Since the Iranian president has been in the news, I thought it would be interesting to try and unpack his thoughts on the Holocaust and his reasoning for denying that it ever happened. I post this video to stimulate questions, not to give Mr. Ahmadinejad a platform to discuss his ideas. I am quite against his denial of what I believe is one of the most atrocious, horrific events in history and there is enough evidence to prove that it happened. But after watching this video I was struck at some of the points he makes and am interested in responses from others in both sections of the class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ahmadinejad expresses doubt that the Holocaust ever happened becuase he sees it as one aspect of World War II. He claims that 60 million people were killed during WWII and that the Jews were just like any other population. Why is this select group important? What he doesn't realize is that this group of people was targeted and there was a mass slaughtering; it wasn't like any other part of the war. While civilians were being killed elsewhere, the Jews were specifically targeted by the Nazis whose goal was to wipe out a people who shared a common religion. One question that I have is: does Ahmadinejad really, truthfully believe that the Holocaust never happened or are his reasons there just as potential excuses? Does he gain anything from denying the Holocaust?
It seemed Like Ahmadinejad was denying that it could/should be characterized as "genocide" rather than that it ever happened... He didn't really deny it, he just denied its significance. Is that the same thing? Or is one worse than the other? is knowing that it happened and considering it less important worse or better than believing it never happened at all?
I knew that Ahmadinejad was going to deny the Holocaust, but the part I found the most shocking was the question he asked (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Let's say the Holocaust did happen. That has nothing to do with the Palestinian people." Ahmadinejad seems to think that a genocide exists in some sort of bubble that doesn't affect anyone outside of the targeted populace.
Another particularly contestable point is his statement that if we are still trying to figure out what happened thousands of years ago, we should still be allowed time to contest what happened more recently. First of all, this is faulty logic. It implies that if one contemplates events for more time after they occurred, they will be better analyzed than events that have just happened. This is not the case. It also fails to take technology such as photography and typewriters used to create photographs and documents into account.
In response to Aileen's question, I don't think there will be any way for us to know, because none of us can comprehend seeing evidence of an event and still not believing that it happened. Maybe he has said and thought and written it so many times for political reasons that he is beginning to convince himself, I don't know the specific psychological details of how that could happen. Also if you think about Roxanne's talk today, do you remember the story about the man, how she wasn't sure if she knew about the genocide but he finally acknowledged it, although he didn't want to talk about it? This was a very kind man who was willing ot help her out, but he was unwilling to discuss the genocide because that was not what he was taught happened. Maybe it's a similar idea in this case.
It's BJ by the way...
In response to Katie's comment and Ahmadinejad's second question concerning the questioning of history, I think he makes a valid point. Everyone has the right to question history. We use evidence to evalute a certain event or period in the past and then make a hypothesis or judgment on that situation. That is what history is and that is what all of us as students, are learning to do. Thus we must always be questioning history, questioning what we think is fact and fiction and continue to boil down the situation. To relate this to a past class discussion on certainty, we as individuals can never be certain of anything. We cannot trust fact and we cannot trust fiction. In truth, we believe people, documents, pictures, cause we assume them to be certain, but like in any other life situation, there is always error. Thus, although the evidence is overwhelming and most people, including myself, believe 100% in the holocaust, we cannot attack Ahmadinejad for is questioning of the past, even though it is such a sensative subject. Because in fact, we don't know he's wrong.
However, we can criticize his motifs behind the questioning and whether he is motivated by acadameia or perhaps religion and politics. that's for you to decide.
What's funny is that he was just speaking at Columbia University yesterday, I think. A student asked him why homosexuals were punished and denied rights, and he responded by saying that there are no homosexuals in Iran. I think his problem may be overzealous religious ignorance, which also could be the reason why he doesn't accept the holocaust as fact. He even began his forum at Columbia with quotes from the Koran. Maybe that's Iranian custom, I'm not sure.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071008/vora
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html
This interview, as uncomfortable and stiff as it was, gave really candid insight into how and why Ahmadinejad feels the way he does. As he was asking why the Palestinians had to be the ones experiencing the effects of the Holocaust, it made me wonder: How (if at all) do you think Ahmadinejad would feel if the situation were better for the Palenstinian people? Do you think he would feel as strongly about questioning the Holocaust?
I disagree with what BJ is saying that you can question a fact. Yes, I think everyone can question history, but not to this extreme. People can question history when assumptions (supported by evidence) are made, but it's hard to question a fact. The Holocaust is not as tangible to our generation, but what would you say to someone who said that 9/11 never occurred? How does this person have any validity when WE ALL WITNESSED IT OURSELVES?
In response to Danielle, I think that he wouldn't be questioning the Holocaust as much if the situation for the Palestinians was better. Of course he is going to be thinking of what's happening in the present and how a belief in something like the Holocaust can affect a viewpoint on current issue.
I agree with that Aileen, but the thing is you, me nor anyone can 100% say something did or didn't happen. There are peeple who denounce 9/11 and as stupid as that sounds, they're will always be some kind of evidence to prove them right. Thus we can't be certain, no matter how unlikely
Just in response to what Aileen and BJ were saying, there are still living witnesses of the Holocaust as well that can testify their experiences and what really happened, to them at least. If BJ, you say that you can never be 100 percent sure about anything, is everything that anyone says or does "untruthful" or uncertain to an outsider? where is the line drawn, what percentage, for what is considered fact, truth and false?
Post a Comment