Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No, the White House Did Not Deny the Holocaust
At some point, the overwrought and ridiculous accusations against President Trump have to peak. I have a visceral dislike of him and yet those attacking him have gone so far round the bend that I am forced, over and over again, to defend him. No, the White House did not deny the Holocaust in the press release for Holocaust Remembrance Day. To think otherwise is crazy with a side of ridiculous and covered in stupid gravy. Harsh words? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely.
I would have never imagined such claim would exist had I not seen it with my own eyes. I would not have cared if such asinine claims were made by anyone other than Ricochet contributors I respect. Our very own @claireberlinski has bought into this, as has John Podhoretz. Here is the tweet that got me started on this rant today:
Yes, the White House really did engage in Holocaust denial. This is part of an irrational pattern of thought that's dangerous for everyone. https://t.co/uvILxCIRJv
— Claire Berlinski (@ClaireBerlinski) January 30, 2017
When I first saw it I thought “no way that’s true,” so I followed the links. Mark Hoofnagle published a blog post on ScienceBlogs that starts with this:
The White House in its statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day engaged in Holocaust denial. Then they doubled down on the action and via Reince Priebus on Meet the Press expressed no regret about the wording which had no mention of the Jews in their supposed “remembrance”.
It’s possible that Trump and company wrote a poorly-worded press release worthy of this accusation. Performing all due diligence, I went to the source and read the press release. Here is the offending press release in full:
It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.
Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.
In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.
No, the president didn’t specifically say “Jews,” but exactly who the [expletive] else could he be referencing by “the victims…of the Holocaust”? If you read that and think of anyone other than the Jews, or read it to exclude the Jews, then it is an error of reading, not writing.
I understand Trump-Hate because I do a lot of it. I understand wanting to warn of his dangers because I fear them as well. This, however, is reaching way beyond honest criticism and into the realm of histrionics. There is plenty about which to criticize the new president, so there is zero need to invent or imagine things like Holocaust denial.
Stop making me defend the orange ass.
Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
ok, I’ll do this. Since there are a couple of people “liking” those comments, I’d rather not have misunderstandings simply compounded…
I have been comparing victim groups. I said that blacks today have no direct connection to slavery, and that while Jews are much closer to the event, we are becoming farther removed. This is true; as a stand-alone point, it’s not particularly useful. But in context it is.
If you don’t like the word “crying,” then excuse my laziness. Not like Chuck Schumer’s crying… Tweeting, writing, ranting, whatever. His “reaction.” And yes, I said that when you parse it all out, it does amount to little more than victim-status jealousy, whether he’d admit it or not.
No, I didn’t.
No. I didn’t. But I’m sensing a theme. When I use examples to illustrate a broader point, you’re accusing me of “comparing” the two groups. That would hardly serve my purpose. An illustration is not a comparison, it is merely another way of looking at the point being made.
Yes, I said that in the context of a much larger point. That point is that the damage from today’s anti-semitism against American Jews is largely rhetorical. Most of us are on the receiving end of a very similar vitriol, only there isn’t a name for it. Much like black or female celebrities (or presidents) claiming to be discriminated against, it won’t resonate much with folks who very much wish they could be in your position. I am saying that physical violence is a whole different story.
Ok? What’s your disagreement? In the context of that entire comment, I think I made a pretty good point. Transcendent is not my word, which is why it is in quotes.
Yes, I said that it is easy to read it charitably. Isn’t it? I then asked some follow-up questions about why their concerns are important… those were never addressed. I don’t think I used the phrase “rant and rave,” but if I did, I apologize for my laziness. No, I don’t think they simply want to rant and rave. But I do think they let emotion overcome reason.
No, I know you come down on the right side of those. But even “why is murder wrong” could be its own 200+ comment post with all the philosophy that folks know around here. I’m not gonna attempt the 15 in 250 words.
I’ve seen several different examples of the the “Holocaust minimization” meme that’s a part of three separate schools of thought, but I don’t think I can put together I cogent defense of it for folks who haven’t seen any of it. Likewise, I think the Reagan quote at the end of JPod’s piece, and the history of “Holocaust minimization” and “Holocaust denial” being similar behaviors from antisemites, more than justify JPod’s response, but I don’t have the acumen to pull together a defense of that for folks who don’t already see it.
The word you used was widespread. To me, that is important. It is important for the same reason that it is important that the KKK movement is not widespread in the United States.
Hyperbole. I also said that JPod seems to think the world revolves around him. I’m not unaware of the hypocrisy. Do I actually think that of JPod? Maybe, he certainly comes across that way, but I don’t know him. Do I seriously think that something cannot be widespread if I don’t know of it? Of course not. But I also don’t think it is widespread.
They don’t, really. They especially don’t have any relevance to Trump’s statement.
Yes, I said that. It’s true.
No, I said that when liberals talk about Israel, it is not generally because they hate Jews, it is because they are misguided and sometimes stupid, and they are quick to misinterpret global politics. There is a huge number of Muslims in Europe (and the UN, I imagine), and they are predisposed toward taking the side of palestinians over Israel. They may be anti-semitic, but I followed that up with the point that Muslims hold Jews and Christians in pretty much the exact same regard.
This is kind of a repeat. If JPod is claiming personal offense (as his article seemed to do), then he can go cry me a river. If he’s claiming some broader implication, then he needs to explain it.
Yes. I said that in the Muslim world, there is actual anti-semitism. As in, people who literally want to murder Jews. I’ve also pointed out that they feel the same way about Christians. They’re not too high on women, either… Do you dispute this? If that is equated with the hate-mail that goes to Jonah Goldberg, then we’ve got a problem of definition. They’re not the same at all. It is dangerous to say they are.
Pivot? I was responding to a different comment made by someone else. I guess you could call it multi-tasking?
I didn’t exactly say that… but ok? So what?
Again, not exactly what I said. I said that if someone is angry, that person will often pick out the most obvious character trait. Skin color is really easy. Religion is sometimes pretty easy. Sexuality is also easy. If you’re a specific group, that gets an “-ism” and a condemnation of the speaker’s entire character – plus a whole hell of a lot of implications about the speaker’s broader views.
I already addressed this.
Sort of. He didn’t say that the Holocaust didn’t have anything to do with the Jews. His spokesperson released a broader statement that some interpreted as awful, some interpreted as pretty reasonable.
It didn’t.
I did. Before commenting on it to begin with. Should I not have?
He didn’t.
Not exactly what I said. You’re personalizing it. I quoted Adam Smith and said that I think the general principle applies to any victim-group. Do you disagree?
I feel like I’m the one trying to do the explaining, here. Maybe we both are? Should I repeat Williamson’s quip as well? Isn’t understanding the point of conversation?
Maybe it would help to think of it this way:
You’re a musician. Do you have some sense of having lost your “overtone virginity” at some point – when you first remember hearing overtones ringing over a musical texture and recognizing them for what they were?
That’s understanding, but it’s not analytical. It just… happens somehow. You hear it or you don’t. Emotional understanding can be like that.
I’m not offering any commentary (ha! Commentary!) on whether the Williamson quip is relevant here. Just describing one instance where understanding is not analytical, but more gestalt.
Nah. That’s perceiving, not necessarily understanding. Understanding comes after the perception, most times, though you can certainly understand it without perceiving it.
ok – then let’s just stipulate your second point, because it goes hand-in-hand with your former point.
Why is murder bad? Well, I already said that it is bad because Man is created in the image of God.
Why is the Holocaust bad? Is it bad because of murder, or is it bad because the Jews were murdered? I’d say that it would be equally bad if any group had been targeted.
So why is holocaust-minimization a bad thing? Well… I don’t really know. I suppose it may be bad history, right? It may be incorrect. But why do people do it? Maybe the further removed from the event that we get, the more people put it in context of other things that were going on at the time, or other atrocities that have happened across history. Is this anti-Semitic? Maybe, maybe not. Is it bad to put things in context? Not at all. Is it bad to remember the poles and the gypsies and other people who were murdered? Or the cossacks who were massacred by the Russian Leninists? I would think not.
But why is it offensive to put those things in context? That’s important. On the one hand, it’s offensive for the wrong reasons, victimhood-jealousy, as was previously mentioned. If it is offensive for other reasons, I’d like to know why.
If holocaust denial is important because of Israel, I suppose that’s valid, but then if that’s what we’re talking about, then that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.
Widespread “Jewish-persecution” holocaust denial in America?
Delving into this further… Do you think it justified Claire’s response?
As for the Reagan quote – I’m not entirely sure what to make of that. At the time of that quote, Reagan was likely speaking to a generation of people who had fought in WWII. It may well be that he was speaking to a large number of Jews who had actually survived the holocaust.
Here is the quote:
I am not entirely certain what Reagan was talking about, and JPod (somewhat conveniently) doesn’t provide even a hint of context. Was he saying it during a time when Israel was (literally) fighting for its existence? That is very likely the case. At that time, people (especially socialist college professors) may have been saying that Zionists made up the holocaust in order to justify the existence (and expansion) of Israel. I’d agree with his statement in response to those specific claims. Those claims are being made today, by some. First, I’d say they are bad arguments on their face. Virtually all of the land in Israel was purchased legally; there are obviously some political forces at play, when after WWII, Israel was recognized globally… but does anyone actually believe that this is enough of a widespread movement to get these countries to all go back into history and retroactively retract the post WWII actions that lead to Israel? Presumably, this is the argument?
In that sense, I can certainly see why holocaust denial would be an issue (albeit a fairly minor one) if certain groups are actually pushing for the delegitimization of Israel.
But that’s about the only reason I can think of why it would pose any actual physical threat to anyone. Is anyone suggesting that if the holocaust wasn’t as terrible as it was, that would justify another holocaust? What exactly is the reasoning, there, beyond simply the fact that it is simply incorrect, and that it degrades the suffering of a victim class?
Pushing that a bit further – since the only reason I can think of why holocaust denial would be anything other than a nonsensical bit of bad-history involves the delegitimization of Israel, that is the only reason for anyone to be upset with Trump over – now keep this in mind – over a statement that didn’t deny the holocaust, but which could be interpreted in such a way as to demean the importance of the Jews, which could, in turn, lend some credence (though arguably not much) to those who would actually deny the holocaust.
Considering the fact that Trump is so vocally pro-Israel that his opponents continually bring it up to prove how big of a threat he is to Muslims, I’m going to say that conservative commenters are behaving downright irresponsibly if they want to claim that he is contributing to the demise of Israel.
If, on the other hand, they are upset because of – again, to use the term – victim-status jealousy, then how exactly are they behaving any differently than any of the other leftist groups who engage in the exact same behavior?
:) No, I get the quip. But the way it was used is just silly. I could say the same thing in reverse, for exactly the same reasons. That doesn’t advance anything at all. I explain, but you don’t understand. Fine – so, which one of us doesn’t understand? That’s the million-dollar question, I guess.
To be clear, I do not.
No – and this whole discussion ends up with some strange positions. I’d never want it to be thought that I disparage the holocaust or what it means. I am, frankly, discouraged by the fact that people like our grandparents are few and far between right now. I watch old movies like “white Christmas” and feel something of a longing for that kind of spirit.
But in a wholly detached, intellectual-exercise sort of way… what exactly is the message of the holocaust? And how exactly does a recognition of other genocides (and other mass killings by the Nazis or the Russians or the Chinese or anyone else) diminish that message?
I think it is a really interesting question, but it’s one we can’t seem to have because of the personal feelings involved. That, to me, more than anything else, illustrates why this over-use of “anti-semitism” is not really a good thing. Look what sacred rhetorical cows have done for race discussions in the United States. It’s not good.
Good question. First off I don’t think sympathizing means having to embrace their conclusions or solutions, sometimes there is no middle ground. But, in each of those case I think people have legitimate concerns and problems, that can be worked with. At the heart of the BLM complaint (for example) is a feeling that the police don’t act so much to protect the black community as to protect everyone else from the black community. As such they feel that police do not extend to them sufficient benefit of the doubt in encounters as they would to white people (ie. they are the presumed criminal). This perception then underlies the tension between the black community and police. Whether you accept their analysis as true or not is beside the point. This is what they perceive, and thus if the issue is to be ameliorated this perception must be overcome.
Yes, I do agree with that… It’s something I often say about how to deal with the left. It is a very difficult thing to do in practice, though.
Upon further reflection, I think it is important to acknowledge that I’ve been intellectualizing some of this stuff that does involve actual people.
I cannot know the motivations or experiences of the aforementioned Claire, John, Richard… It would be better to have this discussion with them, and I might check some of my more haphazard comments (about John coming across as self-obsessed, for instance). I should not attribute intent, especially malintent, at any time.
I reiterate that I like and respect all of those individuals and very much value their opinions, even if I disagree in this context.
A man should be judged by his deeds more than a pundits interpretation of his words.
So many people say to the Jews whenever they mention the Holocaust, “Just get over it. Everyone was persecuted at some point in history.”
But these people miss the reason the Jews continue to talk about this moment, which is that we still need to learn from it.
Which is why Christians continue to talk about the Crucifixion. Yes, crucifixion was common at the time of Christ. And some people suffered as much as Christ did, and some suffered even more. Yet we continue to talk about it and meditate about it and think about it two thousand years later. Why? There are still things we need to learn.
Marci, I think this is wrong on a few levels. First, I don’t know of anyone who tells Jews to get over it. Especially Jews who experienced it first hand.
But second, think about all the questions I have been asking – which have not been answered.
The crucifixion is important only because of the person of Christ. It is important for everyone, and not as a grievance, not to remember something so that it will never happen again, but to remember something so that everyone can accept grace. We think about it because it is integral to our faith. The two are simply not analogous.
The holocaust is important wholly independent of the Jews. History needs to be truthful, and denying history is stupid – but the lesson of the Holocaust is about mankind, not about Jews.
I think it is both.
From what I can tell you, you cannot put these two items in the same sentence. National Review and The Weekly Standard are both essential “hobbies” since they don’t ever cover the costs of publishing them, even virtually with no paper edition. Profit is a forlorn prospect, even with cruises and meet and greet think tanky type gatherings with the writing staffs.
You could even argue that Ricochet has the same “business” model.
I was raised in the Congregational church, which focuses its attention on the Resurrection, not the Crucifixion. I asked my mom once why our cross did not show Jesus on it the way my Catholic friend did, and she said that the empty cross was the cross that could not hold him. I liked that thought as a little kid, and I still do.
I married a devout Catholic, and I’ve been attending mass ever since. But you can imagine my shock and dismay at my first Easter mass when the gospels were read by the church attendees all together and the people in the pews, including me, had to read the part of the crowds saying, “Crucify him. Crucify him.” I found the exercise unbearable. I would never crucify or torture anyone.
Every Easter I ponder this part of the mass–why does the Church make her parishioners go through this every year? I still don’t know, but the answer is probably complex and has a lot to do with human psychology. It is not strictly about the suffering–otherwise, the church would revel as much in the crucifixion of the two men on either side of Christ.
All I know for sure is that a church that is two thousand years old never lets the moment of the Crucifixion go. I see the Holocaust moment for Jews in a similar light on almost every level.
I am glad they do not grow silent about this.
I think you are speaking as a Protestant here. I believe the Catholic Church sees the Crucifixion in a much bigger way.
My broader point was that Christians throughout the world still focus a lot of their attention on that single event.
That’s one reason I get frustrated with people (not you) who minimize the Holocaust and want it to just go away.
The point of thinking about the Holocaust is that tragically, it has happened before, it happens now, and it will continue to happen in the future.
Keep in mind that Man’s Search for Meaning was written by a Holocaust survivor thirty years afterward, when he was a psychiatrist practicing in the city of Boston, seeing people suffer terribly in their relationships with others in many of the same ways he had suffered at Auschwitz.
We remember so we won’t forget.
Because Christ died for our sins, therefore we crucified him.
The best analogy I heard is of a judge who imposed a traffic fine on a teenage girl. Once the trial was over the judge came to the clerk, pulled out his checkbook and paid the girl’s fine himself. Why? Because he was her father.
God is the judge in that analogy, we are the girl, and Christ’s death is the fine. By playing the role of the crowd, the congregation accepts responsibility for Christ’s suffering.
But, again, acknowledging that there were victims other than Jews is not minimizing the Holocaust. To the contrary, focusing solely on the Jews minimizes their suffering. That’s what Ryan and I are saying.
If the Holocaust had not been focused on Jews, but just 12 Million “random” people, would it still be important?
Not to get too far down the theological rabbit hole, but the church remembers the crucifixion of Christ because he was an innocent man who took on the sins of all people who have ever and will ever live so we aren’t punished by them. That’s why the church doesn’t “revel” in the suffering of the thieves on either side or the hundreds of thousands of other people the Romans crucified before and after 33 AD.
Jesus is up there on the cross suffering and dying for sins of the world. The liturgy makes us say the words of the crowd because he’s up there for us — it is our sins that caused Him to suffer and die.
Remembering that others were killed by nazis as well as the Jews does not in any way minimize the holocaust. In fact, it points out that it was even worse than only targeting one group. That would tend to make people think, “well, I’m not Jewish, so I shouldn’t worry about this happening to me or my kin.”
Isn’t that the point? The holocaust is not important because it happened to the Jews, it is important because it happened at all. In keeping with the Chrucifixion analogy – is it important that Jesus was killed by Jews? Of course not. No reasonable Christian would argue that (though there remains a stereotype, which is false, that we do indeed argue that). It is important because of the person of Christ.
The only way I can think of where the holocaust would be specifically important because of Jews, would be if they considered it an act of God’s judgment, akin to the Egyptian enslavement. If they remembered it in that way, then yes, it is extremely important that it happened to them, because it is God’s judgment on a specific people for their specific behavior. I have never met a Jewish person who believes this to be the case, and I don’t believe it is something that very many (if any) of them believe (for a number of good reasons). Therefore, the holocaust is important primarily because of what happened to people. It shouldn’t happen to people, and Jews are people. It is also an example of what humans are capable of, and important for that reason.
No, it’s not strictly about the physical suffering–otherwise, the church would revel as much in the crucifixion of the two men on either side of Christ. But it’s partly about the suffering, both as full participation in our humanity, and as an outward sign of the pain of being separated from God and the lengths God was willing to go (and depths willing to invade) to overcome that separation. Christ is the Paschal Lamb, the body broken for us in communion for the forgiveness of sins. Liturgical worship focused on the Eucharist has a hard time not focusing on the Crucifixion. Not all churches place the same emphasis on the Eucharist.