Fiction about the holocaust

[Alexander III]

Well, let's see we have St Luke's offensive rant where he celebrates the ideas of a dubious scholar like Finklestein, compares the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Nazi Germany (despite the obvious facts that under Nazi Germany the Jewish populations size and life expectancy were reduced and under Israeli occupation we see the opposite result for the Palestinians, meaning if Israeli forces are Nazis they're extremely incompetent ones), confuses the reprehensible actions of one older Jewish artist he knows with the rest of the Jewish population (the very definition of racial stereotyping), and then wonders why it is difficult to write a comedy about the tragic murder of 6 million+ people.

Nevertheless, there are comical novels being written about the Holocaust or elements of the Holocaust such as Shalom Auslander's new novel, Hope: A Tragedy. Then, of course, there is the Spring Time for Hitler scene in The Producers.

Just because one man is good at applying himself in the real world, and another man is ineffectual; doesn't mean that their passions don't burn brightly with the same desires.

[stlukesguild]

Well, let's see we have St Luke's offensive rant where he celebrates the ideas of a dubious scholar like Finklestein, compares the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Nazi Germany (despite the obvious facts that under Nazi Germany the Jewish populations size and life expectancy were reduced and under Israeli occupation we see the opposite result for the Palestinians, meaning if Israeli forces are Nazis they're extremely incompetent ones), confuses the reprehensible actions of one older Jewish artist he knows with the rest of the Jewish population (the very definition of racial stereotyping), and then wonders why it is difficult to write a comedy about the tragic murder of 6 million+ people.

Now let me see... all of my comments wouldn't happen to be "offensive" just because I dared to raise questions about Israel and the fact that we may have turned a blind eye to their offenses out of a sense of guilt. I can't comment in any detail on Finklestein... he may or may not be a scholar of "dubious" credibility, but then again I don't think I'd take the word of someone whose view of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict seem to be to suggest that somehow the Palestinians are better off under the current Israeli rule. Didn't Barbara Bush say something to that effect about the poor Black population of New Orleans after the Hurricane Katrina forced their evacuation to temporary shelters in Texas? But isn't this exactly the issue that I raised? The idea that the Holocaust has resulted in giving the Israelis something of a cart blanc where one cannot even raise the least question concerning the actions of the Israel or the United States' support for the same without being accused of antisemitism.

[stlukesguild]

"The premier demand upon all education is that Auschwitz not happen again. Its priority before any other requirement is such that I believe I need not and should not justify it. I cannot understand why it has been given so little concern until now. To justify it would be monstrous in the face of the monstrosity that took place. Yet the fact that one is so barely conscious of this demand and the questions it raises shows that the monstrosity has not penetrated people’s minds deeply, itself a symptom of the continuing potential for its recurrence as far as peoples’ conscious and unconscious is concerned. Every debate about the ideals of education is trivial and inconsequential compared to this single ideal: never again Auschwitz."

Adorno

I fully agree. The central issue that should be emphasized when teaching the Holocaust, American slavery, the massacre of the Native Americans, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Dresden, the Stalinist purges, the Cultural Revolution should be "never again".

The unique "value" of teaching the history of the Holocaust lies with ability to illustrate how the most "cultured", educated and "sophisticated" of cultures (and individuals) can embrace the greatest of evils. We can witness humanity dark side at work in our own back yard as well as on the other side of the globe.

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"] Now let me see... all of my comments wouldn't happen to be "offensive" just because I dared to raise questions about Israel and the fact that we may have turned a blind eye to their offenses out of a sense of guilt. I can't comment in any detail on Finklestein... he may or may not be a scholar of "dubious" credibility, but then again I don't think I'd take the word of someone whose view of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict seem to be to suggest that somehow the Palestinians are better off under the current Israeli rule. Didn't Barbara Bush say something to that effect about the poor Black population of New Orleans after the Hurricane Katrina forced their evacuation to temporary shelters in Texas? But isn't this exactly the issue that I raised? The idea that the Holocaust has resulted in giving the Israelis something of a cart blanc where one cannot even raise the least question concerning the actions of the Israel or the United States' support for the same without being accused of antisemitism.

No, it’s offensive because what you said is repugnant to good taste and moral sense. You and the thousands of other people who mindlessly parrot the Nazi meme could have compared the conflict and Israeli behavior to tons of other regimes and atrocities, but notice which regime you picked. That’s what makes it offensive (it's in fact purposely designed to offend). I don't care that you criticize Israel; some of Israel's behavior should be criticized as they have done reprehensible things. Not to mention you did it in a thread about Holocaust fiction, which is itself offensive, and compounded it all by suggesting many Jews are just profiteering off their own tragedy. I think the offensiveness of it speaks for itself.

[sixsmith]

No, it’s offensive because what you said is repugnant to good taste and moral sense. You and the thousands of other people who mindlessly parrot the Nazi meme could have compared the conflict and Israeli behavior to tons of other regimes and atrocities, but notice which regime you picked. That’s what makes it offensive (it's in fact purposely designed to offend). I don't care that you criticize Israel; some of Israel's behavior should be criticized as they have done reprehensible things. Not to mention you did it in a thread about Holocaust fiction, which is itself offensive, and compounded it all by suggesting many Jews are just profiteering off their own tragedy. I think the offensiveness of it speaks for itself.

I think you're simply begging the question here Drk. Indeed, the invocation of 'good taste' and 'moral sense', tout court, is exactly the kind of uncritical reaction to which stlukes is referring. Rather than engage with the assertion/possibility that a small number of Jews are using the Holocaust for personal gain, you simply dismiss it as an example of 'offensiveness speaking for itself'. That takes us no closer to the truth or otherwise of the contention.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

and compounded it all by suggesting many Jews are just profiteering off their own tragedy.

While StLukes said some offensive stuff, but I'm not sure he insinuated that when he gave the example of his one a-hole friend (which had me laughing), unless I missed something.

[Drkshadow03]

I think you're simply begging the question here Drk. Indeed, the invocation of 'good taste' and 'moral sense', tout court, is exactly the kind of uncritical reaction to which stlukes is referring. Rather than engage with the assertion/possibility that Jews are using the Holocaust for personal gain, you simply dismiss it as an example of 'offensiveness speaking for itself'.

Fair enough. What evidence has he provided for his assertion that Jews use the Holocaust for personal gain?

1) He mentions one incident of an old Jewish artist that he knows attempting to do it. The big problem here being he offers one isolated concrete example (in which we have take his word for it).

2) The second part of his argument, which is really just an assertion to support an assertion, is about people being unable to criticize Israel because of the Holocaust, despite the fact that people criticize Israel, well, all the freaking time (on C-Span, on Zionist websites, on Far left websites, on Far Right websites, on anti-Zionist websites, in public conversation, on a train, on a plane, in a car, and at the bar, and even while eating Green Eggs and Ham). Having participated in quite a few conversations in which Israel is being criticized, I've rarely seen anyone defending Israel by bringing up the Holocaust as a rebuttal to the specific points or to silence conversation on the topic.

Given that this topic is supposed to be about Holocaust fiction, he could of course provide specific examples of artistic work about the Holocaust that he believes only purpose is for profiteering and inducing a guilt trip.

[stlukesguild]

No, it’s offensive because what you said is repugnant to good taste and moral sense. You and the thousands of other people who mindlessly parrot the Nazi meme could have compared the conflict and Israeli behavior to tons of other regimes and atrocities, but notice which regime you picked. That’s what makes it offensive (it's in fact purposely designed to offend).

I fully agree that the abuses of Israel are not on the level of those of the Nazi's during the Holocaust. I personally find the usual analogies to Hitler and the Holocaust (G.W. Bush as a Nazi, Obama as a Nazi, etc...) to be at once insulting and absurd in that they so grossly overstate the facts. My comparison of Israel with the Nazis lies in the fact that it has been the Holocaust which has been long used as an excuse for any such behavior and a means of deflecting any criticism. It has also been used as a means of garnering financial and political support for Israel among the American Jewish population resulting in years of continual American entanglements in the Middle-East as we try to placate both sides. I don't accept the notion of the Holocaust justifying Israeli abuses anymore than I accept the idea that slavery in the United States justifies crime in the urban neighborhoods, or the continued American dependence upon oil justifies our continued involvement in Middle-Eastern conflicts. It goes some way toward an explanation... but not a justification.

[Drkshadow03]

No, it’s offensive because what you said is repugnant to good taste and moral sense. You and the thousands of other people who mindlessly parrot the Nazi meme could have compared the conflict and Israeli behavior to tons of other regimes and atrocities, but notice which regime you picked. That’s what makes it offensive (it's in fact purposely designed to offend).

I fully agree that the abuses of Israel are not on the level of those of the Nazi's during the Holocaust. I personally find the usual analogies to Hitler and the Holocaust (G.W. Bush as a Nazi, Obama as a Nazi, etc...) to be at once insulting and absurd in that they so grossly overstate the facts. My comparison of Israel with the Nazis lies in the fact that it has been the Holocaust which has been long used as an excuse for any such behavior and a means of deflecting any criticism. It has also been used as a means of garnering financial and political support for Israel among the American Jewish population resulting in years of continual American entanglements in the Middle-East as we try to placate both sides. I don't accept the notion of the Holocaust justifying Israeli abuses anymore than I accept the idea that slavery in the United States justifies crime in the urban neighborhoods, or the continued American dependence upon oil justifies our continued involvement in Middle-Eastern conflicts. It goes some way toward an explanation... but not a justification.

for the most part. I'm glad you're choosing to be more rational in your response.

Nevertheless, I think it's an oversimplification to suggest American Jews only financially and politically support Israel because of holocaust guilt trips. Believe it or not many American Jews feel pride in Israel and Israeli culture for its own sake. Not to mention American Jewry is divided on the issue of Israel anyway, even if it's not a 50-50 split.

And while I agree the holocaust sometimes comes up in relation to discussions of Israeli, I think critics exaggerate the extent, sometimes are the ones to bring it up themselves as emotionally-charged rhetoric (Israel = Nazis!, denying Palestinian suffering is just as bad as Holocaust denial), and often miss the nuance of the larger discussion.

[sixsmith]

Oh, what evidence has he provided for his assertion that Jews use the Holocaust for personal gain?

1) He mentions one incident of an old Jewish artist that he knows attempting to do it. The big problem here being he offers one isolated concrete example (in which we have take his word for it).

2) The second part of his argument, which is really just an assertion to support an assertion, is about people being unable to criticize Israel because of the Holocaust, despite the fact that people criticize Israel, well, all the freaking time (on C-Span, on Zionist websites, on Far left websites, on Far Right websites, on anti-Zionist websites, in public conversation, on a train, on a plane, in a car, and at the bar, and even while eating Green Eggs and Ham). Having participated in quite a few conversations in which Israel is being criticized, I've rarely seen anyone defending Israel by bringing up the Holocaust as a rebuttal to the specific points or to silence conversation on the topic.

Given that this topic is supposed to be about Holocaust fiction, he could of course provide specific examples of artistic work about the Holocaust that he believes only purpose is for profiteering and inducing a guilt trip.

1) Fair point. Anecdotal examples don't make for compelling evidence, though I suspect that his claim is attenuated by the fact that this site forbids political discussion and we must be pushing our luck by now. Moreover, I think his point is that any attempt to offer such evidence would be shouted down as anti-semitism.

2) Again, personal experience is a slippery slope. In the many discussions pertaining to the Arab/Israeli conflict in which I have participated or that I have observed, the Holocaust has frequently been invoked to silence, or indeed demonise, particular points of view.

[sixsmith]

No, it’s offensive because what you said is repugnant to good taste and moral sense. You and the thousands of other people who mindlessly parrot the Nazi meme could have compared the conflict and Israeli behavior to tons of other regimes and atrocities, but notice which regime you picked. That’s what makes it offensive (it's in fact purposely designed to offend).

I fully agree that the abuses of Israel are not on the level of those of the Nazi's during the Holocaust. I personally find the usual analogies to Hitler and the Holocaust (G.W. Bush as a Nazi, Obama as a Nazi, etc...) to be at once insulting and absurd in that they so grossly overstate the facts. My comparison of Israel with the Nazis lies in the fact that it has been the Holocaust which has been long used as an excuse for any such behavior and a means of deflecting any criticism. It has also been used as a means of garnering financial and political support for Israel among the American Jewish population resulting in years of continual American entanglements in the Middle-East as we try to placate both sides. I don't accept the notion of the Holocaust justifying Israeli abuses anymore than I accept the idea that slavery in the United States justifies crime in the urban neighborhoods, or the continued American dependence upon oil justifies our continued involvement in Middle-Eastern conflicts. It goes some way toward an explanation... but not a justification.

Well said.

[stlukesguild]

Given that this topic is supposed to be about Holocaust fiction, he could of course provide specific examples of artistic work about the Holocaust that he believes only purpose is for profiteering and inducing a guilt trip.

Zbigniew Libera, Polish artist, exhibited this conceptual work, Legos Auschwitz at the Jewish Museum in NYC in spite of outcries that the work trivialized the Holocaust. The outrage naturally assured Libera a great deal attention and financial success:





Other examples of artists employing the Holocaust in a questionable manner include Alain Séchas:



Then there's Rudolf Henze' Zugzwang made entirely of photographs of Hitler and Marcel Duchamp.



Is the artist equating the effects of Duchamp upon the art world with the effects of the Nazis... or is he suggesting that Hitler is akin to an artist?

Over the years I have come across more than a few such artworks employing not only the Holocaust, but also slavery, AIDS, etc... These works capitalize upon the shock of their subject matter and the artists often take a stance of suggesting that any criticism of their art is akin to criticism of the subject that they are portraying. Pip'c comments upon Maus... and the manner in which the author dealt with depicting the Holocaust and struggling with the notion of making a profit from the Holocaust is what spurred my comments. The entire concept of making a profit from tragedy... atrocity... seems to be something of a gray area to me. While I am adamantly against censorship in any form, I question an artist making a name and profit for himself from images of atrocity... whether it be of the Holocaust... or it be:



or this:



or this:



But perhaps this is indeed a question best left to another thread... so I will leave it there.

[Calidore]

All three of those pictures became famous because they were eye-openers for the public. I doubt the photographers were thinking "Money! Fame!" as they snapped them. (At least the first two must have been spur-of-the-moment shots with no time for such calculation.) That assumes, of course, that those photographers even kept the rights to the pictures in the first place. I'd imagine those rights went to the publications they sold them to.

On a tangent: The Vietnamese girl in the center of the first picture was tracked down as an adult some years ago and interviewed. I believe it was in the Chicago Tribune Sunday magazine, though I'm not positive. It's not clear from the grainy picture above, but she is actually on fire from napalm; her clothes had already burned off. I think she was saved by an American soldier nearby. Details escape me, but I remember it was a very interesting interview. Don't know if it's available online anywhere.

[stlukesguild]

All three of those pictures became famous because they were eye-openers for the public. I doubt the photographers were thinking "Money! Fame!" as they snapped them.

I somewhat question that idea. Photographers employed as photojournalists are just as mercenary as other aspects of the mass media and fully understand the old motto: "If it bleeds, it leads". The fact that such photographs acted as "eye openers" suggests the use... and manipulation of such of the atrocities for political gain... one way or another.

The Vietnamese girl in the center of the first picture was tracked down as an adult some years ago and interviewed. I believe it was in the Chicago Tribune Sunday magazine, though I'm not positive. It's not clear from the grainy picture above, but she is actually on fire from napalm; her clothes had already burned off. I think she was saved by an American soldier nearby.

I'm not the only one who has questioned such photographs. The painter, David Hockney explored the theme in a book published in 1983 entitled, On Photography. Hockney notes that while artists have long had a history of employing imagery of horror and atrocity... one of the most iconic and central images of Western art is the Crucifixion. But the painter is responding to horror and atrocity after the fact. Picasso painted Guernica in an outraged response after the events of the German bombing of the town of Guernica. Hockney points out that as that little Vietnamese girl ran down the road her body aflame from napalm, the photographer could think of nothing better that he might do than to fiddle with his f-stops and adjust for the lighting. As you noted, it was an American soldier, and not the photographer, that threw clothing around her a dowsed the fire. We hear speak of the effects of the media and how excessive images of violence have led to a point of saturation where the audience becomes indifferent, yet is surely takes an almost inhuman degree of indifference to watch a terrified girl on fire running toward you and all you can think is "This will make a great photo!"

[mortalterror]

Here's an account of how one photographer won the pulitzer prize in 1993.
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/20...lking-a-child/