Holocaust

I have received one of those chain letters that drive me crazy.  Usually I just delete them, but this one got to me.  It starts out praising Eisenhower for ordering photos of Holocaust survivors and then it claims that England is about to take the Holocaust out of it's school curriculum to avoid offending Muslims.  

I agree that the holocaust should never be forgotten.  This misleading mass chain letter, however, is full of inaccuracies.  Here's one of many links I found de-bunking it.

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/uk-holocaust-removal.shtml

But I suspected it was nuts before I started checking into it.

First of all, the British people themselves suffered deeply during WWII and remain extremely proud of their resistance to Hitler.  They are not going to forget it any time soon.  Additionally, they are still dealing with the emotional scars that resistance caused.  We are more likely to forget it than they are.  

Secondly, this letter conveniently leaves out the millions of powerless people: homosexuals and people with disabilities and other "non-Aryan" qualities, who were also victims of the holocaust. This makes me suspicious that there is an unexpressed agenda here.  Was it okay for Hitler to experiment on them?  Or is it still okay to hate them?  

Thirdly, why would Muslims find Hitler's regime offensive?  The extremist Muslims we are worried about hate Jews more than Hitler did and have more justification.  (I do not advocate jihad, pogrom, holocaust or other forms of feuding.  I'm just saying that the on-going conflict between Israel and the Muslim world is not creating mutual understanding and respect.)  I personally think the whole point of this letter is in the last line where it warns that 9/11 will soon be forgotten because Muslims find it offensive.  Which makes this a not very subtle attack on Muslims.  Is it okay to experiment on Muslims and put them in camps?  If the people in those initial photos were wearing burkas would those photos be just as offensive?  

There is so much anti-muslim propaganda in our world today that it is very difficult to listen to reason.  We only hear about the crazy people.  Who wants to be judged by the crazy people?  As a Catholic, I certainly don't want to be judged by the Inquisition or the tiny number of sick priests.  Religion is a very tricky thing.  

Finally, Ike is famous for many things, not least of which was his warning about the dangers of the "Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex" in his farewell address.  (His original draft said "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" but he struck Congressional out.  His daughter has said it was because he thought it was counter productive to offend Congress.)  Fear and inaccuracies only give that dangerous alliance more power.  The relevant portion of his speech is found here: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Alert and knowledgeable.  I would add compassionate.  This letter fuels fear of Muslims and supports the Military Industrial Congressional wars against people who do not even have indoor plumbing.  I am in favor of security AND liberty for everyone.  Unfortunately, there is a balance.  Ultimate security can only be found by giving up liberty.  Give up too much liberty and you once again start to lose even security.  I worry that in this country we are letting our fears talk us into surrendering liberty for a false sense of security.  To a large degree, we have surrendered our ability to think rationally to our fears.  We have given our power to the Military Industrial Congressional Complex just as Ike worried we would.  He was a very thoughtful man and I suspect he would be very unhappy to have his reputation attached to this letter.  By fueling our fears of Muslims, this letter empowers the very people Ike warned us about.

Too often these mass mailings I receive do not seem knowledgeable, compassionate or even alert - they just seem ill-informed and scared.  They remind me of Beatrice in "Much Ado About Nothing":  "He is now as valiant as Hercules who only tells a lie and swears by it."  

Daughter of a scientist here.  My motto is "Check it out."  I will not forward anything on until I have checked it out.  If I do not have time to check something out or if I am not particularly interested in the subject, I just delete it.  This particular one, since it deals with and encourages hate and fear, upset me more than most.  So I decided to respond.

Truth or Propaganda?

I got e-mail from someone I am not sure I know. She basically sent it to everyone in her address book. It starts out something like “I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, but I think everyone ought to read the following. It’s written by a very intelligent man who isn’t a name-caller and doesn’t use scare tactics or anything. He just lists some facts that we all ought to consider.”

Now I’m not going to tell you anything about the issue involved because that’s not the point. Suffice it to say that it was regarding an issue that is hotly debated in our society today. I’m not going to tell you whether the attachment was from a conservative or a liberal because it doesn’t matter. It wasn’t the position that bothered me as much as the irresponsible manner in which he presented his opinions and the fact that someone out there actually thought it was intelligent, well reasoned and not a scare tactic or name calling.

Okay, honestly, it was a position I happen to oppose. But I don’t like it when people I agree with use these same tactics. I just notice them more when someone with whom I disagree uses them.

First of all, it was very large, bold type. Anyone who is visually screaming is not calm or reasoned.

Secondly, there wasn’t a single fact in the whole article. It was mostly polemic and opinion dressed as fact. He said things like if we take this course of action we will be just like people in country X. “God Forbid”. Okay, I don’t actually know much about the situation in country X and what I do know is all good. So I’m not exactly sure what horror he is asking God to Forbid. I’ve got a hunch that many of his readers also don’t know. But he sounds like he knows and he says “God Forbid.” This is a scare tactic.

He then goes on to rip to shreds the spokesperson for the issue he is opposing. He uses opinion dressed as fact over and over. He says this person is the kind of person who says what you want to hear but then does the opposite. This sounds like a fact, but it isn’t. It is slander unless he backs it up with some actual fact. He doesn’t actually call the spokesperson a back-stabber. I guess that’s what my correspondent meant when she said he isn’t a name-caller. But the implication is clear. Then he goes on to advise us to watch what he does rather than what he says. This is pretty good advice and sounds like something a father would say. So it tends to give credence to the unsupported nastiness that preceded it. But that is not the same as giving facts to support these claims.

I could go on, but you get the idea. If you don’t, try reading the rules for submitting an article to Wikipedia. There is a very good example of what good, honest, factual writing should be like.

So I shot her back two e-mails I recently received on the same issue. One was a real article on the issue with real facts written by someone who has really studied the issue. The other was a thoughtful opinion written by a man who is truly concerned for the welfare of humanity. It was conciliatory and embracing and written in normal type. I didn’t really think about why I sent them. Upon reflection, I think my real agenda was to show her what facts and opinion without scare tactics and name calling look like.

But she shot back an e-mail saying that she is educated and informed and I need to look into the issue more. Well, probably she’s right. But I’m not going to allow myself to be educated and informed by nasty people, so I asked her to remove me from her address book and she did.

I don’t mean to say that she is nasty. As I said, I don’t actually know who this woman is. It sounds like she is a nice person. But we both obviously think the other person is kind of dumb and misled and we neither of us want to hear what the other has to say.

Is this the core of what is disturbing me? I’m a nice person. If two nice women can’t find a common ground for discussing things they disagree on, what hope is there for the world? Or am I just annoyed that someone who doesn’t understand the difference between fact and opinion and cannot recognize not very subtle propaganda has my e-mail address?