Why we’re forgetting the Holocaust

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

A lot of these places are starting to rot to the point that recognition is difficult for some of them.

I say “Hurrah!”

Can’t wait until a farm or housing development or something else positive and forward is built on the site.

What is your understanding of why someplace like Poland is not allowing Auschwitz and other camps to rot away?

My understanding is that I would disagree with the government policy that maintains these places for reasons I’ve already stated, but I’m not Polish nor should I have a vote in what happens in Poland.

 

[deMontfort]

I know with Treblinka there’s literally nothing there: Both Jewish and Polish consider the entire site a mass grave and archeology and restoration is forbidden. But’s Treblinka is something of an unusual case.

 

[PetraG]

This is a surprise? It of course takes constant work for any moment in history to be remembered, but especially in this country, where we do not spend a lot of time thinking about the past. Even our national holidays set aside to remember our own history are usually not spent remembering any of it.

Memories take work to form and work to preserve. That is human nature. We aren’t a nation that values history a great deal, considering ourselves forward thinkers who are living in a world so very different from our ancestors that we often neglect to consider whether history has anything to teach us. What is scary about this is the prospect that, like everything else, history will begin repeating itself at a far faster pace.

 

[gracepoole]

gracepoole:

Vonsalza:

A lot of these places are starting to rot to the point that recognition is difficult for some of them.

I say “Hurrah!”

Can’t wait until a farm or housing development or something else positive and forward is built on the site.

What is your understanding of why someplace like Poland is not allowing Auschwitz and other camps to rot away?

My understanding is that I would disagree with the government policy that maintains these places for reasons I’ve already stated, but I’m not Polish nor should I have a vote in what happens in Poland.

I wasn’t asking for your opinion on maintaining the sites — you’ve shared that previously. I asked you to explain why, as you understand it, countries have decided to maintain these areas rather than let them rot away. What are the reasons they offer for this decision?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

gracepoole:

Vonsalza:

A lot of these places are starting to rot to the point that recognition is difficult for some of them.

I say “Hurrah!”

Can’t wait until a farm or housing development or something else positive and forward is built on the site.

What is your understanding of why someplace like Poland is not allowing Auschwitz and other camps to rot away?

My understanding is that I would disagree with the government policy that maintains these places for reasons I’ve already stated, but I’m not Polish nor should I have a vote in what happens in Poland.

I wasn’t asking for your opinion on maintaining the sites — you’ve shared that previously. I asked you to explain why, as you understand it, countries have decided to maintain these areas rather than let them rot away. What are the reasons they offer for this decision?

You vaguely asked for my “understanding”.

http://auschwitz.org/en/

Enjoy. They’d answer for themselves better than I can answer for them.

 

[gracepoole]

I know with Treblinka there’s literally nothing there: Both Jewish and Polish consider the entire site a mass grave and archeology and restoration is forbidden. But’s Treblinka is something of an unusual case.

This is absolutely correct. The Nazis destroyed the structures and what is present now is a memorial. I was quite stunned to see a recent documentary about a group of archaeologists who were permitted to do some limited digging there. Maybe it was National Geographic? Or Smithsonian? Or Discovery? Anyway, very out of the ordinary.

 

[gracepoole]

I know Auschwitz’s answer. I’m trying to have you explain why this museum is wrong in its assessment. You’ve offered your opinion. But you haven’t explained why their reasons are invalid.

 

[Vonsalza]

I know Auschwitz’s answer. I’m trying to have you explain why this museum is wrong in its assessment. You’ve offered your opinion. But you haven’t explained why their reasons are invalid.

I never said their answers were invalid.

If I did, could you please cite?

I did, however, mention that I disagree with them.

Do you require an explanation about the difference between “disagreements” and “logical validity”?

Primer: It’ll be a discussion about “axiom”.

 

[deMontfort]

deMontfort:

I know with Treblinka there’s literally nothing there: Both Jewish and Polish consider the entire site a mass grave and archeology and restoration is forbidden. But’s Treblinka is something of an unusual case.

This is absolutely correct. The Nazis destroyed the structures and what is present now is a memorial. I was quite stunned to see a recent documentary about a group of archaeologists who were permitted to do some limited digging there. Maybe it was National Geographic? Or Smithsonian? Or Discovery? Anyway, very out of the ordinary.

I was looking at aerials of it yesterday via Google Maps. The memorials that are there are very small relative to the site. There’s a rectangular memorial over the location of the burn grills, and a monument of sorts at what I’d estimate to be the location of the “Road To Heaven”. Much of the site is wooded over.

 

[gracepoole]

I assume you’re not in the habit of disagreeing with valid claims. I certainly hope I’m correct in that assessment.

You still haven’t explained why the Auschwitz museum’s reasons are invalid: or, if you prefer, why you “disagree” with them. Do you plan to or should we just assume you’re unwilling or unable to do so?

 

[gracepoole]

Yes, and the fact that much of it is wooded over is…creepy. Hearing birds singing, seeing wildflowers and vegetation growing… Very still and very disturbing. I should look at the aerials of it sometime. That’s a great suggestion.

 

[Vonsalza]

I assume you’re not in the habit of disagreeing with valid claims.

When the structural form of the claim is valid and the supporting premises are sound - no. I generally accept them.

However, I don’t find the premise of preservation to be particularly sound, ergo my dissent.

You’ll find that this is the level where most disagreements actually happen - at the axiomatic or semantic level. In other words, the selection of the base-truths with which we construct our rhetoric. Take a few logic classes at your local U. Philo department. Great fun.

You still haven’t explained why the Auschwitz museum’s reasons are invalid: or, if you prefer, why you “disagree” with them. Do you plan to or should we just assume you’re unwilling or unable to do so?

Respectfully, I think you a) just don’t like my position and b) you don’t know as much about logic as you think you do…

Sorry… I guess…

 

[deMontfort]

Yes, and the fact that much of it is wooded over is…creepy. Hearing birds singing, seeing wildflowers and vegetation growing… Very still and very disturbing. I should look at the aerials of it sometime. That’s a great suggestion.

Yeah, even without any visual cues it’s a place I’d visit ONCE and be too haunted afterwards to ever do it again. I know too much about what happened there. And reresearching it yesterday (because of this thread) gave me vivid reminders.

 

[gracepoole]

I teach argument and my husband is a professor of philosophy. But please, do continue to educate me on logic. It’s quite entertaining.

Thus far, you’ve stated your position and failed to do anything else. I guess we’ll be assuming that you’re unwilling or unable to support your conclusion. As a result, no one here needs to consider your “disagreements” with any level of credibility. That’s unfortunate but at least we finally have an answer.

 

[Vonsalza]

I teach argument and my husband is a professor of philosophy. But please, do continue to educate me on logic. It’s quite entertaining.

Then where am I wrong in my assertion that we differ at the axiomatic level? Is that not correct?
I find the preservation of that stuff to be a waste and you and the Polish government do not.

Serious question. If you’re as educated on the topic as you claim, you’d have an answer for it.

Thus far, you’ve stated your position and failed to do anything else.

Since you’re trained “in argument”, you’d also know that in order for an argument to be rejected, we don’t have to prove the counter position. We need only reject the argument on the basis of a problem with validity or soundness.

I’ve identified that I find one of your/the Polish Government’s premises unsound. As these are generally axiomatic, you don’t have a rebuttal. It’s simply accept/reject.

-And I bet therein lies the core problem for you - you don’t like that reality. I disagree with you and there’s nothing you can do about it - at least from a rational perspective.

I guess we’ll be assuming that you’re unwilling or unable to support your conclusion.

So as a result, you resort to the ad hominem of “poisoning the well” here…

I’m sure your husband can explain more fully.

 

[goout]

2towers:

That is the utter shock of it all, it has happened again. It happened again in Cambodia, up to 2 million in China during the 1950s, Bosnia, Rwanda. Then there is the daily massacre of babies in world wide abortion clinics. WHO estimates that there are between 40 and 50 abortions world-wide a year.

Worth repeating.

Yes it is.

Let this sink in when we look with horror at the Nazis:

We live in the most barbaric culture ever known to mankind.
Right here, right now, right in the mirror.
Don’t beg not to forget, we have already forgotten and exceeded the crimes we condemn.

We are pretenders at virtue and civility.

 

[qui_est_ce]

[

Saying this in a friendly way. I think the number of Jews killed really was six million. Another, slightly larger, number of Poles was also killed. But of Jews, it really was six million.

I believe it was about 11 million total, not including military. My own uncle, a Catholic priest was in a concentration camp. He survived, many did not.

And not all were killed in Poland. There were camps in Germany too.

My

 

[gracepoole]

In order for your argument to be accepted, you must refute objections. That’s why I asked how you respond to those who champion maintaining these sites. You’ve said you think it’s a waste. Why? How do you respond to and refute the claims of a museum like Auschwitz? Your assumption that I just “don’t like that reality” would have more merit if you’d attempted to persuade anyone to agree with your view and explained why those with whom you disagree don’t offer credible claims. I’m genuinely interested in your perspective. The more you focus on explaining the form of argument, the less you provide an actual argument. As a result, there’s no content to consider.

(And that isn’t what’s meant by poisoning the well. It’s a reasonable conclusion from someone’s failure to explain and support his own claim.)

 

[deMontfort]

And not all were killed in Poland. There were camps in Germany too.

Slave labour camps like Dachau and Buchenwald, where the inmates were worked and starved to death for the most part. The extermination camps were all in Poland, though. Places like Birkenau, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, ect.

 

[Vonsalza]

In order for your argument to be accepted, you must refute objections.

Lots of things here…
First, disagreement at the axiomatic level is not something you can refute. “These things are worth saving” is an opinion. It’s true because you think it’s self-evident. I disagree.

Second, the only “default truth” is “uncertainty”. Therefore it’s not “on me” to prove one particular site of tragedy is worth arbitrarily preserving. The onus is forever on you (and the Polish Government).
Unfortunately, I’m unconvinced. But since I’m not a Polish taxpayer or a paying visitor to Auschwitz, my opinion isn’t particularly relevant.

That’s why I asked how you respond to those who champion maintaining these sites.

Again, they don’t get to be right by default. The only guy or gal in the room who gets that privilege is the one with no position at all.

You’ve said you think it’s a waste. Why?

They don’t prevent tragedy. The holocaust wasn’t the first time one group tried to exterminate another. It hasn’t been the most recent.
When people get desperate, they’ll do anything and that aspect of the human condition will never change.
If some Jewish folks want to buy the sites and set a Jewish memorial - fine with me. But I don’t see the nation-wide benefit.
And honestly, I think I’ve said most of this.

How do you respond to and refute the claims of a museum like Auschwitz?

So I guess the killers in Rwanda just didn’t go to enough Holocaust museums growing up?

The more you focus on explaining the form of argument, the less you provide an actual argument. As a result, there’s no content to consider.

By “content”, I think you’re referring to premises which are axiomatically rooted. I think they’re a waste. You don’t. How we each value that is obviously subjective.