And back in the real world, he went on to use that critical thinking in classroom assignments, helping students understand actions and attitudes that lead to genocide: Tim Walz’s Class Project on the Holocaust Draws New Attention Online https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/tim-walz-holocaust-class-rwanda-genocide.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ck4.FpW4.05czkX9J5r9u
Tldr, in one of his geography classes, Walz taught his class about how violence rises, class voted on what country they thought likely to deal with that kind of violence, like a year later the Rwanda genocide began.
Anybody got a master’s degree in boys that cry wolf? Hell at this point you’ll be called antisemitic for saying you prefer Robertson screwdrivers to Torx.
Robertson over Torx? I’ll not call you antisemite, my good sir. I’ll call you monster!
This was actually a discussion I was in on the Marvel movies of all things. They updated Iron Man’s origin by moving it from Vietnam to the Middle East, and the question then became “Well, how do you update Magneto’s origin without the Holocaust?” and I was like “There’s always another genocide… Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia… pick one.”
You don’t even have to leave WW2 to find another genocide in China.
My thought was you make him a black South African who lost his family to apartheid related violence.
I want young Rohingya Magneto.
They’re really reaching for some material, aren’t they?
Well they tried trashing him for providing tampons to women in need.
Then for being a retired military vet.
Then for making a joke about ladders.
So yeah, they’re really running out of stuff it would seem.
That is going to annoy the Turks too.
Russians killed a lot of ethnic groups some of them completely.
So did we
Such as?
Why does there have to be right wing and left wing? By that logic it automatically puts everyone against each other rather than all together. There is no this side or that side. Its all of us as a whole, working towards a better future.
People are tribal and need group identities
Because we are at odds with each other. The left wing and right wing designate political stances, they form the difference that puts us at odds.
Abortion vs no
Gun rights vs limitations
LGBTQ+ rights vs none
Oligarchy vs … oligarchy. Ok fine.
In it, Walz argues that the lessons of the “Jewish Holocaust” should be taught “in the greater context of human rights abuses,” rather than as a unique historical anomaly or as part of a larger unit on World War II. “To exclude other acts of genocide severely limited students’ ability to synthesize the lessons of the Holocaust and the ability to apply them elsewhere,” he wrote.
What an antisemitic, he wants people to learn so such acts of horror never happen again.
I agree with Walz here, the Holocaust was not unique in the sense that genocide is an ongoing feature of human history and events. I also agree with the dude elsewhere in this thread that the Holocaust was unique among genocides, because it was the first industrial genocide. That doesn’t make it worse; we don’t need to play victim olympics. In the grand scheme of things, Walz certainly should not be called antisemitic for saying that we shouldn’t hyperfocus on the Holocaust at the expense of understanding the prevalence of genocide in general, and we should realize the reason he’s being called antisemitic is because, right now, it benefits Israel to derail any broader discussion on the nature of genocide.
It wasn’t even the only genocide in WW2.
I agree. If the holocaust was unique then there is no need to say “never repeat it!” since it can’t be repeated if it is unique. History says otherwise. Like you said though, this isn’t some victimization competition but it is exceptional in its scale and industrialization.
*antisemite
I approve of your sarcasm though.
It wasn’t unique, it wasn’t a “one off”. The unique framing appeals to conservatives as it feeds into exceptionalism and impunity. “We’re special!” It’s those people who only care about stuff when it happens to them. Same as with abortions and “The only moral abortion is my abortion”.
Fundamentally, this is evidence of the failure to generalize learning (what learning is for), a grand failure of intelligence.
It wasn’t unique, it wasn’t a “one off”.
I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique. It was unique in its effectiveness, it was a meticulously planned machinery of death the world has never seen before or after. The Jews weren’t just killed where they could be found, they were caught, cataloged, transported, sorted and then murdered as effectively as possible. Death on a well planned assembly line.
Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?
No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.
The unique framing appeals to conservatives as it feeds into exceptionalism and impunity. “We’re special!” It’s those people who only care about stuff when it happens to them.
That’s just a disgusting take just someone very privileged is able to have.
So the Holocaust didn’t do the same thing to Romas, queer folk, Black folk, etc? Only the Jewish folk?
I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique. It was unique in its effectiveness, it was a meticulously planned machinery of death the world has never seen before or after.
There were once 100 million Natives living on the two American continents.
Most estimates (and all recent ones) put that number around 50 mln, the vast majority of whom died from disease, rather similarly to how the black death from asia killed the majority of europe and the middle east two hundred years prior.
Did it enable colonialism? Yes. Was it meticulously planned? No.
This is genocide denial.
They were rounded up into camps, the US army brought the buffalo to near extinction to starve the natives, scalp hunting! It was systematic and deliberate.
So Mao and Pol Pot were just armatures because they didn’t keep enough paperwork?
Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?
No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.
I have pointed at exactly this sort of quantifier as being wrong already in my original comment.
If only they made it a bit more “Vorsprung durch Technik”, they could have made their genocides truly unique.
Does all that make it a quantifier, was this genocide more “genocidy” then others?
No, just that the way it was carried out was unique, no more no less, but to deny that is just revisionism.
It’s funny that Walz is preaching nuance and critical thinking, and yet the people who purport to agree with him in this thread apparently can’t synthesize your point. The Holocaust is a stark reminder that genocide will not only continue, but will be improved and augmented by new technologies and ideologies. Like you said, though, that doesn’t make it worse than others. I think the issue you’re running into is that the point here is Walz is being subjected to ad hominem to distract from a broader discussion on the nature of genocide because such discussions are bad for Israel and their conservative benefactors in the US. Folks ITT probably have it in their heads that you agree that Tim Walz is an antisemite, but as it turns out, two things can be true. The Holocaust is unique in a particular sense, but that is not what Walz is talking about; in the context he is speaking, the Holocaust is not unique. Essentially, the Holocaust, as a vivid and well-documented case study, can and should be a window into the broader history of genocide and human rights abuse.
I agree with all that you said.
I think the issue you’re running into is that the point here is Walz is being subjected to ad hominem to distract from a broader discussion on the nature of genocide because such discussions are bad for Israel and their conservative benefactors in the US.
Ah yeah that makes sense, your rephrasing made me understand the issue.
The Holocaust is unique in a particular sense, but that is not what Walz is talking about; in the context he is speaking, the Holocaust is not unique. Essentially, the Holocaust, as a vivid and well-documented case study, can and should be a window into the broader history of genocide and human rights abuse.
I understand, I was trying to point out that nuance is important in that instance, the uniqueness of the event is a good cautionary tale and to diminish that into a too broad of a “genocide blanket” would take away from the unique problems genocide projects into our modern world.
Similar to how antisemitism is a form of racism but in its “design” it is still a unique form of racism.
Although my attempt was way less eloquent than yours.
Thank you, that was the first comment that actually engaged with what I tried to say.
So the unique thing about the Holocaust was the involvement of IBM and Bayer/IG Farben?
Ok yeah I can buy that.
Sure whatever you want to believe, I gave up on this thread having any sort of constructive argument or insight. Didn’t even have to be valuable insight, but there’s nothing here to be found.
Okay so, this is a rhetoric problem.
This phrase here:
I disagree with the premise, the Holocaust was unique.
You lost the crowd immediately. The thrust of Walz’ position is that people should be more aware of the ubiquity of genocidal thinking, and in your first sentence, you put yourself in opposition to him.
Even though you agree with Walz later in spirit, the immediate impression is that you’re downplaying other genocides by over-fixating on the shock and horror of this one in particular, and it takes you way too long to clear up your position.
If you had phrased this as “added context” or “an additional fun fact” or “some ways in which the holocaust was unique,” it becomes much harder to disagree with you. Your audience isn’t primed immediately to be angry, and you beget much more charitability, at least from those who aren’t insane.
I understand that now, my phrasing was poor and I also didn’t make it clear that I was trying to engage with the comment and underline the missing nuance and not with the conversation about walz, although i was also missing some nuance in my comment I agree.
You lost the crowd immediately
Yeah going back I can see that most didn’t make it past the first two sentences, that is on me. I guess after the first answers I was just angry people were unwilling to engage with the content of my comment, so I wasn’t able to see my own shortcomings without you pointing me at them.
I appreciate the insight and the kindness of encouraging me to reflect that instead of just piling on. Thank you!
This is HORRIBLE! Look at that ANTISEMITE!
-People who Support Nazis and think anyone who is against Genocide is Antisemitic!
It’s honestly kinda sad because during the same time period the Japanese were arguably being worse to the Chinese. Even at the same time period the holocaust wasn’t unique.
Yeah, this one doesn’t hold water either… I’m sure he kicked a dog or something at some point. I’m gonna hold out for that one.
It’s not even unique to WW2. The Japanese killed somewhere between 3 and 10 million Chinese civilians, burning some of them alive. If that range sounds insane, it’s because it is. Some estimates put the number of civiians killed by the Japanese as high as 20 million. Wikipedia.
Can’t forget Ghengis Khan!
Chinese citizens got a pretty raw deal rather often it seems. :(
I feel like I’m treading into a minefield here but anyway…
It wasn’t unique in its goal but it was unique in its method. It was much more organized and industrialized than other genocides. Most were about bringing a group under control whereas the Holocaust was about eliminating a group.
At the very least, the Porajmos (aka gypsy holocaust) should be considered and taught alongside the holocaust. No one talks about it, and it was the exact same people with the exact same methods doing it, and the average person of that group is having more troubles than average jews in europe now.
But i disagree, having more industry and organisation is just a matter of a particular technological and economic stage, and someone can nitpick the degrees of ‘‘technology’’ or ‘‘organisation’’ being considered relevant to qualify.
He is right it wasn’t. Hitler was emulating past settler colonial projects. He was inspired by how the indigenous peoples of North America were reduced to only tens of thousands and forced to live in reservations. It is just that no one cared until it happened in Europe.
Not true. Hitler had little care or understanding of the world outside of continental Europe.
As well as Germanys own genocides of the Herero and Namaqua.
The important thing to me here is that he has a master’s degree and it took on tough subject matter with a larger perspective of how humanity needs to learn to no repeat this horrible actions of its past. He just keeps getting more awesome.
Harris/Walz 2024!
Genocide 2024!
Same. Every angle that Cons attack Walz from only ends up making me like him more.
I commented this elsewhere too, but dude took this expertise with a tough subject and shared it well with the high schoolers he taught: Tim Walz’s Class Project on the Holocaust Draws New Attention Online https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/09/us/politics/tim-walz-holocaust-class-rwanda-genocide.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ck4.FpW4.05czkX9J5r9u
Genocide isn’t unique…walz is right
The only reason everybody chose to ignore Stalin doing the exact same thing in a different way is because he decided to flip on Hitler earlier than expected.
🤡
Nope! Humanity has a hell of a history of it.
