Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An exhibition in Iran will mock the Holocaust [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)96. no. you peddled David Irving-lite garbage in this thread.
As someone who spent a lot of time in university history departments, I can tell you that no historian would challenge the current story of the Holocaust even if they disagreed with it and had facts to prove it (and there are facts to argue different points than the mainstream story), because they'd be out of work very quickly. It is a sacred cow in the West, and politics plays a big role in teaching and writing history. (And yes, I agree that the current story on the Holocaust is the right one, but I don't know of any other subject in history where even a discussion of alternatives would be so forbidden).
This is exactly the language of the denial-lite crowd.
1) Referring to the FACT of the Holocaust as "the current story." It is not a "current story" it is a documented fact. It will always be an unassailable fact.
2) This bit of revisionist garbage: "no historian would challenge the current story of the Holocaust even if they disagreed with it and had facts to prove it (and there are facts to argue different points than the mainstream story), because they'd be out of work very quickly. It is a sacred cow in the West and plays a big role in the teaching and writing history." could have been written by David Irving and is beneath contempt.
a) "No historian would challenge the current story even if they disagreed with it and had the facts to prove it"--the reason historians don't challenge the FACT of the Holocaust is because THERE ARE NO FACTS SUPPORTING SUCH A CHALLENGE.
b) "there are facts to argue different points than the mainstream story"--classic denier language--when they want to deny, but are too cowardly to come out and say it
c) "because they'd be out of work very quickly"--because they'd be revealed as a really terrible, dishonest, unethical, and worthless historian given that THERE ARE NO FACTS SUPPORTING A CHALLENGE TO HISTORICAL FACT OF THE HOLOCAUST
d) "It is a sacred cow in the west." Again with the dishonest attempt (using the language of the David Irving crowd) to portray treating an INDISPUTABLE FACT as an INDISPUTABLE FACT as somehow a bad thing. The Holocaust is a 'sacred cow' of history much like gravity is a sacred cow of physics.
e) "and politics plays a big role in teaching and writing history"--again with the sleazy innuendo that acceptance of an indisputable fact is driven by political agendas rather than people insisting that the truth be told.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
it is very sensible and very much at odds with the sentiments you expressed in this thread.
geek tragedy
Apr 2015
#88
Thanks. But that didn't make you reassess what you thought I said in this thread?
jobycom
Apr 2015
#90
I did no such thing. You've now given his argument more air time than I ever would have.
jobycom
Apr 2015
#108
"That's supremacy. And that--not the silly cartoons--is what was behind the Hebdo massacre."
oberliner
Apr 2015
#13
"prevailing story?" You didn't answer the question. Is there any factual basis
geek tragedy
Apr 2015
#95
Apology for terrorism - You are saying that the massacre was justified in your last sentence
Pooka Fey
Apr 2015
#57
So are you saying that the Hebdo massacre would have been justified if my last sentence is true?
jobycom
Apr 2015
#92
Dude I would have alerted on YOUR post if I thought it would have made a difference
Pooka Fey
Apr 2015
#94
In the UK and USA it would be legal to deny the Holocaust. That doesn't mean that it is, or should
LeftishBrit
Apr 2015
#72
No doubt, you'll supply us with objective evidence which supports that allegation.
LanternWaste
Apr 2015
#80
Do you understand the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Warren DeMontague
Apr 2015
#115
If something is objective fact, then there is no debate to be had in terms of respecting people
geek tragedy
Apr 2015
#89
I predict ABSOLUTELY ZERO people will be killed or have death decrees made against them. nt
Nuclear Unicorn
Apr 2015
#33
Referring to rejecting the David Irving crowd as driven by "politics" and referring
geek tragedy
Apr 2015
#91
The Holocaust is not a 'sacred' issue--it is an indisputable fact established by
geek tragedy
Apr 2015
#104
I'll go out on a limb and predict that these cartoons will not lead to bloody riots,
Nye Bevan
Apr 2015
#12
You seem to erroneously believe that only Jews are offended by it. You are entirely mistaken.
cali
Apr 2015
#53
Fundamentalist preachers are convincing young adults that it is their religious duty
JonLP24
Apr 2015
#51
seeing how nutty yahoo has been talking....no olive branches from isreal that is for sure
dembotoz
Apr 2015
#34
So because Bibi is a douche that permits folks to deny the Holocaust?
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2015
#56
Too bad we can't trade our US conservatives for Iranian liberals, women, and LGBT.
Zorra
Apr 2015
#82
someone should enter a cartoon of Mohammed saying "denying the Holocaust is evil" nt
geek tragedy
Apr 2015
#98