad. Of the 5 million Russian PoWs captured only 2 million survived the labor camps.

Hitler was obviously following a policy of genocide against Slavs as well, and yet the Holocaust Museum only gives this cursory mention. So most people only wind up holding the Nazis accountable for 6 million deaths, instead of the 34 million they're actually responsible for.

It makes sense that Soviet deaths would be hushed up during the Cold War, but the CW's over now. All that's getting accomplished now is that Nazis are being depicted as much more humane than they really were.

"You are, of course, referring to the Black September events in Jordan, not Kuwait (and yep, that was pretty bad, they killes something like 200 people per day for several months, and in the end expelled several hundred thousand people out of the country). And the US was no friend of Jordan back then."

I adressed this in the last page, Kuwait killed about a quarter of a million Palestinins, as well. I can try to track down the article if you'd like.

Hitler was obviously following a policy of genocide against Slavs as well, and yet the Holocaust Museum only gives this cursory mention. So most people only wind up holding the Nazis accountable for 6 million deaths, instead of the 34 million they're actually responsible for.

No the Jews are more important than the Slavs because who can see a masive block of Slavs in the world?
The Jews are everywhere!

Burn Stalinism!

Because none of the others have groovy one-word names like 'Holocaust'. :p


Thats terrible! Where does the word holocaust come from?

Because none of the others have groovy one-word names like 'Holocaust'. :p


Thats terrible! what about genocide? Where does the word holocaust come from?

because the victims of those horrors dont have the money or lobby power to keep the story alive, unlike the jewish community

because the victims of those horrors dont have the money or lobby power to keep the story alive, unlike the jewish community


We are the champions
Weeeeee are the champions
No time for losers cuz
We are the champions ........... of the wooooorld.

People like the holocaust because America helped end it. I mean, it's not like people want to think that their nation killed millions of Japanese with 2 atomic bombs just because the Administration didn't want any communist influence on Japan.

Dammit! Get it right already. The U.N. is a political body depending on its memberstates to supply troops when needed.
They cannot do anything when the members don't supply or pay their bills!

The NATO is a military organization, thus is made up of military which can be directed at certain tasks.

I wish people would stop complaining about the U.N. not doing anything. And no, they are not obsolete, they are just different from other organisations.

Dammit! Get it right already. The U.N. is a political body depending on its memberstates to supply troops when needed.
They cannot do anything when the members don't supply or pay their bills!

The NATO is a military organization, thus is made up of military which can be directed at certain tasks.

I wish people would stop complaining about the U.N. not doing anything. And no, they are not obsolete, they are just different from other organisations.

Then stop blaming the US for what the UN doesn't do. There are plenty of militaries that belong to the UN, and it has plenty of money. If we're going to blame the US for not paying bills, or not supplying enough military, let's ask the EU to take up the slack.

They obviously have military forces. Now, they don't have a lot of willing volunteers in their populations - people who want to join the military and serve overseas, but I'm sure you can draft them.

Until the EU is intervening abroad as much as the US, and spending as much as the US on defense items, and fielding forces overseas (they'll have to build a capability similar to the Marine Expeditionary Force), I don't see why the US has to pony up anything at the UN - the EU has a bigger GNP, and is always bragging about how great its economy is.

In fact, I think that the next major UN intervention, say, in Sudan, should be EU only - let's see how they do in an intervention. That way, I can sit here in the US and castigate EU troops for every mistake they make. I can second guess them and decry their failures.

There were other big tragedies nobody gives a shit about.

Also, whenever this thing is brought up certain politicians in Germany and Austria tend to stard guilt-tripping the people in those countries. Then you hear the German president ramble about how we "still have a responsibility". And well, you always hear "the jews" here, and "the jews" there. It wasn't just the jews, there were others, but those are usually forgotten. And it seems that the jews who fled to the US after the war have to whine loudest, for whatever reason.

Bullshit.

It's the past, get the fuck over it.

And people wonder why right winged parties like the FPÖ used to have such a success in the past.


Concerning the US, UN and EU...

If the Americans want to bleed so badly... let them. There's a sentence written on the graveyard of the French Foreign Legion "Remember French mother, it could have been your son".

Also, turn on your brains. There is no "EU army", there's no "european defence organisation". There are armies of all different EU countries, and well... it's not really a "union" anyway, despite the name.

And the NATO is a dinosaur without a purpose.

There's a very simple formula for determining how this works:

Choose -

A] White skinned people being massacred. Send in the marines .... NOW!
B] Brown skinned people being massacred. Oh, how horrible, please pass the potatos.

There ya go.

Enjoy.

Wait so you imply the USA sent in the marines, so to speak, on the Holocaust but not the others because of white skin? Well, why did white skin seem to prevent them from doing so only after Pearl Harbor? Why did white skin seem to enable the USA and the West overall to sit around holding their penises while Hitler and Stalin massacred -millions- of people with white skin? Or do Poles, Gypsies, German-Jews, Russians etc not have white skin?

I'm as against racist idiocy as the next guy, but you are implying a double standard. There was only one standard for the USA - get involved only when your interests are hurt. There was absolutely nothing about saving the massacred, whom you'll notice still got massacred even though the marines DID land... after nearly a decade...

People like the holocaust because America helped end it. I mean, it's not like people want to think that their nation killed millions of Japanese with 2 atomic bombs just because the Administration didn't want any communist influence on Japan.

Er, wasn't exactly millions. More Japanese were killed to conventional means than by the two nukes. However, I think you were exactly right on why the US was SO VERY DESPERATE to get Japan to surrender unconditionally.

Because it was a huge tragedy on this planet and if we dont emphasize how wrong it is someone might do it again.

Ever heard "if we dont study history we are bound to make the same mistakes."?
Clearly, despite quoting the original post, you didn't actually bother to READ it.

We have repeated this mistake. Again and again and again. And will go one committing genocide DESPITE the memorial. That's the summary. Want to try again?

Holocaust memorials aren't just for the people that died during the holocause of world war 2.

Not holocaust memorials. Memorials of the Holocaust. The Holocaust (note the big 'H'), also known as the Shoah. Specific to the genocide that occured during WWII. Why a memorial to this particular holocaust, usually to the exlcusion of all others?

As someone of Jewish descent I can tell you that it reminds us we have only ourselves to look to. Is it true that the American military is more likely to get involved in only "white" wars......Hmmm I don't think so, if your consider Viet Nam, but then look how that turned out. Nations can't force other nations to their point of view, any more than you can force an individual to be a Christian. It is all choice, which is why each person should have the power to defend themselves. :sniper:


The Steagall

Wait so you imply the USA sent in the marines, so to speak, on the Holocaust but not the others because of white skin? Well, why did white skin seem to prevent them from doing so only after Pearl Harbor? Why did white skin seem to enable the USA and the West overall to sit around holding their penises while Hitler and Stalin massacred -millions- of people with white skin? Or do Poles, Gypsies, German-Jews, Russians etc not have white skin?

I'm as against racist idiocy as the next guy, but you are implying a double standard. There was only one standard for the USA - get involved only when your interests are hurt. There was absolutely nothing about saving the massacred, whom you'll notice still got massacred even though the marines DID land... after nearly a decade...
It's interesting to note as well that the whole dichotomy of white versus coloured is a relatively new one. What the hell do I mean? 'White' is not as homogenous as we like to think it is. Think about the original immigrants that came to the US and Canada. Italians, Germans, Irish, Dutch, etc. All white. Prejudice still abounded. Ethnic tensions were incredibly high amongst groups now labelled 'white'. Jews were not 'white'. Gypsies were not 'white'. Poles and Russians were not 'white'...in the sense of being groups of people that we wanted to defend or even gave a crap about. Despite the fact that skin colour now seems to have a lot to do with who gets intervention and who doesn't, I think it's overplayed. Interventions is STILL more about self-interest, and will ALWAYS be more about self-interest than the skin colour or ethnicity of those who need help. Don't believe me? Is a white Muslim any less under suspicion these days than a Muslim of colour?

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.
One word: politics.

After the disaster in Vietnam, the US wasn't about to become involved in anything else in SE Asia for a long, long time.

Rawanda would have been a losing proposition for the US ( or any other "First World" nation ), regardless of the outcome, just like Somalia was a lose-lose situation.

The lack of reaction by the US to Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was a failure of will. We definitely should have taken action, but I suspect the reluctance was a result of the cost involved in Gulf War I.

Darfur, like most incidents involving tribal warfare, is a mess. It involves ancient tribal animosities, complex treaties, and UN weirdness, and is seen as another lose-lose situation for whomever ventures to take corrective action.

I've noticed that too. *sigh*

It's like all the moral outrage over what've happening in Zimbabwe, versus the detachment with which people look at say, Darfur.
Which is especially sickening when you consider that blacks are getting shafted every bit as much as whites in Zimbabwe.

It's the past, get the fuck over it.


Tell that to a living survivor. Pick any "survivor" type you want .... Nazi camp, Pol Pot, Rwanda, etc.

Please ... feel free to find the tens of thousands of people who live in a state of constant nightmare to just "get the fuck over it". I shall eagerly await the results.

because the victims of those horrors dont have the money or lobby power to keep the story alive, unlike the jewish community

Actually 12 million were killed in the Holocaust; 6 million were Jews, while others were gypsies (Rom), Poles, etc. I also think that this gets the most recognition because it is another example of the massacring of the Jews throughout the ages. Also, unlike the genocides in Africa or Russia, this took place all over Europe right under the eyes of the rest of the world. If you think about it, 6 million today would amount to almost half of the entire world Jewish population (13-14 million); a small number for one of the so called "three major religions".

It's interesting to note as well that the whole dichotomy of white versus coloured is a relatively new one. What the hell do I mean? 'White' is not as homogenous as we like to think it is. Think about the original immigrants that came to the US and Canada. Italians, Germans, Irish, Dutch, etc. All white. Prejudice still abounded. Ethnic tensions were incredibly high amongst groups now labelled 'white'. Jews were not 'white'. Gypsies were not 'white'. Poles and Russians were not 'white'...in the sense of being groups of people that we wanted to defend or even gave a crap about. Despite the fact that skin colour now seems to have a lot to do with who gets intervention and who doesn't, I think it's overplayed. Interventions is STILL more about self-interest, and will ALWAYS be more about self-interest than the skin colour or ethnicity of those who need help. Don't believe me? Is a white Muslim any less under suspicion these days than a Muslim of colour?

Well, there is no "white," it's just another way to divide people up so they don't know they have zero power, influence or importance. Kind of like all the white power guys sitting at their computers feeling personally proud that Ben Franklin was a brilliant inventor - like the fact that his skins was vaguely pale and that theirs is ghastly pale means they were actually partners to his genius, deserving of his credit.

As to your question... yes and no. Some people will suspect a white Muslim MORE for being a "race traitor." Some people less, for the same reason - you're "still white" so you must have some "good" genes hiding beneath the vile black mantle of Islam.

Your points on intervention and self interest are quite correct.

Because it so happens that the Holocaust now stands as a standard for measuring of evil. If it wasn't for the Holocaust, the world would not care for Saddam gassing Kurds or Arabs slaughtering the blacks of Darfur. Before the Holocaust, nobody gave a damn for hundreds of thousands of Armenians massacred in Turkey or for the millions deliberately starved to death by Stalin during the Ukrainian famine. It was the Holocaust that made the world care. It is the memory of the Holocaust that ensures that the world continues to care.

Woohoo, I care. So what? The fact that I shake my head at it somehow makes the millions of people who died or are dying feel better? Their families (if they're still alive)? Anybody besides me? I mean, of course I feel better. I'm a wonderful person. I CARE!!! A lot of fucking good caring does when we (read: everyone with the power to do something about it) don't do anything at all to stop the current genocides or to prevent future genocides. But hey we do have that pretty holocaust museum. That's got to count for something, right?

Woohoo, I care. So what? The fact that I shake my head at it somehow makes the millions of people who died or are dying feel better? Their families (if they're still alive)? Anybody besides me? I mean, of course I feel better. I'm a wonderful person. I CARE!!! A lot of fucking good caring does when we (read: everyone with the power to do something about it) don't do anything at all to stop the current genocides or to prevent future genocides. But hey we do have that pretty holocaust museum. That's got to count for something, right?

I don't care. But I'm not arguing in favor of remaining willfully ignorant, burying the past and doing our best to forget the nasty things simply because we cannot do anything about 'em. You know, I can't do anything about the nation's foreign policy either, let's just turn off the news and stop discussing it out of futility!

It's interesting to note as well that the whole dichotomy of white versus coloured is a relatively new one. What the hell do I mean? 'White' is not as homogenous as we like to think it is. Think about the original immigrants that came to the US and Canada. Italians, Germans, Irish, Dutch, etc. All white. Prejudice still abounded. Ethnic tensions were incredibly high amongst groups now labelled 'white'. Jews were not 'white'. Gypsies were not 'white'. Poles and Russians were not 'white'...in the sense of being groups of people that we wanted to defend or even gave a crap about. Despite the fact that skin colour now seems to have a lot to do with who gets intervention and who doesn't, I think it's overplayed. Interventions is STILL more about self-interest, and will ALWAYS be more about self-interest than the skin colour or ethnicity of those who need help. Don't believe me? Is a white Muslim any less under suspicion these days than a Muslim of colour?
This is one of the few posts you have made lately with which I can agree. :)

It seems to be in human nature to generalize and discriminate between "in-group" and "out-group." Just look at any American high school. Almost everyone is identified as being a "member" of some group or other, and there is almost always a hierarchy of groups.

I don't care. But I'm not arguing in favor of remaining willfully ignorant, burying the past and doing our best to forget the nasty things simply because we cannot do anything about 'em. You know, I can't do anything about the nation's foreign policy either, let's just turn off the news and stop discussing it out of futility!

He/she mentioned the fact that we shake our fists at genocide as some great victory. During WWII we shook our fists at it too and yet we let it go on because we hadn't been attacked yet. It seems that most of the powerful countries in the world are content to let this same genocide go on unless they have something to gain. Until we do something more than *care* this will always be the case and a sad case it is.

Politicians don't care about genocide. The only reason there was a fuss about the holocaust was because Hitler was going on a huge expansion. The holocaust was an excellent way for the allies to get the rest of the world on side. The reason no politician bats an eyelid about a modern genocide is because these don't affect them. Human life means nothing to a politician, they're only concerned with their own personal power base.

It's a shame, but I don't see what I can do about it. If a genocide is happening somewhere thousands of miles away, what on earth could I do to change things?

Yea "United East Asia", go tell my Hungarian Rabbi to "Get the Fuck over it" who as a little boy was taken to Auschwitz and every one of his hebrew school classmates was killed. He still has his # tattoo on his wrist. And a few months ago on the 60th anniversary of the day the nazi's came and got them, he stood up in front of us all crying as he said the prayer for the dead. Fuck you to hell "United East Asia" you heartless bastard. God bless those who care.

It's interesting to note as well that the whole dichotomy of white versus coloured is a relatively new one. What the hell do I mean? 'White' is not as homogenous as we like to think it is. Think about the original immigrants that came to the US and Canada. Italians, Germans, Irish, Dutch, etc. All white. Prejudice still abounded. Ethnic tensions were incredibly high amongst groups now labelled 'white'. Jews were not 'white'. Gypsies were not 'white'. Poles and Russians were not 'white'...in the sense of being groups of people that we wanted to defend or even gave a crap about. Despite the fact that skin colour now seems to have a lot to do with who gets intervention and who doesn't, I think it's overplayed. Interventions is STILL more about self-interest, and will ALWAYS be more about self-interest than the skin colour or ethnicity of those who need help. Don't believe me? Is a white Muslim any less under suspicion these days than a Muslim of colour?

Yes, exactly the point. Even the divisions are about self-interest. In the early days (lasting till like 1950) it was in the self-interest to oppress anybody that looked or spoke differently than you did, if you could get away with it, because it promoted the people who do look like you, namely your family and friends. This is, in fact, how I ended up with an Irish last name. Then suddenly those crazy "colored" people started asking for the same rights as everyone else and we needed to create an us and them mentality. The funny part is that if the groups are getting more inclusive the divisions are decreasing, I suppose you could call the white v. colored thing progress. I'm sad now. *crawls into a hole*

This is one of the few posts you have made lately with which I can agree. :) You never know...it could happen again!

It seems to be in human nature to generalize and discriminate between "in-group" and "out-group." Just look at any American high school. Almost everyone is identified as being a "member" of some group or other, and there is almost always a hierarchy of groups.
I always hear it broken down into race, and for a long time I just kind of nodded my head and agreed it seemed to be that...but there are more complex political issues involved, though they can still often be boiled down to prejudice. However, prejudice, as you mention, can be based in ANYTHING, and skin colour is only the most obvious of these anythings.

This is one of the few posts you have made lately with which I can agree. :)

I agreed with Sinuhue once. It was a scary, scary day. I try to tell myself it was just coincidence but I'm worried that it may be a sign of much, much more. THE HORROR!

I agreed with Sinuhue once. It was a scary, scary day. I try to tell myself it was just coincidence but I'm worried that it may be a sign of much, much more. THE HORROR!
Kiss my bum. You worship my opinions as though they were your pantheon of pagan gods. Once you start agreeing with Sinuhue, there's no turning back!

Kiss my bum. You worship my opinions as though they were your pantheon of pagan gods. Once you start agreeing with Sinuhue, there's no turning back!

That's what I'm afraid of, *cowers* whore

He/she mentioned the fact that we shake our fists at genocide as some great victory. During WWII we shook our fists at it too and yet we let it go on because we hadn't been attacked yet. It seems that most of the powerful countries in the world are content to let this same genocide go on unless they have something to gain. Until we do something more than *care* this will always be the case and a sad case it is.

Well yeah, let's not make the mistake of calling the victory in WWII a victory. Shaking the fist is not the victory, but being willing to forget and dismiss history is the first important step in repeating it.

Well yeah, let's not make the mistake of calling the victory in WWII a victory. Shaking the fist is not the victory, but being willing to forget and dismiss history is the first important step in repeating it.

First of all, I didn't refer to WWII as a victory or a lack thereof. It's not really important to the discussion. The point is the memorial and the museum use the premise that we will never let it again and that we learned something from the holocaust. We have let it happen again and what did we learn exactly? We still treat genocide the same way we did before we entered WWII - we care, but just not enough to do anything about it. No one has suggested we should forget or dismiss history. In fact, most people are suggesting exactly the opposite. The complaint is that the memorial was a hollow gesture that is followed up by what it should have been followed up by, a committment to never let it happen again. We are repeating history, over and over and over... oh, you get the point.

First of all, I didn't refer to WWII as a victory or a lack thereof. It's not really important to the discussion. The point is the memorial and the museum use the premise that we will never let it again and that we learned something from the holocaust. We have let it happen again and what did we learn exactly? We still treat genocide the same way we did before we entered WWII - we care, but just not enough to do anything about it. No one has suggested we should forget or dismiss history. In fact, most people are suggesting exactly the opposite. The complaint is that the memorial was a hollow gesture that is followed up by what it should have been followed up by, a committment to never let it happen again. We are repeating history, over and over and over... oh, you get the point.

Not really. What is it you are advocating, here, exactly - other than that the entire world changes? Eliminate memorials? Forget about it? If neither of those, then you and I are not in disagreement. And I've never even been to any memorial, I've been referring not to a specific place but the act of memorialization itself.

If we were to make a holocost memorial in the US, would we then have to make one for the Pograms, the Armenian genocide and what happened in Bosnia not to long ago, to name a few of the top of my head.

Shouldn't the Germans or the Isrealis or the Serbs be the one guilted into building a memorial, not the one who put and end to such a horrible thing?

Not really. What is it you are advocating, here, exactly - other than that the entire world changes? Eliminate memorials? Forget about it? If neither of those, then you and I are not in disagreement. And I've never even been to any memorial, I've been referring not to a specific place but the act of memorialization itself.

We're not really in disagreement. Basically, we're just complaining that we make these "lest we forget" kinds of claims, but in the end it's what us first-world countries tend to do, cry about the injustices of the world while making no use of our ability to change them. As Bill Mahr says, putting a ribbon on our cars is, in fact, the least we can do (and he means actually the least).

Because it was a huge tragedy on this planet and if we dont emphasize how wrong it is someone might do it again.

Ever heard "if we dont study history we are bound to make the same mistakes."?

Anyway, people like the Dutch arent that different from Nazis, they use Euthanasia on babys born with problems, and it is legal in all cases.

Oh, you mean like the Texas "futile care" law that Bush signed while he was governor? Or is euthanasia somehow moraly justifiable when it is done to save a few bucks rather than heartache?

Woohoo, I care. So what? The fact that I shake my head at it somehow makes the millions of people who died or are dying feel better? Their families (if they're still alive)? Anybody besides me? I mean, of course I feel better. I'm a wonderful person. I CARE!!! A lot of fucking good caring does when we (read: everyone with the power to do something about it) don't do anything at all to stop the current genocides or to prevent future genocides. But hey we do have that pretty holocaust museum. That's got to count for something, right?
What a silly reaction.

Making someone feel good isn't the point. The point is keeping you aware that genocide may happen again- and that it is your responsibility to prevent it and oppose it if it does happen. By being constantly reminded of the Holocaust, you are being kept aware of the danger of it repeating itself. Whether or not you choose to act on it is up to you, of course- but you cannot claim ignorance as a defense for your inaction anymore, because you were aware of the danger.

What a silly reaction.

Making someone feel good isn't the point. The point is keeping you aware that genocide may happen again- and that it is your responsibility to prevent it and oppose it if it does happen. By being constantly reminded of the Holocaust, you are being kept aware of the danger of it repeating itself. Whether or not you choose to act on it is up to you, of course- but you cannot claim ignorance as a defense for your inaction anymore, because you were aware of the danger.

There is not a danger of it happening again, it's happening and has happened and it's well-documented. People weren't ignorant in WWII either. We were just satisfied with caring instead of doing anything. Any real level of support did not really exist until Dec 7, 1941, because we were attacked. The memorial didn't change anything. The entirety of North America chooses not to act. Europe chooses not to act. No one is acting and I guarantee you there would not be a high level of support if the US suddenly went to the Sudan or any of a dozen other places where genocides are occurring or have occurred. The outrage at US imperialism would certainly exceed the outrage at genocide in Sudan. It's fairly well-known that the US rep in the UN was discourage from using the word genocide. Nobody wants to act we just want to "care", just want to put ribbons on our SUVs and breasts and complain about what a horrible place the world is but God forbid anyone do anything about it. Well, except for build a memorial or make a movie, that is.

EDIT: Oh, and making someone feel good is exactly the point. Here in the US we love do exactly the minimum we can do to make it look like we care. We put up a memorial or a museum and we say it's to prevent it from ever happening again. Till it does and we ignore it. Maybe the people in Darfur will "care" when we put up a memorial for them. What do you think?

I like the word "pantheon." I was in a pantheon once.

And Domici was dead right about Bush. He doesn't care about people or life. He made such a big thing about the Terri Shivo tragety, but as govener or Texas he signed a bill saying that if you in need of extended life-supporting care, and your family cannot pay, you are taken off life support and die. No matter what your wishes are, what the wishes of your family are, even if you are not in a coma, but are fully aware but need life sustaining care, you die if you don't have the money. "Culture of life" my ass. And we can't forget all the people executed under him in Texas, or the hundreds of thousands who are being killed in Iraq, or those who will face hardship and death because of Bush's econimic policies. Plus the reason Terri was in the condition she was in was because she had bulimia, a treatable mental illness. But mental illnes reaserch and treatment programs were one of many public services to get budget cuts to pay for Bush's war against the brown people and tax cut for the already too rich. Terri's husband invited Jeb and George Bush to visit her in the hospital, if they care about her so very much, but they never came. Then, when she died, the Bushes had gotten their plug as the "life" politicians so they could impress all the "Christain" righters. One thing more important to Bush than life is $

And about this whole "the US isn't doing enough! No, Europe's not doing enough! No, Japan et cetera's not doing enough!" stuff is childish bullshit. I mean Jesus Christ people, how old are we, 5? Everyone needs to look to themselves first, needs to find fault with themselves and improve themselves first, because everyone has to take the responcibility.

We let this genocide happen because the U.S. and her allies can only do so much, and the UN frankly is sitting on its hands and letting these things happen.

I'm not saying the US, UK, et al. should invade every country in the world that has human rights issues, nor am I saying that we are addressing these problems in the right order, but honestly, we are the only ones doing anything.

As long as the UN covers it's eyes and ears and pretends like nothing is going on, things like those you brought up will continue to occur.

In World War Two, the Nazis found the most eager collaborators for their genocide in western Europe, in France, Denmark, Holland, etc. Perhaps they have not forgotten, but they choose not to act.
kind of like when the UN said it was obvious that what was happening in Darfur was genocide and that only a complete retard could think otherwise. who do you think were the retards?

I'm assuming you meant to say that they "serve" no purpose.


Not everyone in the world shares you fatalistic outlook, Nag. There are those who try to act on what they have learned, and there are some who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to change, either because they don't want to or simply don't care. Which camp do you fall into?
if you want to educate people about history and human rights, then maybe that money should be going somewhere other than a memorial. just a thought.

Right, now that I've caught your attention with that risque title I'll ask you to read what I've got to say before you type in large font and in capitals why we have a Holocaust memorial.

Why do we remember the Holocaust? I think that can be summed up in two simple phrases
- "Never again"
- "Lest we ever forget"

A very noble idea, but what's the point if the Holocaust memorial no longer serves its purpose?
The world observed the Khmer Rouge making their mark on history
The world sat by as Interahamwe killed so many Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda
The world watched as Saddam gassed the Kurds after the first Gulf war
The world mumbles something about what's happening in Darfur being wrong
And how many other organised mass murders has the world let pass it by?

You can argue that any of these weren't to the same scale, but that doesn't mean these atrocities never happened.

Why do we bother to continue to remember the Holocaust? Clearly we have not forgetten, yet just as clearly we have let it happen again.

Well, it's not cause by a ppl who know about the Holocaust. I mean, do you seriously think ppl in poor country are taught these kind of thing? It's all about the education.

Well, it's not cause by a ppl who know about the Holocaust. I mean, do you seriously think ppl in poor country are taught these kind of thing? It's all about the education.

Do you seriously think the poor of these countries are the problem? Generally someone who has no food and no money doesn't suddenly say, hey, everybody let's slaughter an entire race of people. Generally, it's some rich politician that says, I find group X to be a threat to me and so let's kill those motherclubbers. Do you think they do it because they don't know it's wrong? I doubt it. The general populace of the US is very aware of the mass slaughter that went on during WWII and the average citizen would denounce it given the chance, but ask them to denounce what happened in Rwanda (prior to the movie) and they wouldn't know what you were talking about. Teaching people that it happened before isn't good enough. People have to talk about the fact that it's happening now and get after their politicians to do something about it. And, now pay attention, because this part is important, support them when they finally do act.

Because where all hypocrits, we'll stand up and say that it was wrong, and that if we could we'd have stopped it, but once we can stop it, we run away and hide.
So true

I agree. tragedies happen everyday all over the world. but no one cares. but dont you think its important to remember? its said that we forsake so many only to turn around and mourn the loss of another senseless murder. but that is how the world is right now. we are so desensitized, but i think if we can make people remember something, something else will be remembered. interesting question though, and yes, im Jewish and damn proud of it. no anti-semitism here.

Just a preface, no anti-semetism here, either. I have many Jewish friends, and have attended Bat Mitzvahs/passover sayter/other Jewish events. I concider it one of the purest religions out there, and if people could just see through to the true meaning of the Torah, it's truly a beautiful, profound message.

That said, it bothers me the amount of attention given to the Jews in the Holocaust. Many times, the millions of Blacks, disabled people, homosexuals, Children of Rom (Gypsies), children born "unfit," Poles, Slaves, et cetera get overlooked or glossed over. Like someone said, Jews have alot more influence in this country than Gypsies or Poles, so they get alot of attention. (And this is not to say that the Jews run this country, because they get the short end of the stick quite often. Just to head off any cries of "anti-semite!" or "Nazi!")

Wait so you imply the USA sent in the marines, so to speak, on the Holocaust but not the others because of white skin? Well, why did white skin seem to prevent them from doing so only after Pearl Harbor? Why did white skin seem to enable the USA and the West overall to sit around holding their penises while Hitler and Stalin massacred -millions- of people with white skin? Or do Poles, Gypsies, German-Jews, Russians etc not have white skin?

News to you Germany declared War on America first!
Thats why.
Maybe FDR would have been happy to only supply weapons to Churchill after PH but to Slap some Jap was to much fun.

News to you Germany declared War on America first!
Thats why.
Maybe FDR would have been happy to only supply weapons to Churchill after PH but to Slap some Jap was to much fun.

I think you missed the point. He was refuting the claim that the US only orotects white people (in this case, Jews). He/she was stating as you are that we were quite content ignoring the wholesale slaughter of white people until we were attacked. You only upheld his/her point.

*bump*