It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?
forward.com
The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.
You are viewing a single comment
Britain has not ended slavery. And when it technically outlawed slavery within the British Isles (which is actually all the anti slavery laws did), it was neither a moderate nor a cautious approach.
But, more importantly, there is still slavery in Britain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_United_Kingdom
Britain didn't even end slavery in the 19th century either. They just changed the term to 'indentured servitude' and 'blackbirding.'
So it wasn't ended peacefully because it wasn't ended.
Also, the idea that you even should end slavery gradually is pretty offensive to all of the people enslaved throughout history. Would you be comfortable saying to them, "you won't be freed, but we're ending this eventually because it's a gradual process."
Yes, it should be done gradually.
What did the former slaves in the US have after they were freed? Nothing.
Food, clothing, housing are burdens we can't afford even now. Did you expect them to magically appear out of thin air once the slaves were freed?
You want everything to be done now, on the spot, a fair and just world for everyone. How nice of you. But do you have the resources? The infrastructure? The personnel?
You think that everyone will without a doubt respect everyone and everything without enough basic necessities to go around?
Weird, that wasn't an issue for freeing Holocaust victims.
Or should the closing of Treblinka been cautious and casual?
But there were issues. The starving ones who were fed too much and too fast died, while because the train tracks and roads leading to these camps were destroyed, logistics was slow in giving them the help they needed.
So freedom wasn't as instant as you'd like to believe.
There is a gulf between instant and gradual. You advocated for the latter. The latter means only killing fewer Jews.
When death is unavoidable, the goal is to minimize the number of deaths. Taking into account the situation before, during and after can help create the better results.
If we just free someone without taking into account whether they'll be able to live afterwards is just patting ourselves on the back. Sure we can say we did the right thing, but without making certain they at least have a starting point, we might just be condemning them to desperation or crime.
Like I said- kill Jews less until they can all be freed. That's the gradual way of ending death camps.
Yes, not killing people in general is preferred.
"In general"
"preferred"
Still sounds like "kill fewer and fewer Jews until the killing can stop."
Actually, by in general, I was thinking about people who live their lives in constant suffering and would like to have the option of a peaceful release.
Euthanasia is still taking a life, and I would prefer an alternative to that.
Was writing "in general" not enough to go beyond this particular instance?
When talking about gradually and cautiously ending a genocide? No, it was not.
Really? How many good men or women can one find in a country, willing and able to head out across borders to get involved into a war, solely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of saving others from genocide?
I'm not seeing armies heading out to save Palestine. Ukraine. Any of the African countries currently at war that i know so little about.
Simple truth is that not everyone agrees with this kind of selfless sacrifice.
The US had a small, but growing Nazism political party in its ranks before the war and the majority of those able to vote were against sending troops before Pearl Harbor happened. What do you think would have been the result had the acting US government sent troops into Europe without the approval of their citizens and without the shaming of the middling Nazis among them?
When forcing the issue, without making sure the ones opposing it won't suddenly strike at your back, you only send out more people to their deaths. And instead help the enemy achieve their goals more easily instead.
Nazist America was a real possibility at the time, not just a fantasy.
So yes, moderate, cautious and gradual isn't the evil you want it to be. It's just another route that considers the consequences of failure. And it's not without flaws, principal being the people involved.
Also, you may think I'm advocating for it, but that's just a side effect of my original point. Anything can be a force for either good or bad. Only focusing on the bad points and ignoring the good, vilifies it.
Tell me how that at its most basic meaning is different from what those you claim to hate are doing. Just because the subject of the hatred is different doesn't change the fact that the act of hatred is the same damn thing.
You don't like that things can be both bad and good? That's fine. But what you're pursuing is purity. Doesn't matter which side of the extreme you're looking for, it's still an extreme.
None of that has anything to do with the idea that gradually ending genocide is anything but abhorrent.
The fact that people do abhorrent things doesn't make things less abhorrent.
And gradually ending the Final Solution, slowly killing fewer and fewer Jews, is a monstrous idea. But that's what 'gradual' means.
No, the freedom was instant. There may have been logistical issues with medical treatment of the now free people. In all my conversations with Holocaust survivors, I have never heard one say that they were not free after the camp was liberated. That is just a nonsense take.
Then you know better than I.