In chapter 17, David Stannard explains genocide in terms of politics and how scholars study and view different genocides. Stannard points out that several politicians in the U.S. boycotted the Smithsonian museum after they wanted to do an exhibition on the removal of the Native Americans. What stuck out for me was Christopher Hitchens who advocated for the removal and killing of the Native Americans and used social Darwinism to explain the African slave trade. Stannard also talks about Holocaust scholars and how many of them interpret the Holocaust and how they somewhat categorized it. He mentions Deborah Lipstadt and her views on Holocaust deniers. Her strong views on Holocaust deniers Stannard writes is her way and her way only. He writes about the debates between historians about genocides of the Armenians, Native Americans, and Gypsies and how Holocaust scholars view these genocides in comparison with the Jewish Holocaust. Stannard points out the number of Jews who died of disease during the Holocaust and he also points out the death of the Native people who also died from diseases. He says that many scholars points out that these disease deaths should not be called "genocidal". These scholars argue about if Jews and Native Americans were not exposed to these horrible conditions, they would not have died. At the end, Stannard makes the point that the Holocaust was unique as was the Armenian, Bosnian, and Cambodian genocide. Although, he did say that his main argument on why the Holocaust was unique was that the Nazis set out to destroy every Jew that they could find. Genocides are horrible and sometimes to compare them might seem vulgar and not right. But we have to look at past events and see the similarities and differences and ultimately pray that genocides come to an end.
Do Holocaust scholars have the right to dismiss other genocides?
Should historians even compare genocides to each other?
No comments:
Post a Comment