Why the insistence on linking abortion with the Holocaust?

[jeannetherese]

In short, I’d argue that we don’t have the right to use these victims as part of our own agendas,

I see no reason to believe that those discussing the innocents killed by abortion and its commonalty with the destruction of innocents by the Nazis see this as “using” innocents. Perhaps there is a difference in perspective?
The killing of any innocent seems worthy of concern and empathy. The recognition of shared humanity between these victims may be seen as a negation of an ideology which contends that some lives are more important than others.
May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

 

[Tarpeian]

Has anyone here been to the Holocaust Museum in D.C.?

I ask because they have an entire exhibit dedicated to Rwanda. If this was offensive in any sense, then I’m certain the exhibit would have been excluded.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[gracepoole]

I see no reason to believe that those discussing the innocents killed by abortion and its commonalty with the destruction of innocents by the Nazis see this as “using” innocents.

I am quite sure they don’t. Holocaust victims are commonly “used” to accomplish any number of ends: combating the legacy of racism in Tennessee, attempting to slander Israel, decrying global warming, characterizing those who oppose health care reform… It may be that the people who reference the Holocaust via these topics are naive to the fact that they’re using the Holocaust’s victims for their own purposes. Yet most assuredly, they are. Some agendas may be noble and others definitely aren’t. Either way, the victims did not assent to being appropriated in these ways.

 

[gracepoole]

Has anyone here been to the Holocaust Museum in D.C.?

I ask because they have an entire exhibit dedicated to Rwanda. If this was offensive in any sense, then I’m certain the exhibit would have been excluded.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Yes, I’ve spent much time at the USHMM. Part of its permanent exhibit discusses Rwanda. And the Museum’s Committee on Conscience is further evidence of its desire to teach that historical lessons have contemporary obligations. This does not mean that the USHMM is calling Rwanda a “holocaust.” It does not. It refers to it as a genocide.

 

[Tarpeian]

Has anyone here been to the Holocaust Museum in D.C.?

I ask because they have an entire exhibit dedicated to Rwanda. If this was offensive in any sense, then I’m certain the exhibit would have been excluded.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[gracepoole]

Has anyone here been to the Holocaust Museum in D.C.?

I ask because they have an entire exhibit dedicated to Rwanda. If this was offensive in any sense, then I’m certain the exhibit would have been excluded.

Pax,
Tarpeian

See this. The USHMM is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

 

[jeannetherese]

I am quite sure they don’t. Holocaust victims are commonly “used” to accomplish any number of ends: combating the legacy of racism in Tennessee, attempting to slander Israel, decrying global warming, characterizing those who oppose health care reform… It may be that the people who reference the Holocaust via these topics are naive to the fact that they’re using the Holocaust’s victims for their own purposes. Yet most assuredly, they are. Some agendas may be noble and others definitely aren’t. Either way, the victims did not assent to being appropriated in these ways.

Those who are deceased may find it difficult to determine how they are discussed in the future. Should we cease to write history books or to create memorials to victims (including those destroyed by abortion or by the policies of the Nazi party) because these victims have no say in how they are used/appropriated/memorialized?
The victims did not assent to be commemorated in the Holocaust museum either…are they being used and appropriated, and if so, by whom?
May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

 

[gracepoole]

Those who are deceased may find it difficult to determine how they are discussed in the future. Should we cease to write history books or to create memorials to victims (including those destroyed by abortion or by the policies of the Nazi party) because they have no say in how they are used/appropriated/memorialized?

In most circumstances, not at all! I suppose it’s possible to create an inappropriate memorial or commemoration, but most are quite well done. They are, however, Holocaust memorials and commemorations, not Holocaust and abortion memorials and commemorations.

The victims did not assent to be commemorated in the Holocaust museum either…are they being used, and if so, by whom?
May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

Again, the Museum is not conflating the Holocaust and any other atrocity. Yes, it encourages visitors to think of the continuing trend of genocide post-Holocaust, but it does not describe these other genocides as “holocausts.”

 

[jeannetherese]

I apologize for my lack of clarity. There are several arguments in this thread that are confusing to me
One seems to suggest that a certain museum or spokesperson ought to be able to determine how others should discuss a historical event.
Another is that when others discuss it in ways not aligned with the “official” authority: they are “using” the deceased.
I have several questions:
Who determines the authority of the determining authority (museum or spokesperson) and why should others accept this authority as final?
How can the authority prove that it is not “using” the deceased ?

May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

 

[gracepoole]

I apologize for my lack of clarity. There are several arguments in this thread that are confusing to me
One seems to suggest that a certain museum or spokesperson ought to be able to determine how others should discuss a historical event.
Another is that when others discuss it in ways not aligned with the “official” authority: they are “using” the deceased.
I have several questions:
Who determines the authority of the determining authority (museum or spokesperson) and why should others accept this authority as final?
How can the authority prove that it is not “using” the deceased ?

May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

I would suggest that there is a body of survivors, scholars (on an international scale), historians, educators, and curators who are in continuous dialogue regarding the Holocaust, what appropriate representation of it looks like, how to respond to inappropriate usage of the Holocaust, etc. The D.C. museum has a center for advanced Holocaust studies, its exhibits are the results of partnerships with scholars and curators alike, it boasts a robust relationship with Holocaust survivors, its archivists are at the forefront of Holocaust research and inquiry (a friend and colleague there works with personal diaries that are discovered and donated – over 10,000 artifacts have been donated thus far), it subsidizes the research of people like Fr. Patrick Desbois, etc. For all of these reasons, it’s an excellent source to consult when considering when the usage of the word “Holocaust” is appropriate and one could do far worse than following the USHMM’s lead.

And of course, as I’ve mentioned before, the Vatican no longer uses the term “holocaust” to refer to anything other than, well, the Holocaust. And I generally think the Vatican is a good source.

 

[InJesusItrust]

You see abortion is far more evil than the Shoah. Then why the insistence on comparing it *with *the Shoah? It wouldn’t seem a very apt analogy if the Shoah is dwarfed by the evil of abortion.

People whose minds are darkened only understand the evils of the Holocaust. By comparing the two, the similarities are evident. 9/11 and eating meat is a terrible comparison because eating meat is not the slaughter of humans legally.

 

[jeannetherese]

I appreciate the rapid response but, unfortunately it failed to address a large portion of the question:
The first is whether a particular group or spokesperson should have the authority to determine how a historical event is discussed.
The second involves the argument that those not in compliance with that authority are guilty of “using” the deceased.
The third involves the assumption that those in authority are not “using” the deceased and leads me to wonder what specific criteria are utilized to determine whether or not various individuals and groups are “using” the deceased.
In a previous post, a link was posited between approproation/using and the inability of victims to consent. Wouldn’t criteria would also condemn those who created/market the memorial for including information on the deceased?

May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

 

[jeannetherese]

I appreciate the rapid response but, unfortunately it failed to address a large portion of the question:
The first is whether a particular group or spokesperson should have the authority to determine how a historical event is discussed.
The second involves the argument that those not in compliance with that authority are guilty of “using” the deceased.
The third involves the assumption that those in authority are not “using” the deceased and leads me to wonder what specific criteria are utilized to determine whether or not various individuals and groups are “using” the deceased.
In a previous post, a link was posited between appropriation/using and the inability of victims to consent. Wouldn’t criteria would also condemn those who created/market the memorial for including information on the deceased?

May God bless all who come to this thread. Amen.

 

[gracepoole]

The first is whether a particular group or spokesperson should have the authority to determine how a historical event is discussed.

Yes. And this is why I explained what goes into the USHMM. I think the views of survivors, for example, should carry more weight than the views of those uninvolved with the Holocaust. I also think those who study it and all of its ramifications professionally should be heard and respected.

The second involves the argument that those not in compliance with that authority are guilty of “using” the deceased.

A museum, for example, that honors Holocaust victims does not use these victims to further an agenda related to a secondary topic. Every mention, every memorial, every novel, every film isn’t ipso facto “using” the deceased (though there is an old joke: There’s no business like Shoah business). When the Holocaust is being invoked for purposes other than commemoration, one must look hard at whether this sort of thing is appropriate. No one here has even offered a solid argument in favor of viewing abortion as a genocide (yet, that is) – if we haven’t even taken that step, why should it be compared with the Holocaust?

The third involves the assumption that those in authority are not “using” the deceased and leads me to wonder what specific criteria are utilized to determine whether or not various individuals and groups are “using” the deceased.
In a previous post, a link was posited between appropriation/using and the inability of victims to consent. Wouldn’t criteria would also condemn those who created/market the memorial for including information on the deceased?

Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but it seems easy to identify when the Holocaust is being linked with a secondary topic. Schindler’s List does not make a connection between the Holocaust and abortion, or between the Holocaust and global warming, or…

BTW, I also recommend The End of the Holocaust, by Alvin Rosenfeld, which discusses in depth the problems attached to appropriating the Holocaust.

 

[chosen_people]

If you can’t see why mothers killing their own children is a even more sinful you should read the gospel and reflect on the family in Catholic teaching. And it is relevant because people know what abortion is and choose it anyway. Abortion is downright satanic.

It is almost unfathomable the lack of basic sensitivity toward Jews in these comparisons but also the total inability of these people to understand how absurd, specious and convuluted is the analogy between the Shoah and abortion. It remains only to be asked: do they believe the root causes of abortion may be found in centuries of religious anti-Semitism or of cultural anti-Semitism or of racial anti-Semitism?

 

[InJesusItrust]

No its not absurd at all. It’s the same philosophy. I can’t see how you can’t see why mothers aborting children is perhaps the worst thing that is happening at this moment. Don’t throw the “anti-Semite” word so loosely as though people hate Jews by seeing the similarity between the two. It’s no different from when homosexuals accuse others of homophobia. Can you read hearts?

For the record, abortion can be traced back to eugenics, which is something Hitler was doing. Also Jews weren’t the only victims of the Holocaust, so why the righteous indignation?

 

[Michael57]

Has anyone here been to the Holocaust Museum in D.C.?

I ask because they have an entire exhibit dedicated to Rwanda. If this was offensive in any sense, then I’m certain the exhibit would have been excluded.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Yes, many times from the year of its opening on. When I lived in the DC area, I would take friends and family down to see it and it was always a very moving experience.

Especially the shoes, that exhibit is a “three-hanky” for me, even when I know what I will be seeing ahead of time. Every single time it gets me.

 

[Tarpeian]

It is almost unfathomable the lack of basic sensitivity toward Jews in these comparisons but also the total inability of these people to understand how absurd, specious and convuluted is the analogy between the Shoah and abortion. It remains only to be asked: do they believe the root causes of abortion may be found in centuries of religious anti-Semitism or of cultural anti-Semitism or of racial anti-Semitism?

I have not read one post that has been uncharitable any perception of insensitivity is just that perception.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Tarpeian]

Yes, many times from the year of its opening on. When I lived in the DC area, I would take friends and family down to see it and it was always a very moving experience.

Especially the shoes, that exhibit is a “three-hanky” for me, even when I know what I will be seeing ahead of time. Every single time it gets me.

The room with the eternal flame, and the quotes from deuteronomy on the walls get me every time. I still highly recommend the one in Richmond. They have a rail car, and they pack you in there like chattel, then slam the door shut. It is very unnerving.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[gracepoole]

The room with the eternal flame, and the quotes from deuteronomy on the walls get me every time. I still highly recommend the one in Richmond. They have a rail car, and they pack you in there like chattel, then slam the door shut. It is very unnerving.

Pax,
Tarpeian

This reminds me of the Jewish Museum in Berlin, which has a room that visitors enter – it’s meant to convey the experience of the gas chamber, though on a very mild scale. It’s interesting to note that the ways in which various museums depict the cattle cars is always under scrutiny. In D.C., the cattle car is open and visitors walk through it (many of my college-level students are dismayed to see kids running through it), while at Yad Vashem, the car is outside and high out of reach. It’s on a railroad track that is simply sheered off at the cattle car’s end, which produces the effect of the car heading off into the abyss. It’s very striking.