Ciao!

To not oppose racism is to legitimate it

01.19.2003

Saturday night was crazy. I ran into another fascist apologist. I was at a small party (just making an appearance really) and I overheard the guy next to me explaining how Roosevelt and Hitler were quite similar.

I was intrigued, and asked him to explain how this was so. After all, Hitler was clearly a fascist and Roosevelt was not. Despite this guy's assertions, there's a dramatic difference between Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps and Nazi labor camps (I'm not kidding, this guy tried to claim they were essentially the same).

One problem is that many people use the term "fascist" to describe any political program they disagree w/ rather than in the specific ideological and programmatic meaning of the word. The danger of this is that fascism loses its actual meaning and becomes just one of many acceptable political philosophies.

George Bush isn't a fascist. He's not even much of a conservative. He's a neo-classical liberal (most Democrats are welfare liberals). Whether you agree or disagree w/ Bush's positions, he's clearly not a fascist like Hitler or Mussolini (or even Franco). Just because bad things happen in this country (as in fascist regimes), that doesn't mean our government is fascist. Both democratic and fascist regimes have militaries, put people in prison, design social welfare programs, and pursue other policies we may or may not agree w/. Fascist countries can have some good policies, such as building the autobahn. But there is a pretty clear definition of the ideology fascism that differentiates it from other political ideologies (here is a definition by Roger Griffin, a prominent scholar of fascism and fascist movements).

I won't summarize the entire conversation, but there was quite a bit of skating the issue (he had a really hard time wanting to answer my questions directly). In the end, it was quite clear that this guy was a fascist apologist (if not an outright fascist). He insisted that the Holocaust wasn't quite as bad as popular mythology would have us believe. He also later insisted that there was no proof Hitler had ordered (or even approved of) the extermination of the Jewish people. I was aghast.

He then asked me if I was Jewish. Let me state that this is an irrelevant question. Whether I am or am not Jewish has no bearing on my opinions about fascism, Nazism, or the Holocaust. These things are sheer evil. It is my moral duty, my obligation as a civilized human being to challenge such philosophies. To stand aside and say nothing is to accept them as legitimate opinions in a civilized world.

My opinion of this guy was cemented after he stated: "There's no business like Shoah business." Shoah is the Jewish word for the Holocaust. This guy had essentially made what he thought was a witty and clever racial slur. But it's still a racial slur. I called him a fascist; he called me an asshole.

-----

I could post some links by Holocaust revisionist authors, but I won't. As much as fair discussion should be presented, I have no desire to promote such organizations. You can run a Google search on "holocaust revisionism" and check for yourself (anything from a group called CODOH is a sure bet).

Several of these "think tanks" have links to anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi organizations. A search for "Juergen Graf" (a holocaust revisionist "scholar") yielded the inocuous-sounding CODOH (Committe for Open Debate of the Holocaust) and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) ... as well as National Alliance and Stormfront White Pride World Wide Web. In fact, the National Alliance website has a link on its home page to IHR. In case you didn't know, National Alliance was founded by William Pierce (author of "The Turner Diaries").

Here are some links I think you should read first:

The Anti-Defamation League on Holocaust revisionism.

The Southern Poverty Law Center on Holocaust revisionism.

A great outline of the debate by Nizkor, an anti-revisionist website.

An essay by Gord McFee on the methodological and structural flaws of the Holocaust revisionst argument.

A discussion in the Skeptic's Dictionary of the philosophical problems of the revisionist literature.

Finally, an essay by Mark Aaron Polger (a librarian) assessing the legitimacy of organizations that promote Holocaust revisionism.

Posted by Miguel at 02:02 AM

Comments

Posted by: Lippy at January 19, 2003 06:18 AM

Posted by: bil at January 19, 2003 10:49 AM

Posted by: bay at January 21, 2003 02:25 PM

Posted by: bev c. at January 23, 2003 09:31 AM

Posted by: Andres at January 24, 2003 08:50 AM