Iran's Holocaust Conference

[Black2006]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6172773.stm

Granted, the whole thing is somewhat bizarre, and many of the participants seem a bit loony, but I have always found it very disturbing, that certain science- or history-related topics (the Holocaust being just one of them,) are taboo in our supposedly free society.

It reminds me of the old joke, where all Soviet citizens were free to say bad things about the President, as long as it was Reagan....

Particularly in discourse about historical events, there should not be overt or implied threat of professional (or, as in certain European countries, civil or criminal,) retribution, for ANY opinion, no matter how unpopular or distasteful.

[Mystery Squid]

"Why is the denial of the Holocaust considered a punishable crime in some Western countries if these countries really defend freedom of expression?",[/b]

They got us on that one...

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 12 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]361096[/snapback]</div>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6172773.stm

Granted, the whole thing is somewhat bizarre, and many of the participants seem a bit loony, but I have always found it very disturbing, that certain science- or history-related topics (the Holocaust being just one of them,) are taboo in our supposedly free society.

It reminds me of the old joke, where all Soviet citizens were free to say bad things about the President, as long as it was Reagan....

Particularly in discourse about historical events, there should not be overt or implied threat of professional (or, as in certain European countries, civil or criminal,) retribution, for ANY opinion, no matter how unpopular or distasteful.
[/b]

You are free to believe or not believe it ever happened. If you do not understand the current situation and ironies involved then that is your problem.

[MegansPrius]

I'd say many of the panelists are more than a bit loony, David Duke not being the least of them. As for the illegality of say denying the holocaust in, say, Germany, well, the reasons seem self-evident. After the holocaust, there were a lot of people with actions to hide. And the sophistication of Nazi propaganda was something to be respected and, therefore, outlawed in its entirety. For a topic one could examine the way WWII atrocities are discussed in both Japan and Germany, the first having no restrictions on speech, the latter having the aforementioned laws. Recently in Japan in about 2000 I believe, there was a great deal of controversy over school textbooks revising the past in a more favorable light.

[Black2006]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 12 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]361111[/snapback]</div>

... If you do not understand the current situation and ironies involved then that is your problem.[/b]

Actually, I believe I do understand "the current situation and ironies involved," including the irony that the Iranians are politically shrewder than many gave them credit for.

But that was not the point of my post. The point was, that there are historical events and scientific subjects which are taboo, and are never openly discussed in what should be "free" countries. Openly discussing these is a career-killer for academics in the US, or perhaps a prison term and civil penalties in parts of Europe.

My argument is that a "free" society should not allow for this to happen, for its "freedom" is not measured by its defence of "popular" opinions, but by its defence of "abhorrent" ones. (If not clear, see the Soviet joke above:-)

The Germany/Japan example may or may not be a valid illustration: they were, and are, very different societies, and they were in very different positions wt the end of the war, which may account for much of the past and current sentiments, and revisionist currents within them.

But either way, it is a little besides the point: The Soviet Union had a considerably more stringent enforcement against "fascist" sympathizers, but few would argue that it was a good thing. (Well, some in the US and Western Europe may argue so, since in the ivory towers of both, it is all-right to be a Lenin or Stalin apologist, even if they managed to kill close to 20 million.)

Moreover, if we should restrict certain "political" speech, who is going to be, as our current President says, the "decider?" Is it, as has often been the case, the "winner" in a particular military conflict, or the majority of the population, or a select group with "special" attributes, such as money, power, status (whether "ruling" or "victim.")?

No, I believe the slope is too slippery.

[Stev0]

Nobody in the U.S. is going to make it illegal to say the Holocaust never happened, so I really don't see why people are getting upset here. Hell, this is the main reason I give generously to the ACLU.

[MegansPrius]

Actually, the current conference seems to have an agenda other than historical accuracy:

"Just as the USSR disappeared, soon the Zionist regime will disappear," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said to the applause of the participants.

[eagle33199]

“History is written by the victors.”
~Winston Churchill

Unfortunately, when it comes to academic environments, the popular opinion is often seen as the only correct one - there really isn't anything a government can do about that. And at least in America, people can say whatever they want about the Holocaust, legally. People might not like it, or boo them off stage, but they can still say it. Thats not the case in other countries, which is sad, but i truly believe that we'll get there one day, and the whole world will benefit from the freedoms we take for granted. That day is probably a long way off, and i may not even live to see it, but it will come.

That being said, I'd find it interesting to know what they use to support their arguments. I can't really see how they can argue that there was no Holocaust - at least the evidence for that has been shoved down my throat my whole life. As for arguing that the numbers were inflated... I could see that. The bigger the numbers, the bigger the impact it has on the average person, which would directly lead to more homegrown support for the war.

Remember, back then there wasn't nearly as much free flow of communication, simply because the infrastructure for it hadn't been invented yet. Imagine if we didn't have the internet today, or cell phones, and even house phones were fairly new. Would Bush have been able to tell us there were WMD's in Iraq, inflate numbers in order to increase support for the war? I could very easily see the politicians of the time orchestrating events to convince the public they were doing the right thing.

[MegansPrius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 12 2006, 06:22 PM) [snapback]361162[/snapback]</div>

That being said, I'd find it interesting to know what they use to support their arguments. I can't really see how they can argue that there was no Holocaust - at least the evidence for that has been shoved down my throat my whole life. As for arguing that the numbers were inflated... I could see that. The bigger the numbers, the bigger the impact it has on the average person, which would directly lead to more homegrown support for the war.
[/b]

I'm not entirely certain, but I don't think the camps were a big motivater for us in WWII (I welcome correction on this). I believe most knowledge of that reached the general public after the war's end or near it. At the time, getting into the war on behalf of the Jews was not a popular or marketable idea.

The purpose of the current conference seems more akin to propaganda and establishing a "international scholarly" pedigree that publishes articles attacking the holocaust as myth, thereby invalidating some of Israel's claim its existence. I think it's mistaken to think this is being put on for the western press at all. I imagine the stories from this conference will receive a largely uncritical response and dissemination in the Arab press.

And for the record, I'm no fan of the way Israel treats the Palestinians. I do find this conference scary all the same.

[Bob Allen]

There was a commentary on the radio here in Seattle, not sure if it was a local program or NPR's All Things Considered....anyway, a Palestinian Arab who studied at the University of California at San Jose, remarked that he had never heard about the holocaust until he came to America. He was astonished at how limited his Arab education had been, especially regarding something like the Holocaust. He understood that the reason he was never taught anything about it was because doing so could be considered legitimizing the State of Israel. He noted also that Israeli kids are taught nothing about Arab history for the same reasons. Neither side can legitimize the other without jeopardizing their own claims to the same piece of real estate. Both Israel and the Arab nations seek to control the future by controlling, denying or ignoring the past.

He asks a most legitimate question: why should modern Palestinians, who had nothing to do with the Holocaust, be penalized by an Israeli occupation because Europe can't or couldn't deal with its colonialism and racism.

Bob