Reject conspiracy and Judeophobia
Mark Perkins
Issue date: 3/5/09 Section: Opinion
In his opinions piece, Raymond Spiotta ostensibly defends the free speech of Holocaust deniers, but in so doing he indulges in their pseudo-historical gibberish. His assumption that the opponents of Holocaust denial "have never paused to examine the factual basis for that dogma of theirs" reveals his susceptibility to the propaganda of Judeophobes (a better term than the problematic "anti-Semite"). Historians do debate exactly how many millions of Jews, Catholics and other "undesirables" Hitler's Third Reich annihilated. But Bishop Williamson's crank opinion that there was no Holocaust and that the Third Reich used no gas chambers does not merit serious consideration. He is the ignorant voice of radical Judeophobia shouting against the overwhelming weight of historical and scientific evidence.
Spiotta's apparently harmless defense of free speech serves as an introduction; soon the article gives way to Judeophobia, Zionist conspiracy theories and even an implicit denial of the Holocaust. Yet the milder claims about free speech also reveal a lack of historical understanding - and truth through understanding is what history ultimately pursues. I absolutely agree that, in the abstract, free speech ought to extend to Judeophobia, but Spiotta's castigation of these silly Europeans for their emotional and legal reactions against Holocaust denial ignores the drastic difference between his American perspective and that of contemporary Germans. He argues that Germans should be able to speak of the Holocaust in the same way they speak of Russian gulags, atheism, and the color of the sky. But the German nation was not complicit in the gulags, and one cannot compare atheism or the color of the sky to the extinction of a people group from an entire continent based solely on their race. Germany is less than 70 years removed from that abomination, yet Spiotta has more sympathy for the wild untruths of Holocaust deniers than he does for Germans struggling under the weight of an unimaginable national shame.
Spiotta's apparently harmless defense of free speech serves as an introduction; soon the article gives way to Judeophobia, Zionist conspiracy theories and even an implicit denial of the Holocaust. Yet the milder claims about free speech also reveal a lack of historical understanding - and truth through understanding is what history ultimately pursues. I absolutely agree that, in the abstract, free speech ought to extend to Judeophobia, but Spiotta's castigation of these silly Europeans for their emotional and legal reactions against Holocaust denial ignores the drastic difference between his American perspective and that of contemporary Germans. He argues that Germans should be able to speak of the Holocaust in the same way they speak of Russian gulags, atheism, and the color of the sky. But the German nation was not complicit in the gulags, and one cannot compare atheism or the color of the sky to the extinction of a people group from an entire continent based solely on their race. Germany is less than 70 years removed from that abomination, yet Spiotta has more sympathy for the wild untruths of Holocaust deniers than he does for Germans struggling under the weight of an unimaginable national shame.

Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 8
MARK PERKINS SUCKS
posted 3/05/09 @ 6:31 PM EST
Mark you completely rely on ad hominum attacks in your work.... you attack the person without even looking at any of the evidence. It is a sign of a weak mind and weak arguing skills. (Continued…)
amused
posted 3/06/09 @ 12:07 AM EST
"simply go to google and type in "holocaust denier" and you will see how easy it is to find accurate information about the truth..."
LOL. seriously?
Old man who always attends the CCAs
posted 3/07/09 @ 12:23 PM EST
Mark Perkins FTW!
Raymond Spiotta
posted 3/09/09 @ 11:37 PM EST
Just for the record, when I quoted Mein Kampf at the end, I did not intend to identify the Holocaust story itself as Hitler's kind of big lie.
I meant to suggest that the way governments and media treat that story bears a marked semblance to propogandistic techniques in totalitarian regimes. (Continued…)
Fact Checker
posted 3/10/09 @ 12:12 AM EST
You need to get your facts straight about Bishop Williamson. Bishop Williamson never said there wasn't a holocaust. Rather, he said only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust. (Continued…)
Calvin
posted 3/11/09 @ 6:04 PM EST
Oh sure, he doesn't deny the Holocaust....he just denies 95% of it. Big difference!
Norton
posted 3/13/09 @ 5:11 PM EST
It's one thing to hate Jews, quite another to deny a historical truth (whatever its dimension). The first may, in fact, have some rational bases; the latter must be totally irrational. (Continued…)
Post a Comment