An owl's eye view of forests and trees

Musings on Various Encounters around Holocaust Remembrance Day

With Holocaust Remembrance Day just passed, I again had reason to look at how we have come up with new ways of Holocaust denial that no longer include denying the Holocaust happened. I talked about this subject before. I encountered some newer techniques recently, that intentionally or unintentionally, serve to dilute the historical import of the Holocaust, or even of history itself.  I wandered across some other things too. So, I’ve decided to meander my way through my various thoughts on the tidbits I have seen recently.


I’ll start off with some modern-day reminders that anti-Semitism remains alive and well and end with some dissection of an argument against the history of the Holocaust, or any history for that matter, having value at all.  Sit back but hold on. You are in for a long and winding ride.  Much like I did when I talked about Blade Runner 2049.




As I delve into anti-Semitism and other things for a bit, settle yourself.  I will not be commenting on Israel, the current violence and protests in Gaza, the President’s decision to move the U.S. embassy, or anything of that nature.  The topic at hand is the wrongness of anti-Semitisim and the Holocaust.  Various opinions on the current political maneuvering around Israel do not change that fact.


Also, yes, this blog focusses on the Holocaust. Yes, other genocides have happened. Yes, groups of humans have committed atrocities against other groups of humans prior to and since the Holocaust. No, I’m not saying those genocides don’t matter. Again, settle down. I just happen to be talking about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism here because of things I have encountered recently.


My thanks to friends like Bryan Alexander, Jon Gold, Tom Elliot, Ken Burk, and Ed Chusid in that regard. However, if you dear readers have a problem with anything I say below, don’t blame those folks. I am my own, opinionated person.




I don’t know for sure if anti-Semitism is on the rise. I believe there is a strong possibility it is.


While such sentiments have been publicly discouraged in Western / European based society, including the United States, for some time, it feels like something has shifted recently.  People from those areas appear to feel as if the chains are off at last. They can once again openly express and act upon their anti-Semitic urges.  To say nothing of other areas in the world.


Further, I have come to believe that hate, intolerance, bigotry, and prejudice seem to be on the rise in general, at least in this country and, it seems, in Europe.  An increase in anti-Semitism would be in keeping with all of that.


According to the Anti-Defamation League, which has been tracking such matters for four decades, anti-Semitic incidents increased nearly 60% from 2016 to 2017 in the United States.  This includes a 41% increase in bomb threats.


Map of bomb threats made from January 1 – March 23, 2017. Courtesy of the JCC Association of North America.


I’m sure you recall the bomb threats called in to Jewish community centers last year. You no doubt recall the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries.  Or the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville carrying torches and chanting “Jews will not replace us” in a deliberate echo of Nazi rallies under Hitler.


But do you remember that in April 2014, someone shot up a Jewish Community Center in Kansas, killing three people?  A search of his home turned up a red shirt with a swastika on it, anti-Semitic literature, including Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and lists of local kosher places and synagogues.  By the way, while the shooter clearly hoped to target Jewish people, the three people he killed were all Christian.


A Pew Research report noted an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe in 2015.  In 2018, Pew Research reported that, for many Central or Eastern European countries, 1 out of 10 adults, or more, remain unwilling to accept Jews as their fellow citizens.  For several of those countries, the numbers were 1 out of 5, or more.  10% may seem like a small number, but I have had experience with those odds using 10-sided dice.  That 1 comes up a lot more frequently than you might think.



That begs a question. Why am I unsure anti-Semitism is on the rise?  Not because I doubt the numbers or seriousness of the incidents. Rather it’s because I know that anti-Semitism has never gone away. It’s been there all along in Western European culture, which, as stated, includes the U.S.  So, am I seeing a true increase, or just the old hidden rot finally coming to the surface?


To quote Bryan Alexander, a futurist:


[W]hat keeps you up at night, looking into the future?

The persistence of Christian antisemitism, for one.




I’m not done with our modern-day anti-Semitism.  Let’s delve into another tidbit.


In March of this year, a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives proposed the following measure:


[W]e urge law enforcement to recognize these white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations and to pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner and with the same fervor used to protect the United States from other manifestations of terrorism.


It died in less than a minute in sub-committee.  When asked why the quick death, a member of the sub-committee explained, “We have no expertise on it…How could we determine these groups are terrorists? We don’t know the federal guidelines on terrorism.”


He does have a fair point. Terrorism means one thing to the general public and another to law enforcement. And that detail does matter. It is entirely possible for a hate group to not be a terrorist group under law enforcement’s definition of the term.


But does it mean that the matter should not be debated, questioned, researched, or given a chance to be modified, prior to dismissal?


Now the press played that dismissal up. CNN ran the headline “A resolution denouncing neo-Nazis dies in 36 seconds.”  That’s not what the resolution really was about and not quite why it happened.


All the same, some of us seem to be walking on eggshells of late when it comes to calling out anti-Semitic groups such as the neo-Nazis for their attitudes.




My own hopes on that front in the wake of Charlottesville were thoroughly dashed.  I thought, how hard can it be?


Say you’re Right-leaning or ultra-conservative. After Charlottesville, maybe you felt a lot of folks were lumping you in with those marching with swastikas. Maybe you see no problem with statues of Confederate generals, but you certainly are no neo-Nazi. So, when people are talking about it, how hard could it have been to say, “Hey, I think the statues are cool, but I am not good with neo-Nazis”? How hard should it have been to say, “I sympathize with some historical societies’ concerns, but ramming a car through a crowd of people and killing one is not okay”?


After Charlottesville I waited for certain groups of people to say that. I even went online and asked questions to prompt them to say it.  Remember, the march was organized by the alt-Right but called “Unite the Right.” I went so far as to point out the alt-Right were the folks who first decided to lump the entire Right-leaning populace with them.


What I got was defense. After defense. After defense.  Of the people marching. Of showing up with an arsenal of weaponry and armor for a peaceful demonstration.  Of killing Heather Heyer. What I did not get was a single denial that “I’m not a neo-Nazi.” The closest I got was “not everyone there was a neo-Nazi.” Not a denial, but another defense. I spent two weeks trying to get any of the folks to denounce neo-Nazis or ant-Semitism.


Why should that be so hard for so many in our society?


Protester’s in Charlottesville, Virginia. August, 2017. Photo by Andy Campbell.




All this was on my mind as I encountered stuff around this years’ Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom Hashoah.  The date is based on the Hebrew calendar and commemorates the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Why bring that up?  Because, as I have been reminded recently, context and a deeper understanding of the specifics of the Holocaust matter.


Among various things I saw were news items, memes, and commentary about how this was not the only genocide. That the West overemphasizes it like it’s a huge thing. What about the Trail of Tears? What about deaths and exploitation of untold numbers of Africans at the hands of various colonial powers?  Some mentioned the Armenian genocide.


Again, I totally agree. All these other things matter too.


Maybe it’s my privilege showing. Maybe it’s that I am a product of the West’s culture.  But to me, in this particular context, it ended up sounding like the “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” responses to “Black Lives Matter.”  Correct. Law enforcement lives matter. All lives matter. Which is why black lives also matter. By asserting black lives matter, no one was saying other lives didn’t matter. No one is saying that other genocides or atrocities didn’t happen or lack importance.


Nor is the West trying to ignore the roles it played in many of those genocides and atrocities by talking about the Holocaust. How much more accepting of your culture’s past complicity in such things can you be then to commemorate your culture going so far around the bend as to do it in its own house in horrific numbers?


I don’t want to get into some game of Jews being more victims than Native Americans or sub-Saharan Africans.  Remembering the Holocaust is not about saying anything like that.  It’s not about pretending other victims don’t exist or that other histories should not also be learned, understood and remembered.  No one is in ascendancy over anyone else.




But if you are confused as to why the Holocaust stands out so much for the West, here are some little factoids.




The government that carried out this atrocity was very, very administratively organized. It kept lots of records. It filmed things. And as the Allies found out more and more of what they did, they too made serious attempts to archive what they found.  As a result, we have a detailed historical record the likes of which we sadly do not have for a lot of those other atrocities.


German photo of Jews being led for deportation from the Warsaw Ghetto, 1943.

Again, that is not an excuse to ignore or fail to learn about those other events.  It also does not mean some other atrocities were not as well documented. I am sure we can find very good details of some events from ancient Chinese records.  Or from other cultures that similarly recorded everything in detail. It’s just that with the Holocaust we have some very good records, complete with photographs and film, of the events that unfolded.




Here’s another factoid.  The application of modern, developed world techniques and industrial might to the situation. That application I think tends to fascinate at the same time it horrifies. The image of modern, efficient, assembly-line killing of people as if they were vermin.  It should horrify.


Again, I’m not saying humanity has not done similar before or since.  I am also disagreeing with certain historical analyses I have encountered recently that suggest that it was not efficient and all that jazz. That is was almost accidental, oopsie, this just happened because there was this big war, and the Germans took all this territory, and then suddenly didn’t know what to do with the Jews even though anti-Semitism wasn’t a driver of the Third Reich, really.


Is that what we say was happening when even before the Final Solution, Germans locked up Jews and other undesirable’s or committed them to labor camps, while systematically looting belongings of camp internees, processing them and rendering them into gold or cash deposits? No, I don’t think so. Again, we have records of the “machines” created around the labor and death camps.




And here’s another factoid. The vast number of dead in such a short time.


17 to 20 million European residents died as a result of the Holocaust.


About 6 million, or 2 out of 3, of Europe’s Jews died. Of those that survived, most were permanently displaced from their homes and homelands.


What’s more, the Holocaust does not cover the entirety of anti-Semitic actions during Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent leadership of Germany. It usually is defined as only taking place from 1941 to 1945. Four years. 20 million civilians or prisoners of war killed. That’s not counting the horrific number of casualties from fighting the war in Europe itself.


This is a human tragedy.  It is staggering.


I will be the first to admit that Western nations teach and emphasize a Western view of history.  I will be the first to admit that Western peoples need to be more aware of world history, including the messes they made in it.  But, it is not any wonder that the Western world takes a moment to recognize this particular atrocity, done, as I said before, by normal people, not demons.




Which leads me to another thing I encountered along my way.  Former NBA player Ray Allen explained in an article why he, an African American, made a point to visit Auschwitz and repeatedly visits the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.  In it he touches not only on why people seek to remember the Holocaust, but also why it has import not just to white folks of the West, but to all humanity.




But first, I’ll diverge down a scenic route for a moment.  In my life, I am surrounded by sports enthusiasts and, in particular, baseball lovers. I, however, don’t really do too much deep diving into sports, either as a participant or a fan.  When a Ken Burns’ documentary on baseball came out, I watched so I could better understand the baseball folks in my life. I confess to being enthralled by it. Even though, like all documentaries, I know it leaves things out, cherry-picks events, gets others wrong, and is otherwise imperfect.


During the course of the documentary, it covers the Negro Leagues. In particular, it contains interviews with Buck O’Neil, a player and manager for the Kansas City Monarchs.  He played and was friends with the famous pitcher Satchel Paige, who nicknamed Buck, “Nancy.”  Satchel had his reasons, but I’m not getting into them here.


Buck O’Neil during his playing days.


Mr. O’Neil relayed how, once, when traveling to their next game, Paige drove the two of them, rather than taking the bus. They got to their destination early, before their rooms were ready, and took the time to explore the city. I believe they were in Charleston.


They drove to a historical site, the location of the slave auctions on Drum Island. The two of them stood there in silence for a time, as an abstract of their history was made tangible.


And we stood there, he and I, maybe ten minutes, not saying a word, just thinking.

And after about ten minutes he said, “You know what, Nancy?”

I said, “What, Satchel?”

He said, “Seems like I’ve been here before.”

I said, “Me, too.”

I know that my great grandfather could have been there. My great grandmother could have been auctioned off on that block.


Both men had a moment when past and present, their current struggles and those experiences by their predecessors, all collided and gave them a greater insight on where they came from and who they were at that instant.




Ray Allen


So back to Ray Allen.  He’s a black man in America, who played professional sports.  He certainly can empathize with some of O’Neil’s and Paige’s experiences.


He admits to having a lifelong fascination the Holocaust.  I encourage you to read the entire article linked above. I’m quoting a large part of it below because, rather than paraphrase, I’ll let Mr. Allen tell you in his own words what he gets out of studying the Holocaust. In the process he answers some of the “All Lives Matter” argument above and some of the criticism of visiting historical sites like Auschwitz I’ll be discussing later in this blog.


Then I visited the Holocaust museum in Washington, D.C., for the first time. It was 1998, and I was playing for the Milwaukee Bucks. I was in D.C. meeting our owner, Herb Kohl, over the summer. We had some time free time on my last day in the city, and Mr. Kohl suggested we go to the Holocaust Museum on the National Mall. I’ll never forget how I felt after those two hours in there — I could have spent two days. My immediate feeling was that everyone needs to go there.

There was one room in particular, though, that I think about often. It’s filled with photos of Jews from a town in Poland. The pictures line the walls and extend up toward the sky, where light floods in from a window. Almost 90% of the people in the images were sent to their death. Before they were taken to concentration camps or executed, they would leave their prized possessions behind with friends or family.

The people of these Jewish communities were pushed to the absolute limit of their human instincts. They just wanted to survive. And from that, the tales of brotherhood and camaraderie are so awe-inspiring. It was a reminder of what the human spirit is capable of — both for good and evil.

Honestly … it made me feel sort of irrelevant. Which was a strange thought to have as a young NBA player who was supposed to be on top of the world. I was realizing that there were things outside of my bubble that mattered so much more. I wanted my teammates to feel that as well. So every team I played on after that, whenever we were in D.C. playing the Wizards, I would ask our coach if we had time to go through the museum. Every visit was different, but each guy came out thanking me for taking us there. I could see in their eyes that they had a different perspective on life after that experience.

I thought I knew what the Holocaust was, and what it meant. I went to Poland with a few close friends to learn more. But I wasn’t prepared for how deeply the visit would affect me. I had seen so many documentaries and films on Auschwitz, but nothing really prepares you for being there. The first thing I felt when I walked through those iron gates was … heavy. The air around me felt heavy. I stood on the train tracks where the prisoners of the camp would arrive, and I felt like I could hear the trains coming to a halt. I had to take a breath to center myself. It was so immediate. So overwhelming.

We walked through the barracks and gas chambers and what I remember most is what I heard: nothing. I’ve never experienced silence like that. Apart from footsteps, the complete lack of sound was almost jarring. It’s eerie and sobering. You’re standing in these rooms where so much death has taken place and your mind is trying to come to terms with all that’s happened in this space.

One question keeps repeating over and over and over in your mind: How can human beings do this to one another?

How does somebody process that? You can’t.

This is not history. This is humanity. This is now. This is a living lesson for us as a people.

. . . .

The Holocaust was about how human beings — real, normal people like you and me — treat each other.

. . . .

When I returned home to America, I got some very disheartening messages directed toward me on social media regarding my trip. Some people didn’t like the fact that I was going to Poland to raise awareness for the issues that happened there and not using that time or energy to support people in the black community.

I was told my ancestors would be ashamed of me.

I know there are trolls online and I shouldn’t even pay attention, but that one sort of got to me. Because I understood where they were coming from. I understand that there are plenty of issues in our own country right now, but they were looking at my trip the wrong way. I didn’t go to Poland as a black person, a white person, a Christian person or a Jewish person — I went as a human being.

It’s easy to say “I went to make sure these things don’t happen again.” But I went to learn about the true reality of what happened during the Holocaust, and what we can take from that. The people who believe that I am not spending my time the way the right way … well, they’re missing the entire point. We shouldn’t label people as this thing or that thing. Because by doing so, you create these preconceived notions, which is how we get into these horrible situations in the first place.

We have to do a better job breaking through ignorance and the close-mindedness and the divisions that are plaguing our society in 2017.


That sticks with me. The remembrance of the Holocaust isn’t about color, or religion, or culture, or region. It’s about humanity.  It’s about bridging those gaps, not making them wider.




Then I encountered this meme via my friend Jon Gold, reminding us where intolerance, fear-mongering, and us-vs.-them thinking can lead.



If you know me, you know I am not a fan of memes.  And this one does simplify. But I think the main point is still very well taken. Both Mr. Allen and the meme are what I was getting at in my previous blog on the Holocaust.  That the study of history, including this history, has a value. You can learn from it. You can gain understanding not just of it, but of where we are now. That past and present can collide and give you greater insight.




Then came along one other piece.  Reports about a survey which found that fewer and fewer American adults had an understanding of the Holocaust.


To some extent, that is to be expected.  Let’s face it, despite a huge number of movies, documentaries, books, and articles, the average person on the street probably has less of an understanding of World War II than would have been in play 20, or even 10 years ago.  Our first-hand witnesses are aged or already dead. There are less and less people we know who were directly connected to those events.


Our understanding of events fades with the distance of time, unless we make a study of those events.  We also have less understanding of  World War I, the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and the like. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the average person on the street has less comprehension of the Holocaust than he or she might have had in past decades.


Here’s a link to the study itself. Some of the questions seem a little wonky to me. Like unfair political survey questions, slanting things perhaps certain ways.


I personally would love if people knew what Auschwitz was, but if they are familiar with the concept and not the name, I would still be happy. So, responses to questions in the survey in that regard don’t concern me too much.


Also, the survey does not really define terms. What does it mean by millennials, a term defined differently by almost every person I know? Where do the people surveyed live? Are there regional, cultural, economic, or educational factors in play here?


Honestly, I am not sure what the survey shows other than folks on the street don’t have at their fingertips textbook facts.  That, to me, is not what understanding history is really about.


If I recite dates without understanding what went on, do I understand the history? If I understand the events, but can’t recite the specific dates, don’t I have resources that can help me fill in the gaps?  Just like a dictionary helps me with my spelling.  My need to use it does not make me bad at literary analysis.  Nor does my need to look up the specific date of an event or the name of a city mean I don’t understand the history.


What I took heart from in the survey is that 93% of those surveyed agreed that, “All students should learn about the Holocaust while at school.”  Also 80% believe “It is important to keep teaching about the Holocaust so it doesn’t happen again.”


While the survey at first blush seems alarming, I’m not sure it is.  I am more alarmed by anti-Semitic incidents and sentiments seemingly on the rise. And growing issues with hate, intolerance, and prejudice.




But that survey caused my friend Bryan Alexander to kick off another of his Facebook discussions. They do tend to be fodder for my own blogs. Which lead to some interesting points. Including many I touched upon above.  But it was the points of a few people that really stood out to me. And reminded me again of the inventive ways people are coming up with to disempower the substance of the Holocaust while sounding like they are doing anything but.


I noticed a few people talking about, in particular, Western liberals’ interpretation and presentation of the Holocaust. The positions essentially went along the lines of, “Western liberals tend to universalize, emote, and rewrite the history of the Holocaust. Something, something, gazpacho (to use to the words of Jim Wright of Stonekettle Station).  Totalitarianism.”


Get your jackbooted liberal heel off of history’s throat…Oh wait, that’s just a symbol from the Roman Empire.

No. I did not know what was meant by “universalize, emote, and rewrite.” Not defined but used by two different commenters like we all were supposed to know what the terms meant. I searched online, assuming they were some academic terms or theories I did not know.  No luck.


No. I don’t know how the first part connects with the last. Believe me. I tried very hard to figure it out.  You can substitute “yadda, yadda, yadda” from Seinfeld if you are more comfortable with that instead of gazpacho. It gives about the same illumination.




The best I could figure out was universalizing* meant to apply the lessons of the Holocaust to other human experience, and in particular, to draw some greater lessons about humanity from it. According to the commentary, avoid that because every situation is unique and doing that appropriates instead of understands the dead, and ignores the specific contexts.  There is no universality in experiences.


Emoting* is connected to universalizing.  One commenter talked about the Holocaust being a trigger for liberals wanting to emote about the human condition, again universalizing when there is no universality in experiences.  Also it may have something to do with trying to inspire guilt.


The rewrite* business I have found harder to figure out. Not that I didn’t know what the term meant, but that I didn’t know what specifically had been allegedly rewritten in this instance. The one commenter mentioned liberals creating a narrative to make them feel better about themselves and allow them to assert a moral superiority. However, what he described was not rewriting the history but instead describing people using their showy, demonstrated concern for the history as a sign they stand on moral high ground.  “See how much more pious than you I am!”


(*After I drafted this blog, one of the commenters kindly responded with definitions, and I appear fairly correct in my assessment of the terms above. As for the issue of rewriting, he pointed me to David Cesarani’s The Final Solution.  I have not read it, so I still don’t have details. However, according to some reviews of the book I have seen, I suspect what he considers liberal rewriting is not rewriting at all. I also suspect I would appreciate the book in many places, and, at others, scream at it.  Basically, please don’t tell me I’m rewriting history because you now believe that, while Hitler was anti-Semitic, that was not really a significant part of his platform and did not play into his rise to power or his regime prior to the Final Solution. See Mein Kampf, the reaction thereto, and many other events prior to the Final Solution, that serve as primary sources contradicting that notion. One of the book reviews I read was by one of the commenters I mention here. It’s a great review actually. But the rewrite I found, in both the review and the comments I’m discussing, was the attempt to dilute German responsibility. As I pointed out in my prior blog, the Germans went down the road they did for understandable reasons from their perspective. But that does not take away from the fact they did go down that road. Or that some contemporaries of the time adjudged it evil.)


After considering everything those commenters said, I am pretty sure this blog is full of universalizing, emoting and rewriting, by their standards.  I find I am perfectly fine with that.




The thing was, the statements the commenters made contradicted each other in places.  That’s part of what made connecting dots, even with latter explanations difficult. It seemed that further comments simply included additional contradictions, or assumptions that did not match up to real world observations.


As an example of the contradictions, in the same comment, one person described the holocaust being not thought of as unique and then described how you could not apply the Holocaust to anything beyond itself because of its uniqueness. Another commenter said universalizing, emoting and rewriting played into neo-Nazi beliefs of the uniqueness of the Third Reich and the Holocaust. Remember, universalizing is not taking into account the uniqueness or the context of the history.  Which is it folks? Unique, or not. I’m confused.


The one decried remembrance of the holocaust as totalitarian training and propaganda. The other said it aided neo-Nazis and created a moral danger similar to genocide albeit while lacking the horror.


I was left to conclude that what they were probably really doing was trying to troll liberals.  They did not have to single out liberals if they wanted to point out that some people do propagandize their devotion to the Holocaust for their own political and cultural ends. People from several different political ideologies do this. And it ignored the elephant in the room. The alt-Right, White Supremacist and White Nationalist groups who instead spread anti-Semitism and have growing political power in Europe.


Also, the two posters weren’t consistent in their message, while using consistent terms. That’s a clue that those were buzzwords, without substance behind them. The failure to answer the questions of a responder to their comments further cements the idea their ideas lacked weight.*


(*Although they later responded to me to an extent, I did not find what they had to say illuminating. Rather it contained more contradictory positions. As someone else noted, the fallacies and logical gaps in statements which red-flagged the act of making those mistakes was kind of amusing and frustrating.)




But what they said hit one of my very raw nerves. As I explained in a previous blog, history matters a great deal to me. And I strongly believe it serves a purpose beyond merely being that subject you were forced to study during third period at school.  If we don’t know where we have been, how can we know where we are going? Not just for Western history, but for human history.


I don’t know if those gentlemen understood this, but their statements boiled down to, study history if you want to as a hobby, but don’t touch it beyond that or bad things happen. Totalitarianism. Indoctrination and brainwashing.  Harming our youth.  Don’t take any lessons from it, because each situation is unique. Make no comparisons. No parallels.  Certainly make no conclusions about human beings from it.



This is a variation on, “You can’t learn from history, because each event is specific and will never happen that exact same way again.”


You know what?  It will never rain the exact same way again. The sidewalk will never ice up the exact same way again.  Fires in the fireplace never burn the same way twice. Each time is unique. But we can learn lessons from each one. I learn from my previous experiences how to safely drive in the rain, or avoid slipping on ice, or build a better fire.  Because physics remain consistent. Because life experiences matter.


One commenter said that history is taught and learned devoid of critical thinking.  Actually, it’s one of the best training grounds for critical thinking.


Can I draw parallels throughout human history, i.e., universalize?  You bet.


Look at the science. Human DNA remains what it was 2,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago, through today.  That means DNA has been causing humans to have the same brain structures throughout that time.  As a result, the mechanics of how we tend to think, emote, etc. have not changed either.


X-Ray photo of DNA by Rosalind Franklin that led Watson and Crick to come up with the double-helix model.


Sure, one culture can be triggered by things that may not triggered other cultures.  But fear-mongering happens.  People can be manipulated by fears.  People can learn how to and desire to manipulate people by those fears. And it can lead to consequences. That’s not over-universalizing. That’s acknowledging that regardless of skin color, religion, region, culture, we are still all human beings.  As Mr. Allen said, “This is not history. This is humanity. This is now. This is a living lesson for us as a people.”


Those commenters, in an apparent attempt to prove a political point, ended up once again trying to do the same thing I saw in that Polish ad mentioned in my prior blog.  To stress nothing to see here, big deal out of nothing, move along.


I agree that the lessons from other genocides are important. But that means the lessons from the Holocaust are too.  Plenty to see here. I’m not budging on the idea that lessons can and should be learned from this historical event.





Let me dive into some of the other reasons why I am so chafed by the comments I saw.




One of those reasons was the nonsensical nature of the positions put forward.  Not just the contradictory statements. Not just the failure to connect dots prior to saying liberals use Holocaust history to aid or create totalitarianism.


It was also that their observations never matched up to my personal experiences with liberals who discuss the Holocaust.


One asserted that Western liberals used their portrayal of the Holocaust to create a narrative where they can feel better about themselves.


Let’s be clear here. By Western, the commenter meant white. However, I have found that white liberals tend to be the ones saying they don’t have a right to feel good about themselves when it comes to the past, because the West has been so self-centered in its history and is responsible for so many bad parts of other groups’ history.


That person then tried to link the feel-good-about-yourself narrative to Germans feeling guilty as a culture for the Holocaust and how unfair that was, given the people feeling the guilt had nothing to do with German actions in World War II.


Which is it? Is the narrative to make you feel better about yourself or to make you feel guilty? I know that some Germans do feel guilt. I know it was more prevalent in, for example, the 1960s than it is today. And that among the Germans who feel guilty today are Western liberals.  So, I can’t follow what the person is saying. Both his own statements and my observations contradict his assertions.


Here is another example, this time from the contradictions in the positions stated by that same person.  He noted growing Western recognition that the Holocaust was not the only genocide. He complained of universalizing its history and divorcing it from context. He warned of overemphasizing it.  He complained that Western liberal treatment of history was divorced from critical thought and forced ideology on our children in a totalitarian fashion.  He said that teaching the Holocaust or other genocidal events from history served as using exemplars, thus creating a high risk of  false narratives.   Plus there are too many of them. With me so far?


He also asserted it would be more useful to teach genocide in a generalized way as part of the human condition. Which is completely contradictory to his position against universalizing. He did propose that particular cases could be looked at as exemplars.  Wasn’t that an ill of liberal teachings? Using exemplars? Picking and choosing and rewriting history?  Overemphasizing a genocide over others? Plus, does not the selection of exemplars create a danger of creating false or biased narratives? Isn’t that contrary to critical thought? Isn’t that treading dangerously close to forcing an ideology on children?


See what I mean by it made no sense?




The person also describe remembrance in a way completely foreign to me. If someone asks me to remember something, they are asking me to think on it. If I don’t remember it, they are expecting me to investigate. To make sure I understand it. True in everyday conversation. True when taking about taking a moment of silence or having a remembrance day.


But the commenter asserted that’s not what a remembrance day is about. That instead of understanding something or respecting the dead, it served to appropriate the dead to make political and moral points, while discouraging understanding and investigation.


Again, most people I know don’t do this.  Some politicians do. That whole, “See how pious I am” thing. But most are like Mr. Allen. Touched by a human experience, not divorced from it.




But the person went even further still in rubbing me the wrong way.  He described the idea of having students go on field trips, to what he called cleaned up sites, like the death camp of Auschwitz, as not educational, but rather totalitarian training that serves to brainwash our children into conforming to liberal ideologies.


First off, almost all historical sites are cleaned up. You can’t smell the shit in the outhouse, or the food scraps from the kitchen rotting in the noon day sun, or the blood from the whipping post.  What is someone supposed to have done? Left the ashes in the ovens of Auschwitz?  Perhaps leave the corpses to rot in the open, so that today only bleached bones remain? What about the site is too clean?


Second, when I visit a historical site, whether it is a structure or a geographical locale, it makes real for me what had previously only been an abstract.  Cultural experiences and differences can become more understandable.




Rather than the team logo, in keeping with the other animal photos above, here is an actual springbok. By Charles Jorgensen. 2015.


I remember seeing footage of the South African Springbok rugby team, at the time largely white, in a nation suddenly without apartheid.  Expected to play at the world stage, representing a South Africa with a new face to the world, most of these men had grown up with and played in the old way of racial separation and white supremacy. Tough men, paid and praised for handling the world physically, they did not know what their place was or how they should proceed in this new order of things.


With the weight of their nation on their shoulders, and the eyes of the world beginning to bear down on them, these men made a pilgrimage to see the prison where their new president, Nelson Mandela, had spent so many years of his life. I watched these uncertain men’s faces transform as, what for them had always been abstract, the reality of apartheid and the struggle to end it, become real and tangible. Some wept. All seem changed.


Was that jail cell cleaned up? Absolutely. Did that transformation brainwash those men? No, it opened them to new possibilities.  Did some feel guilt?* Probably. Did it make them feel better or morally superior? Pretty sure that’s a big fat, “No.”  Did it shift them to being more totalitarian? No, it helped them step out of totalitarianism’s shadow.


Now did that little trip serve as propaganda or score some political points? I am sure it did.  But that doesn’t change the impact it had on those men.


(*Being moved to tears or otherwise touched by an event, a place, or a person is, by the way, not guilt. Taking you to places where you may be so moved is not an attempt to make you feel guilty. I think that distinction may have eluded the commenters.)




I admit freely the comments about visiting historical sites really bug me.  I stood in a German World War II submarine and marveled at how the men, Germans mind you, could live in such a metal can and not go mad. And that’s without the sound, steam and heat from the engines.


I stood in cliff dwellings of the Native Americans from the Southwest and got a feel for their engineering cleverness and their ingenuity in tackling the problems of their day.


I appreciate that greater understanding.


Trust me. You can look at pictures. You can even see it on IMAX.  But until you physically go there, stand at the rim, and see it for yourself, you will not truly get the enormity of the Grand Canyon.


I won’t have my experiences, or those of the Springboks, or Ray Allen belittled as brainwashing, antiseptic, or totalitarian training.  Nor the experiences of Buck O’Neil and Satchel Paige having a moment where past and present collided, allowing them to say “Seems like I’ve been here before.”


Some of our most powerful or transformative moments with history come when we stand in the places where it took place and open ourselves to the experience.






That commenter wasn’t done though. He added that the whole Holocaust Remembrance Day was passé. Except he used stronger language, saying it amounted to forcing thought and creating Nazis because people resent being force fed ideology.  If we wish to forget instead of remember, why not?


I will grant him he has a point, in that if people feel forced to think or act a certain way, they may rebel and do the opposite.  I actually suspect that some who feel deeply divided from their fellow Americans in our present day believe they had to take their position because others were forcing their ideals on them. I get told that online by people who resent LGBTQ rights, for example. Or who spout bigoted or racist rhetoric.  Apparently because liberals are trying to force them to give a shit about other people.


Although if you recall, liberals were also supposed to be the one’s creating a feel-better-about-your-morals narrative out of the Holocaust according to the same commenter. So again, I am getting a mixed message about what horrible thing Western liberals are supposed to be doing again. Make us feel better when we shouldn’t? Or forcing us to rebel because they are making us feel guilty for not caring about others enough?


Nevertheless, a few things here.


One, almost no one forces you to remember, or to think in certain ways.  Most of us are free to choose not to, thank you very much. Suggestion and encouragement does not equate to forcing.


Second, I don’t regret for one minute suggesting you give a shit about other people or suggesting that’s a better way to be.  If that makes me a horrible liberal forcing an ideology on you, I can live with that.


Third, I still am going to encourage you to remember our human history. That includes the Holocaust.


You know what else?


If someone of Jewish ancestry wants to urge the West to remember and understand the Holocaust, while he struggles in the present with anti-Semitism, doesn’t he have a point?


If someone of African slave ancestry wants to urge the West to remember and understand its history of enslaving her ancestors, while she struggles in the present with racism, doesn’t she have a point?


The sentiments that gave rise to those events are still with us.  And they probably will never entirely go away. But we should darn well try to be aware of where they have led before and can lead again.




That commenter seemed to have the luxury of not remembering the Holocaust. Good for him, I guess. He also made a big deal out of Western liberals ignoring the details, the human story of the dead. In his stance against remembrance he ignored those human stories too, essentially asserting that it really wasn’t a big deal to anyone any more.


He’s wrong.  I have too many friends who don’t have that same luxury. As one friend, who is younger than me by the way, once put it, “Most of my relatives went up the chimney in Treblinka.”


There are whole swaths of my friends’ families that never got to sit with them at Seder, or chat with them on the phone, or send them birthday cards.  Because they died, and their children and grand-children were never born.


I bet several of you can say the same, either personally or on behalf of your friends.


To reassure you it’s not all the doom and gloom, these three men participated in the Treblinka uprising, and survived the war. Photo now in the Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC.




I have a friend who commented after Trump’s election that it made him look at his co-workers, friends, and neighbors differently. It reminded him that anti-Semitism has always been there. Which of them saw him that way. Which of them looked at him and thought to themselves how he dirtied his nice, gentile wife with his “Jewishness.”


Do you remember when the President called the host of a news show sleepy-eyed.  Did you know that the host was of Jewish ancestry? Did you know the phrase was an anti-Semitic dog whistle?  If you want to wade through the offal of White Supremacist message boards, you can confirm it, although I can’t recommend the experience. And the President of the nation of “All men are created equal” said that before the cameras.


I don’t want that world.


I want us to look at the past, go to those historic sites, and have our eyes opened.  That’s true for the history of the Holocaust, and all the atrocities committed by one group against another.


“I didn’t go to Poland as a black person, a white person, a Christian person or a Jewish person — I went as a human being. … We have to do a better job breaking through ignorance and the close-mindedness and the divisions that are plaguing our society.”


Reject the idea of denying the Holocaust through denial of its significance.  Why did I keep emphasizing neo-Nazis, Mein Kampf, and other connections to the Third Reich in my tales of anti-Semitism above? Because it shows just how much the Holocaust matters, directly to our present day.


But don’t just label it as a Jewish thing or a European thing. I don’t care if I am universalizing.  Open your mind and gain insight from this very human experience.


Ordinary people did some amazingly horrible things to other people.  Ordinary people did some amazingly heroic things to help other people.


Learn from that about who we are, how we got here, and who you want to be.


  1. Bryan Alexander

    What a thoughtful and open meditation.
    Thank you for engaging so carefully and at length.

    • Ann Anderson

      Thank you very much, both for taking the time to read and for the compliment.

      • Bryan Alexander

        You are most welcome.

        I think everyone on that thread agreed with the desire to learn from history. The thing was, which lessons, and how?

        • Ann Anderson

          I am not sure I am convinced of that for all parties. Partly because the one position was so contradictory, and dismissive of modern but not ancient classical history as having usefulness. Partly because he never answered my questions on that front. Partly because he had the confusing idea about how to teach genocide that seemed to want to divorce it more from historical context.

          I also think it was also a question of can it be done “clinically” enough. But one of the problems I saw in some of the discussion was the desire to be clinical failed to recognize that when analyzing and discussing human activity, it’s impossible for things to be so pristine. Human actions are messy and full of “exceptions,” not clinical.

          Another thing that came across to me the lack of awareness of the the fact that for humans, morality and survival are intertwined. I was not surprised, but I think it added to a fundamental issues I had with some of the commentary. I think a lot of people, including historians, are unaware of just how intertwined the two concepts are, because we often talk about the two being completely separate.

          The one commenter was, it seemed, very concerned about removing matters of emotion or morality not only from the analysis of history but from the players in the history. I get that he was concerned about the overlay of our morality on the actions of people acting under their own, and not our, moral code. That is a very legitimate concern. But in the process, he seemed to also want to remove moral questions from the equation entirely. He stressed how human decisions were made for survival more than moral reasons (if not in the comments, then in his review of Final Solution, but I think it was in both).

          I have looked at this issue long and hard, and I don’t think the two are actually separate from each other. Humans are social, because there are greater chances for individual survival in a group. Thus, aiding the good of the group aids the individual’s survival. As a result, humans tend to develop a morality based on the good of the particular society they are in. Stealing is almost universally seen as bad, even if the individual may benefit from stealing something. It’s bad because it harms the functionality of the society. Being nice to people on the street is usually considered good, even though the individual usually gains no benefit and may in fact be inconvenienced by doing so. It’s good because it helps society function more smoothly. We make decisions frequently that do not directly aid or help us, contrary to the supposed survival instinct, because they are moral. However those moral decisions are in fact based on survival. Essentially, people make decisions for survival and moral reasons all the time. The two cannot really be divorced from each other. Although, again, it must be remembered the morals are of the individual’s society, not necessarily our own.

          As a result, I believe it is not only very difficult, but also a mistake, to make the study and application of history conform to the assumption that history’s actors are largely acting from a basic survival instinct divorced from morality.

          I do absolutely agree that the context and perception of the historical actors matter, as the one person stressed. But that the concern for context and perception should not prevent historical analysis from assessing that historical actions ultimately resulting in a more negative or more positive result.

          I am reminded of something I saw on a plane crash investigation. It mentioned that air traffic controllers don’t go to work saying “I’ll make a plane crash today.” In other words, from the air traffic controller’s perspective, he or she is going to try to make the best decisions they can based on what they know. That’s the perspective and context part of the equation. But if a plane does crash, and the fault lies in some part with the controller’s actions, it is fair to assess that the actions did not work, or were faulty, even though the controller could not have known that at the time. In other words, to some degree the assessment of historical actions has to also be able to be separated from the historical actor’s perception and context and put into the greater one of the history that followed.

          Anyway, that is some of what I saw going on in this discussion. An agreement that history should matter? Maybe, but then it was whittled down to a point where history could not really matter, because no assessments could be made that were not in someway going to go too far in the wrong direction. At least, that’s what I saw when I tried to parse through it all.

          • Bryan Alexander

            I agree with you about getting into the minds of people making decisions in the past.

            Honestly, I ultimately couldn’t follow Tim’s reasoning on this thread. There was some Nietzschean argument, and I think a backdrop of British left politics that I couldn’t parse.

          • Ann Anderson

            I honestly couldn’t follow it either. I agree there seemed to be an ideological or political undercurrent to his comments.

  2. Ann Anderson

    The text below is one of my responses to the two commenters, the one whose statements were the most perplexing and concerning to me. The other actually responded to me, and we had cordial conversation. The never really responded to my initial replies, and, as of yet, has not responded to my reply below. I included it in the comments here because it’s a good place for me to store it for future reference, and I think it sums up some problems with the position he was trying to put forth.

    –quoted text–

    Thank you for attempting to clarify your position. While I think I understand what you are trying to say, I admit to having trouble reconciling the apparent contradictions in some of the positions expressed as well as my own experience. For example, in my experience, the study of history, far from being divorced from critical thinking, is one of the best training grounds for learning and applying critical thought.

    As another example, and perhaps the biggest, your main concern seems to be about avoiding generalizations and universalizing historical events and emoting about them, all to make a narrative to serve political aims. And yet that’s seems to be what you have done. You universalize all Western liberals, you generalize what they are doing and their treatment of a historical subject, while using specific terms meant to be inflammatory and emotional triggers, to score points against a particular political ideology. You are obviously free to disagree with liberal ideology or any other ideology you like. I just have difficulty reconciling your stated positions with your exercise of the same techniques you flag as being so flawed.

    Do you have similar concerns about Independence Day in the United States? From my observation, many people celebrate it without knowing what the Declaration of Independence says or understanding the historical context that gave rise to the events. There are groups of people who push on others the idea that if they are not super enthusiastic about armies, and guns, and flags, and fireworks and all things “America” (for whatever that may even mean) they are not only unpatriotic, they are traitorous, and certainly morally unfit. There are those that use their demonstrated “devotion” on that day as propaganda to aggrandize themselves and undercut opponents, largely divorced from the actual context on the events to be commemorated. Certainly, such propagandization serves to dilute any understanding or impact of the underlying historical events. Some assert an almost “religious injunction to ‘remember’ culturally instead of investigate and understand historically in order not to understand and respect the dead but to appropriate the dead in order to make … contemporary political and moral points.”[The quote is taken from the commenter’s statement when making his original point.]

    I personally don’t get myself in a knot about it. I try to encourage understanding of the historical context on Independence Day. I feel that even though a very loud group of folks may try to foist certain behaviors or beliefs upon me, and may verbally abuse me if I do not comply, I still am free to do as I will. So, I don’t see it as some totalitarian training on their part, even as they indoctrinate their children. I don’t even necessarily see them as a “them” but rather just an “us” that may do things differently than I do. I don’t feel like I am forced to commemorate, if I don’t so choose. I don’t find that people from England are asked to feel guilt, despite the propagandizing absent context that goes on. I feel no need to do away with the day or the commemoration. I do feel that even though centuries have passed since the original events, it is important to understand and remember them. I believe that the U.S. is better off remembering and understanding the context of the events, than simply forgetting about them. I also understand and accept that not everyone is going to agree with that approach.

  3. Ed

    An excellent read. For me, one of the things that makes the Holocaust such a particular compelling historical topic to study is that it shows the harnessing of both fanaticism with industrial/modern economic might. Other modern (19th century onward) genocides have similar threads but they don’t quite hit the same combination of extremes that the Holocaust seems to hit. I think the sharpest point is the events from 1944 onward when German military resources were allocated away from the collapsing Eastern front to ensure that concentration camp inmates were shifted further into German held territory so that they could not be liberated. That was sacrificing military defense towards a goal of mass murder. That takes a special level of dedication.

    • Ann Anderson

      Although also, some camps were just shut down, sometimes by slaughtering those in them. Although the killing was usually at that point done by shooting, which again, given the numbers, could be taxing on resources.

  4. Ann Anderson

    Here’s the deal:

    If you claim you are being too pressured by society to not be an ass to others. And if you decide to rebel against that pressure by being an ass to others. Guess what. Your are still an ass.
    And the fact that the reason you chose to be an ass is because society thinks it’s a bad thing to be reflects poorly on you, not society.

    If you think the response to society’s general condemnation of Nazi ideologies is to become a neo-Nazi, it’s not society that’s being totalitarian.

  5. Tom

    Well said Ann. This is probably the best response to those commenters, one of whom tends to get a pass on a regular basis simply, I’m convinced, because he has managed to embrace the art of slathering his hateful trolling with pseudo-intellectual bullshit and treating it like a learned opinion. I have been frustrated many times over the years by that particular individual who gets very little pushback on the substance of his comments while apparently being viewed as a substantial thinker on any number of subjects.

    But he has always been a troll and will likely always be a troll, incapable of acknowledging the input or commentary of anyone who disagrees with him or raises questions.

    There is a skill-set, employed by the likes of folks as diverse as Tony Robbins and Billy Graham, in the business of conning the public wherein truly offensive ideas, statements, and beliefs are buried in layers of language carefully constructed to appear to contain intellectual, philosophical or theological heft when all it is really just cotton candy logic designed to create a particular response and stifle critical thinking on any particular subject.

    I find it beyond sad when people can get a lot of education without really learning anything but language skills. No ability to empathize, no understanding of the nature of human existence, little integrity, and a surprising inability to understand context, either current or historical.

    • Ann Anderson

      Thank you very much. That was a very thoughtful reply. I will confirm that despite the amount of words and vocabulary that person threw around, the cues I got from that thread were consistently the same as those I get from standard trolls. Including being ignored by the troll if I make valid points, while the troll continues to engage with other responders to still give the illusion of having the last word on all of us. He never responded to my raising the core issue with his statements, i.e., he red-flagged alleged behavior that his statement was entirely based upon. That he did not even try to defend himself against that I found interesting and telling.

      I also found it truly frustrating when he started bringing up the idea of critical thinking while presenting self-contradicting statements and trying to deploy the techniques that, as you so aptly described, are meant to divorce the reader from critical thinking and instead accept his position. He tried to say he was a proponent of critical thinking while undermining it.

      I agree that it is very sad that people can show a lot of education, and also demonstrate that they took nothing from it. I strongly believe that, when it comes to history, we get reinforced that empathizing and caring about other people is really a better way for us to go. So I am always dumbfounded when people don’t seem to understand what, to me, is a basic understanding.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

© 2022 Strigiforms

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑