PDA

View Full Version : Whitewashing the Heart of the Holocaust



Odysseus
07-30-2013, 12:15 PM
July 30, 2013Whitewashing the Heart of the HolocaustDoris Wise Montrose

The first Holocaust memorial planned for the grounds of any U.S. state capitol was approved (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/18/holocaust-memorial-wins-approval-to-be-built-on-ohio-statehouse-grounds-despite/) Thursday by the Ohio State Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board. Privately funded, it was designed by artist Daniel Libeskind, the son of Holocaust survivors, and features an account from an Auschwitz survivor embossed on it, and a stone wall with an engraving honoring the death camp liberators: "If you save one life, it is as if you saved the world." It also includes a broken Star of David, and therein lies a controversy.

Board Chairman Richard Finan, who was concerned that the religious symbol blurred the line of separation between church and state, voted against the memorial. He said he would have been fine with "a reasonable memorial, something smaller" on the grounds. "But this is just too much to the Jewish religion," Finan said. Perhaps Mr. Finan needs to be reminded that the Holocaust itself was "too much to the Jewish religion."

The Freedom from Religion Foundation also objected (http://dispatchpolitics.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2013/07/07-17-13-freedom-from-religion.html) to the Star of David, the inclusion of which they argued is a violation of the separation of church and state set out in the U.S. Constitution. There is no Constitutional separation of church and state, but in any case the useful atheists (http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon0725sk.html) at the FFRF suggested that instead of its current design, "the monument could resemble numerous powerful war memorials across the U.S. which do not use any sectarian images, including the national World War II Memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial." But this is not a war memorial; this is a memorial to the victims of a genocidal campaign known as the "Final Solution," which targeted the despised and demonized Jews.

On Friday, Shannon Bream of Fox News interviewed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmaucwvDdHs) David Silverman about his objection to the memorial - or more specifically, to the Star of David. Who is David Silverman? Since 2010 he has been president of the small but strident American Atheists organization. "We are the bad guys," he has said (http://www.religionnews.com/2013/03/29/american-atheists-wrestles-with-its-cherished-grumpy-image/) proudly. "We are the grumpy atheists who say you can't use dead cops as a shield to put up a cross at Ground Zero and the fact that you are religious shouldn't get you out of paying taxes."

Silverman, who calls himself "America's loudest heathen," told Bream that the symbol is "immoral, because it discounts the 40% of [Holocaust victims] who were not Jewish, but it's also illegal, because it's an obvious endorsement of a religion over non-religion, Judaism over everyone else."

Ridiculous. First, a Holocaust memorial is obviously not an endorsement of a religion. It's not about recruiting converts or elevating "Judaism over everyone else." It's about honoring the memory of those slaughtered primarily because they were Jewish, and about keeping us vigilant against another Holocaust.

Second, Silverman's "40%" figure is misleading. Eleven million Holocaust victims, of which six million were Jews, is the commonly accepted number. But that number is based solely on the influential estimate of Simon "Nazi Hunter" Wiesenthal, who, as Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt has noted (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/01/27/six-million-dead-but-eleven-or-is-it-twelve-million-universalizing-lies/), "admitted that he had invented the figure of eleven million victims in order to stimulate interest in the Holocaust among non-Jews. He chose five million [non-Jews] because it was almost, but not quite, as large as six million":


On the one hand, the total number of non-Jewish civilians killed by the Germans in the course of World War II is far higher than five million. On the other hand, the number of non-Jewish civilians killed for racial or ideological reasons does not come close to five million." [Emphasis added]

But Silverman quoted that 40% figure to Bream precisely because it allows him to diminish the Jewish dimension to the Holocaust, distorting and diluting its historical significance.

When Bream countered that the Holocaust was about exterminating Jews, and other groups got "roped into that," Silverman's response was, "It was about eugenics, okay? It was about creating an Aryan race."


"With Jews as the primary target," Bream reiterated.
"Yeah, they were a primary target but not the only target."

The Jews were not a primary target. They were the primary target. As for the non-Jewish victims, the memorial hardly excludes them. Bream quoted a passage from the memorial's inscription:


In remembrance of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, and millions more including prisoners of war, ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, the mentally ill, the disabled, and political dissidents who suffered under Nazi Germany.

Sounds pretty inclusive. But Silverman claimed that people driving by won't see the inscription. All they will see is "this big huge thing with this big Jewish star on it... it's going to look like a temple, it's going to look like a Jewish shrine, it's going to look like a synagogue." And if people driving by see nothing but "this big huge thing" without any symbol on it, they won't have any clue there is a Holocaust memorial there.

"It's important," Silverman stressed revealingly, "that we not give the Holocaust to just the Jews." And there you have it: it's important to Silverman and his ilk that they whitewash the antisemitism at the heart of the Final Solution and argue that the Holocaust was about something else: eugenics or intolerance or bullying or whatever bland, politically correct, universal terminology is fashionable these days to describe people not being nice to each other.

The Holocaust was not about some Germans being rude. It was about the systematic elimination of every Jewish man, woman, and child from the face of the earth. And if we let people like David Silverman obscure that ugly reality, then Holocaust memorials will become little more than memorials to our own historical ignorance and moral failure.

Doris Wise Montrose, a child of Holocaust survivors, is the founder and president of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors (CJHS) - a Los Angeles-based organization dedicated to educating the public about the importance of American exceptionalism, of Israeli security, and of the U.S.-Israel relationship.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/whitewashing_the_heart_of_the_holocaust.html#ixzz2 aXg7FBvG
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

djones520
07-30-2013, 12:24 PM
I can't stand people like him.

Novaheart
07-30-2013, 12:32 PM
I don't think it's appropriate. If you want to build a memorial to the Americans who liberated concentration camps or defeated Germany, then that would have some universal relevance to Ohio. The Holocaust itself took place in Europe and I simply don't see the purpose of a public property Holocaust memorial in Ohio.

If there is a Holocaust memorial in Ohio, should there also be one for Armenians? Rwandans? Hutsis or Pygmies? Just because there are Jews living in the US doesn't make the Holocaust US History anymore than Khan's wrath on Persia, or Persia's on Greece.

Elspeth
07-30-2013, 12:52 PM
I don't think it's appropriate. If you want to build a memorial to the Americans who liberated concentration camps or defeated Germany, then that would have some universal relevance to Ohio. The Holocaust itself took place in Europe and I simply don't see the purpose of a public property Holocaust memorial in Ohio.

If there is a Holocaust memorial in Ohio, should there also be one for Armenians? Rwandans? Hutsis or Pygmies? Just because there are Jews living in the US doesn't make the Holocaust US History anymore than Khan's wrath on Persia, or Persia's on Greece.

Actually, the Armenians have a number of memorials in the US: Philadelphia, San Francisco, Providence RI, and an Armenian Genocide museum in Washington DC. One of the larger memorials is out here in SoCal in Montebello. (http://armenianmonument.org/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Armenian_Genocide_memorials

Novaheart
07-30-2013, 01:06 PM
Actually, the Armenians have a number of memorials in the US: Philadelphia, San Francisco, Providence RI, and an Armenian Genocide museum in Washington DC. One of the larger memorials is out here in SoCal in Montebello. (http://armenianmonument.org/)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Armenian_Genocide_memorials

Bad precedent.

Sorry, I don't get doom memorials. I am an imperialist, our statues should be to great Americans, their ancestors, and victories. That's why I despise the Lincoln Memorial.

djones520
07-30-2013, 01:08 PM
Bad precedent.

Sorry, I don't get doom memorials. I am an imperialist, our statues should be to great Americans, their ancestors, and victories. That's why I despise the Lincoln Memorial.

Emancipation wasn't a great victory?

Odysseus
07-30-2013, 01:36 PM
I don't think it's appropriate. If you want to build a memorial to the Americans who liberated concentration camps or defeated Germany, then that would have some universal relevance to Ohio. The Holocaust itself took place in Europe and I simply don't see the purpose of a public property Holocaust memorial in Ohio.

If there is a Holocaust memorial in Ohio, should there also be one for Armenians? Rwandans? Hutsis or Pygmies? Just because there are Jews living in the US doesn't make the Holocaust US History anymore than Khan's wrath on Persia, or Persia's on Greece.

Actually, the Holocaust is part of US history, due to our failure to respond to it. It's not one of our proudest moments, but Roosevelt knew what was going on and refused to permit Jewish immigration or to bomb the train lines that led to the camps.


Bad precedent.

Sorry, I don't get doom memorials. I am an imperialist, our statues should be to great Americans, their ancestors, and victories. That's why I despise the Lincoln Memorial.

You wouldn't happen to have been there with a can of green paint, recently, would you?

Novaheart
07-30-2013, 01:41 PM
Emancipation wasn't a great victory?

It was inevitable, the destruction of the US Constitution was too high a price to expedite it.

djones520
07-30-2013, 01:44 PM
It was inevitable, the destruction of the US Constitution was too high a price to expedite it.

I'm sure the folks who didn't spend an extra 10-20 years as slaves because of it might disagree. And the US Constitution was hardly "destroyed". There has been much greater damage done to it over the last century.

noonwitch
07-30-2013, 02:50 PM
I don't think it's appropriate. If you want to build a memorial to the Americans who liberated concentration camps or defeated Germany, then that would have some universal relevance to Ohio. The Holocaust itself took place in Europe and I simply don't see the purpose of a public property Holocaust memorial in Ohio.

If there is a Holocaust memorial in Ohio, should there also be one for Armenians? Rwandans? Hutsis or Pygmies? Just because there are Jews living in the US doesn't make the Holocaust US History anymore than Khan's wrath on Persia, or Persia's on Greece.

There is a Holocaust museum in Bloomfield Hills, MI. A lot of survivors have lived in that area, some still do.

I think the reason for memorials like that is more about reminding people that this happened, and it happened with the knowledge and silent consent of the majority of the German people. Also, to remind people so that it doesn't happen again, at least not here.

I'm open to a Rwanda memorial. HBO did a miniseries called Sometimes In April that was heart-stopping and terrifying. The Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of hatred toward Jews in Europe. The Rwanda massacre, although based on tribal issues that went back a while, exploded into a fury of mindless bloodshed almost overnight.


PS: Pretty much every American city has a memorial of some sort to WWII soldiers. I would have to go to Belle Isle to see , but I think Detroit might have more than one.

DumbAss Tanker
07-30-2013, 04:15 PM
Actually, the Holocaust is part of US history, due to our failure to respond to it. It's not one of our proudest moments, but Roosevelt knew what was going on and refused to permit Jewish immigration or to bomb the train lines that led to the camps.


You could say the same thing for the Rape of Nanking or the Kulak Suppression. I see what Nova's saying and feel sort of the same way...Ohio has as much connection to the Holocaust as is does to the Fall of Constantinople, extermination of the Canaanites, the Armenian Genocide, Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing, or the Zulu Wars. Of course it's their state and their money, so not living there I'm not going to get exercised about it one way or the other.

marv
07-30-2013, 04:31 PM
I am an imperialist, our statues should be to great Americans, their ancestors, and victories. That's why I despise the Lincoln Memorial.I'm not sure what you really know about imperialism.

But no more memorials? I suppose that we should also do away with grave markers, too. And while we're at it, let's eliminate Memorial Day and Armistice Day as well.

Odysseus
07-31-2013, 09:18 AM
It was inevitable, the destruction of the US Constitution was too high a price to expedite it.
It only appears inevitable in hindsight. The schisms between north and south were not just about slavery, but also included economic and demographic issues which also tended to create major conflicts (the rise in northern population relative to southern meant that northern industrial interests were almost always given more weight than southern agrarian interest in the House of Representatives, especially where issues like tariffs were concerned). Slavery was just one issue, albeit the most emotional and divisive issue, and there was no assurance that slavery would wither away without massive upheaval. The southern economy was less dependent upon slave labor than it had been at the founding, but the aristocracy of the south would not have given up its privileges without a fight, and the Civil War demonstrated how badly they were willing to fight.

Exactly how was the Constitution "destroyed"?

Odysseus
07-31-2013, 11:04 AM
You could say the same thing for the Rape of Nanking or the Kulak Suppression. I see what Nova's saying and feel sort of the same way...Ohio has as much connection to the Holocaust as is does to the Fall of Constantinople, extermination of the Canaanites, the Armenian Genocide, Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing, or the Zulu Wars. Of course it's their state and their money, so not living there I'm not going to get exercised about it one way or the other.

Not really. There was a concerted effort in the US State Department to deny sanctuary to Jews fleeing the Holocaust, and the diversion of a couple of bombing missions would have saved thousands of lives, but Roosevelt refused. There was nothing that we could have done about any of they other examples that you cited, except the various Serbian/Croat/Bosnian conflicts, in which we did intervene, and for which we ought to have some plaques put up. It doesn't make us culpable to the same degree as the European nations that collaborated to turn over Jews (the French who collaborated should have been marched through the death camps the way that the Germans were), but the lesson for America is that when we don't lead the way, nobody will.

NJCardFan
07-31-2013, 12:13 PM
There has been much greater damage done to it over the last century.

There's been much greater damage to it over the past 4 years.

Novaheart
07-31-2013, 01:00 PM
It only appears inevitable in hindsight. The schisms between north and south were not just about slavery, but also included economic and demographic issues which also tended to create major conflicts (the rise in northern population relative to southern meant that northern industrial interests were almost always given more weight than southern agrarian interest in the House of Representatives, especially where issues like tariffs were concerned). Slavery was just one issue, albeit the most emotional and divisive issue, and there was no assurance that slavery would wither away without massive upheaval. The southern economy was less dependent upon slave labor than it had been at the founding, but the aristocracy of the south would not have given up its privileges without a fight, and the Civil War demonstrated how badly they were willing to fight.

Exactly how was the Constitution "destroyed"?

I don't care to discuss it. It's pointless and it just irritates me.

marv
07-31-2013, 02:46 PM
I don't care to discuss it. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/waving-white-flag.gif It's pointless and it just irritates me.

There! Fixed it.

Odysseus
07-31-2013, 06:13 PM
I don't care to discuss it. It's pointless and it just irritates me.

Many discussions with you are pointless and irritating, but if we take the time, you ought to as well.