Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

BBC: Should we lay Holocaust to rest? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Well it's the last big genocide, if you exclude what Stalin and Mao did, but Russia and China aren't saying anything so we just have this as the worst example of human killings.
    What about the Congo...?

    That was bigger and 20-30 years more recent.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Never forget
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    What about the Congo...?

    That was bigger and 20-30 years more recent.
    Was the Congo more than 6 million?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Was the Congo more than 6 million?
    Yes, but it was way earlier than I thought, it was over 100 years ago!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll

    Cambodia was the last 1m+ genocide.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yes, but it was way earlier than I thought, it was over 100 years ago!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll

    Cambodia was the last 1m+ genocide.
    Oh dear. That's pretty horrible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yes, but it was way earlier than I thought, it was over 100 years ago!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_death_toll

    Cambodia was the last 1m+ genocide.
    Upper estimates of Rwanda go slightly over a million, but the most oft-given figure is 800,000. Still, the more shocking aspect of that is that it was so quick - all happened in just three months.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Looking at the Holcaust from a longer perspective than most of you it does appear to engender more coverage than it did in say the 1970s and 1980s.

    Part may be that as the years have gone by WW2 has featured more frequently within the school history syllabus, also I expect the opening up of the means of imparting news/information, internet and social media, and the increasing number of TV channels will have had something to do with its reporting/ commentary frequency. In addition as the generation who fought in WW2 have started to pass away there has been more poignant coverage of 60th and then 70th anniversaries of WW2 events. (Last chance whilst still alive etc)

    The demise of the old USSR and the records that thereafter became available also appears to have resulted in western historians revisiting WW2, not of course all re the Holocaust, but more as a part of the expansion of books an academic study re WW2.

    My wife has always taken an interest in the Holocaust ( A History & Politics graduate) and I did notice in the late 1990s and early 2000s there were more new books available than possibly had been the case before.

    There is possibly a fair bit of truth in the idea that recent events cannot be studied as history and a gap is needed between events and their study, in the mide/late1970s for my history Higher the syllabus really ended in the late 1920s.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The most striking comparison to be made is between the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. Comments that would be considered utterly horrific if used to refer to the Holocaust (and to an extent, many other genocides like Armenia as well) are considered perfectly fair game with regard to Rwanda.
    Not sure if you already got this question, but what kinds of comments in particular?

    The two genocides are comparable in some ways, others not so much. E.g. the holocaust occurred in one of the world's great powers rather than a third world backwater, so it has more significance with respect to its impact on the world.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So there should be more genocide airtime overall?

    For what purpose?

    Should the Congolese genocide get 50% more airtime as it had 50% more deaths?

    I barely know anything about the Red Terror, do I really need to know?

    Likewise Holodomor

    Cambodia is interesting I guess and the Rwandian genocide.
    Teaching people about the Holocaust is a way of immunising them against becoming Nazis in the future.

    We don't hear much about the Red Terror, Holodomor, or Cambodia (or the many Chinese communist democides) because communism is very much still a respectable ideology among those who set the school syllabus. Similarly third world genocides are awkward because they tend to set the colonial governments in a better light than what followed.

    All of this is political; similarly the desire to forget the Holocaust has more to do with the current wars in the Levant than with WWII.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Teaching people about the Holocaust is a way of immunising them against becoming Nazis in the future.

    We don't hear much about the Red Terror, Holodomor, or Cambodia (or the many Chinese communist democides) because communism is very much still a respectable ideology among those who set the school syllabus. Similarly third world genocides are awkward because they tend to set the colonial governments in a better light than what followed.

    All of this is political; similarly the desire to forget the Holocaust has more to do with the current wars in the Levant than with WWII.
    Who sets the school syllabus?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Unbelievable how many lives were lost for the sake of a couple of psychopathic ****wits.

    The Holocaust, and ALL genocides, should ALWAYS be remembered. We should never become desensitized to this.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Who sets the school syllabus?
    Officially, the government. But primarily it is set by education academics and, ultimately, by the academic establishment as a whole.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Not sure if you already got this question, but what kinds of comments in particular?
    There were some commentators propounding the idea that the Rwandan genocide was in some sense an 'inevitable' result of population growth or resource competition, or that the result of two supposedly incompatible peoples living together (in fact the Hutu-Tutsi distinction was largely a Belgian colonial invention), or that it was some sort of spontaneous, base, tribal savagery (when in fact it had been considerably planned out and organised). I could go on, but they're the main ones I can recall right now.

    The two genocides are comparable in some ways, others not so much. E.g. the holocaust occurred in one of the world's great powers rather than a third world backwater, so it has more significance with respect to its impact on the world.
    Why does that make it more significant? Indeed, this is kind of my point. Despite the fact that the worst genocide in history was committed not in a 'backward' country but in the heart of industrial, bureaucratic and scientific advancement (and indeed, was largely perpetrated using those developments), people are still ready to claim that genocide in other cases is simply the result of 'natural' or 'inevitable' factors.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There were some commentators propounding the idea that the Rwandan genocide was in some sense an 'inevitable' result of population growth or resource competition, or that the result of two supposedly incompatible peoples living together (in fact the Hutu-Tutsi distinction was largely a Belgian colonial invention), or that it was some sort of spontaneous, base, tribal savagery (when in fact it had been considerably planned out and organised). I could go on, but they're the main ones I can recall right now.
    Well the world certainly did seem to regard it as inevitable at the time. Kofi Annan didn't do anything about it. Bill Clinton didn't do anything about it. The world just watched...

    I agree though; to regard such a thing as inevitable is to regard Hutus as naturally depraved people.

    Why does that make it more significant? Indeed, this is kind of my point. Despite the fact that the worst genocide in history was committed not in a 'backward' country but in the heart of industrial, bureaucratic and scientific advancement (and indeed, was largely perpetrated using those developments), people are still ready to claim that genocide in other cases is simply the result of 'natural' or 'inevitable' factors.
    You're getting two ideas muddled up. If something bad happens in a third world backwater it is less significant than if it happens in the heart of modern civilisation. This isn't saying anything about the inevitability of either atrocity. The fact is, Germany prior to 1933 was one of the most forward-looking, innovative and hopeful places on the planet, so when it descended into abject barbarism and genocide it came as much more of a shock to the world than when some cess pit in sub-Saharan Africa engaged in the same behaviour. It is the same reason the Charlie Hebdo shootings were headline news, while day-to-day atrocities committed by, say, Boko Haram are underreported. France and Germany have (or had) a lot more to lose than Nigeria or Rwanda.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.