This blog seems to have been following the news story of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia, and since we're focusing on Holocaust denial in class, I thought I'd post this segment from his talk at Columbia in which he talks about the Holocaust. Similarly to what Elias said a few posts ago, I am not posting this to lend any support to Ahmadinejad's statements, but to look at some of the statements he is making and how they follow or don't follow typical claims made by deniers.
The part that angered me the most, as I stated in an earlier comment, was the statement that the Holocaust has nothing to do with Iran, and the fact that this should change the way they viewed it. Or at least that's my interpretation of the statment, it's not a direct quote. He said something similar in his interview. What were your reactions to that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Sorry about the mistake, I saw that I had written "the fact that this should affect the way they view it" when I meant "the statement that..." In no way do I consider that statement fact, I just use "the fact that" too often in sentences. Just to clarify. Thanks!
Also, in case you're curious, here is the link to the full transcript from his visit here.
I think much of what Ahmadinejad said skirted around the issues and questions he was supposed to be addressing. Although he does not use the logical fallacy approach that other deniers use, he does have a tendency to twist the question and make false analogies, such as comparing the study of the sciences to the study of the Holocaust.
I was confused by the Columbia University President's introduction of Ahmadinejad, however, as he spent much of the time insulting him and illegitimizing everything that he was about to say. If part of the purpose of the visit was to allow a world leader to state his beliefs and to exercise a freedom of speech, I think it was disrespectful of Columbia University's President to start an introduction in such a way (among other things, he called him a "petty and cruel dictator," the full video can be found here). I actually agree with Ahmadinejad's protest against his introduction. Obviously Columbia Unversity's President was not supporting openness because he bashed Ahmadinejad from the start.
Do you think Columbia University's President's introduction was cruel and disrespectful or do you think it was a necessary precdent for the following speech? Do you think that by making these introductory comments, he was defeating the purpose of the visit?
I agree. I found Columbia University's President's introduction quite...inappropriate. While his remarks are credible, and do have plenty of ground to stand on, expressing them there was neither the time nor place to do so. First of all, in order to gain the most out of Ahmadinejad's visit, an unbiased approach from the start would have be nice. Secondly, I thought it was rude and distasteful that he insulted a guest, who could have easily denied the invitation.
Although I disagree with him entirely, we can learn from his words. Such open forums as this are enlightening! And respecting the speaker is rule #1. Although his answers dodged the question sometimes, some of what he said was useful information, which I hope we could hear more of. After such disrespect, I wouldn't blame him if he chose not to participate in an open forum in front of Americans again.
I thought I would put my Letter to the Editor on the blog because it show my reaction to the whole situation. Everyone should feel free to upload their letters too!
Editor- Columbia University’s bold decision to allow Ahmadinejad to speak on its campus really surprised me. While I most definitely oppose many, if not all of Ahmadinejad’s views on the Holocaust, his perspective allowed me to see a different point of view, which I still believe as unfathomable. I am currently a high school senior studying genocide in history and we have recently been learning about deniers of genocide. It is interesting to see a Holocaust denier be accepted to speak in the U.S. because normally I would have thought that nobody would want to hear someone like this speak. Columbia’s choice shows how America is open to many different opinions and will not ostracize any worldviews. However, for the many Americans who might be susceptible to trusting his false viewpoint, it may not have been in America’s best interest to allow someone with such opinions to speak. How have Americans been affected by his incomprehensible beliefs?
AILEEN EVANS
San Francisco
Post a Comment