|
Edited on Sat Jun-18-05 12:44 PM by Behind the Aegis
3000 posts!!! So, I figured it should be a biggie!
Thursday night, on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart said it would be best if people, both sides, stop comparing people to Hitler. He also went on to say how using the terms “Nazi” and “Holocaust” detract from the meanings of the word. Now he is being called a “shill,” a “sellout,” and a few other things. He has been chastised for not being aggressive enough with his guests and now, wants to limit free speech. So, to some of you out there, GET A GRIP! He is, first and foremost, a comedian! He is NOT a pundit! If he gets a show like “Al Franken” and continues to ask “softball” questions, then, by all means, rip him to shreds. Jon Stewart delivers news in a comedic fashion, he rips on both sides, but mainly rips on the Republicans. The sad thing; he delivers better news than most of the mainstream outlets. So, if you feel he has “sold us out,” please do as we ask the right-wing when they are offended by educational shows or shows where minorities are portrayed in a positive light, turn OFF the damn TV.
I hear Jerry Springer got into the act and basically said the same thing. I can’t really comment on it, because I did not hear it. However, I feel that Jon is right! We need to think about the appropriateness of using terms like “Hitler,” Nazi,” and “Holocaust.” When those terms are used, sometimes the message is obscured because the focus is turned on to the aforementioned words. Then, the argument becomes about those words and what they mean or don’t mean, and the message is lost.
Is Bush like Hitler? I have seen some make a case for it, but it always falls short. I assert that NO ONE is Hitler other than Hitler. He is in a “class” all by himself! Yes, like Hitler, Bush has invaded a sovereign nation. Like Hitler, Bush has manipulated the media and national patriotism. Like Hitler, Bush is despised worldwide. Although a few more examples exist, Hitler was responsible for one of the most horrific genocides to ever take place in the history of humans. Therefore, Hitler stands alone. Bush may “aspire” to Hitler’s power, but he is not systematically destroying an entire group of people, in order to wipe them from the face of the planet. Even Stalin and Pol-Pot and their horrific regimes didn’t reach the level of evil that Hitler achieved. Does this mean the acts carried out by Bush, Stalin and Pol-Pot are any less evil or dastardly? OH HELL NO! But, why not compare Bush to Caesar? Napoleon? Genghis Khan? They are all examples of bat-shit crazy despots. Do you use Hitler for shock value or is there an actual comparison? When someone says “Hitler,” do you think of the struggling/failed artist? Do you think “the weasly, little nobody who could barely muster support, at first?” I bet you think “crazed madman, who sent 12 million hapless souls to their deaths!” So even if there are comparisons between Bush (or any leader) to Hitler, the only impression that people think when they hear that name is “crazed madman, who sent millions to their deaths.”
What about “nazi?” Fair game? Well, in some sense, yes. Nazis are a type of fascist. There are a few other examples. But, why use “nazi” instead of “fascist?” Could it be for shock value? I think it is. Because, like Hitler, Nazi, invokes a very particular image…the Holocaust. So the next time you see “fascist” behavior, call it out by calling it “fascist!” Nazi-like behavior is all over the world, but it is simply fascism.
The final word, Holocaust, is a bone-chilling word. However, I have seen quite a few uneducated remarks about this event. I feel some people really do not know what the Holocaust is. Some think it is “just another genocide.” It wasn’t! But, because the Holocaust was not “just another genocide,” does this mean it is any more or less important than other genocides? That is a highly debatable question. All genocides are horrific, senseless, and blights on our collective humanity!
At Passover (Pesach), Jews, during the sedar, ask: why is this meal different from all others? The answers are given in a straight-forward manner. So, I will attempt to do the same here. Why is the Holocaust different from all other genocides? It is the only genocide, to my knowledge, that “earned” a name. It is the only genocide where camps were built specifically for mass execution. It is the only genocide where half of the WORLD’S population of a specific group was destroyed. It is the only genocide used to ‘name’ other genocides (e.g. The Dafur Holocaust, the Native American Holocaust). The Holocaust, like Hitler, stands in a “class” all by itself. Despite some accusations, the Jews do not use the Holocaust as a way to “cherish their victimhood” (Yes, that was typed here on DU). The sensitivity to using the Holocaust as a term is because what it means to the Jewish people. I am not saying don’t use it, but realize that if you do, it does take much to prove another genocide is comparable to the Holocaust, not in numbers, but in rationale and intent.
This is the US; we still have free speech, who knows for how long. So by all means, use whatever words you desire, but if you use “Hitler,” “Nazi,” and “Holocaust,” be prepared to defend why you used those terms and not your actual message.
on edit: misspelled one on the "bat-shit crazy despots."
|