Battles over language and sensitivity rage on, but one thing remains clear to me. Those refusing to discuss history are doomed to repeat it.
Mother Teresa is like Hitler. In fact, the other 1.038 Billion Catholics in the world are like Hitler. If you were to examine every human being that has ever lived, they are all in some way like Hitler. And reading the news it seems like more and more people are becoming like Hitler every day. These are all irrefutably true statements. But are they necessary?
Recently there have been a number of fairly high profile items in the news about people being compared to Adolph Hitler for one reason or another. The favorite target of late has been George W. Bush (and here and here and here (Pravda!) and here etc.), although John Kerry, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, Zionism, Christianity, Ivan Stang (earthly leader of the Church of the Subgenius), Bill Clinton, and The Estate Tax have all become recent targets.
All this comes at a time not too far removed from another recent attack of righteous outrage on both sides when a Bush Campaign ad displayed images of Hitler counterposed with prominent Democrats. The images came from short ads that had been displayed on MoveOn.org, and so the Bush Campaign claimed that the images of Hitler were just stand-ins for MoveOn.org and not a comparison. While I'm no fan of MoveOn and its tactics, the ads appearing on its site were not created by MoveOn.org, but by outsiders partipating in the "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest MoveOn sponsored. They appeared on the site along with 1100 other ads, and as soon as MoveOn was made aware of the ads they were removed from the site and denounced by MoveOn. So I think referring to them as "Ad Sponsored by MoveOn.org" is a bit of a stretch.
In any case, in the swirl of all this Nazification and counter-condemnation, it seems worth asking, What is an appropriate use of these comparisons? My argument is that for purposes of personal and partial comparisons, Nazifying is never appropriate. It is true that George W. Bush has encouraged legislation that has eroded civil liberties, and this is something that Hitler also did. So What? It is also true that Hitler was raised Catholic, just like Mother Teresa. How does dissecting one small portion of a person's life or work justify a comparison between the people? Isn't saying that he has eroded civil liberties enough justification without needing to point to the greatest political bogeyman in history? People who make these lame arguments that "I'm only referrring to his record on fiscal policy, not the Holocaust" are being intentionally misleading. There are Billions of people in history, many of whom are famous and well-known. The only reason someone makes a comparison to Adolph Hitler, the Nazi's or the Holocaust is to inflame passions irrationally. Is there anyone anywhere that isn't aware of how emotionally charged Hitler and Nazism are as a symbol?
I'll say it again: There's no good reason to compare someone to Hitler, unless that person happens to be a short Austrian who attempted to seize power from a country but failed and was imprisoned and then wrote a book while in prison about his political philosophy and got out and gained power through national elections on a campaign of fear and xenophobia, then engaged in a land-grab attacking his neighbors, all while engaging in a secret plot to commit genocide on a very large segment of the population and enact a police state to silence all opposition and then start a war involving most of the countries on several continents finally commencing in defeat and suicide. With a mustache. Any partial comparison carries the entire emotional weight of Hitler's legacy, and is unfair both to the subject and to the very real evil that Nazism represented.
However, I would argue that it is very important to look at parallels in history. It is important that we understand the ways in which Nazism and the Holocaust happened, or ignore them at our own peril. So I think it is entirely appropriate to examine ways in which the policies of countries, and their treatment of issues of immigration, policing, civil rights, and military struggles compare to Germany from 1933-1945. Refusing to do so is a dangerous oversight. Let's just skip the next step of saying that any country who is on any part of this dangerous path is being led by the New Hitler.
-------------------
Producer fired examining parallels between American and German Culture in 1938
Godwin's Law (Usenet law of Hitler comparisons)
Comparisons between Bush and Hitler amount to Holocaust Denial?
Grover Norquist on The Estate Tax (Fresh Air Audio)
View the "Bush in 30 Seconds" Hitler Ads
Boondocks strip (hosted for a limited time to get the point across, after which you should sign up or buy a book.)
(I'm a big fan of Boondocks and McGruder, but consider this to be guilty of the attitudes I decry in this article)
[Taken down, go to the site]
Note: Some modifications were made to this article on 15JUL to make the argument clearer.
Maybe we should compare Bush to Genghis Khan. :) Just kidding. Good statements Ish. As I have been saying now unfortunately, "You nutted it".
Grr. Another perfectly reasonable post. I can do nothing but quibble.
Generally, I will use a Hitler comparison for any world leader engaged in large scale genocide (thousands or more) and feel entirely justified by it, even without being "a short Austrian who attempted to seize power from a country but failed and was imprisoned and then wrote a book while in prison about his political philosophy and got out and gained power through national elections on a campaign of fear and xenophobia, then engaged in a land-grab attacking his neighbors..."
I justify this because Hitler is the historical figure that nearly everyone in our country can identify as someone responsible for the deaths of millions based upon their race and religion. That is primarily what he is known for, less so the painting and fiscal policy. Generally, my comparison is for instructional purposes though, less for political/rhetorical purposes. Someone asks me why anyone cares about this Pinochet person anyway. I can answer, he killed a lot of people, like Hitler.
Generally, I tune out any argument that's done by simile or metaphor. I think that they're inherently dishonest. Compare Bush to Kerry; and then despair, for one of them shall prevail in November.
Now that I've answered the actual post, here's what I really wanted to post.
Try the latest Slate quiz. It tests just your knowledge base, on whether you know more about "republican" things or "democrat" things, and which culture, "red" or "blue" you live/have lived in. It does not test which philosophy you agree with more. I thought it was fun.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103764/
Naturally, I scored almost exactly in the center, ever so slightly to the red if you must know.
Yes, that was fun. I'm quite comfortably in the white section falling slightly red as well. Which makes this a very accurate quiz in fact, since my philosophy trends blue, but my background (small town America, firearms, Carhartt jackets and all) trends ever so slightly red. Culturally, I know I'd feel more comfortable at a backwoods bonfire than a cocktail party.
Its true that in matters of genocide its a more fair comparison, but the question comes to me again, why bother? Isn't saying Pinochet is guilty of genocide enough?
Slightly red
You might be underestimating the horrible depths of the ignorance of your fellow Americans. They know who Hitler was, they know what the Holocaust was, but often that's all they know.
I frequently talk to people who need the term genocide explained to them. People that have never heard of a gulag, the Shining Path, the Khmer Rouge, the Cultural Revolution, the Janjaweed, or any of the other large scale atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries. So, to me, the most effective way to point out to someone that really bad things still happen in the world even though they're never in the newspaper or on CNN or Fox, is to trot out the Hitler comparison.
But I agree that, no matter how apt it may seem, saying James Carvile's public speaking style is Hitleresque is not terribly useful and should be beneath me. Should be.
I'm pink. But I think it's unfair I got +10 red for knowing who Dr. Laura is. Especially since it is, in effect, +20 red since all the other possible answers to that question are +10 blue. And anyone who is an avid West Wing watcher (+5 blue for knowing Martin Sheen plays Jed Bartlett) knows who Dr. Laura is. And why should just knowing who she is make me redder? Doesn't hating her count for something?
My thoughts exactly
The test is more of an indicator of the environment in which you've been raised, educated, and formed your political/social views in, not a representation of the actual views themselves.
Therefore I get red points for knowing when Rush Limbaugh is on, but no blue ones for disliking him and not knowing how to spell his name. I get red points for knowing what "Dr." Laura's show is about, but no blue ones for hating her and continually hoping that she's got another ex-boyfriend out there who has old 80's pictures and video of her strung out and semi-comatose in a Burmese opium den being gang-banged by six well endowed agnostics, occasionally screaming out Norman Mailer's name. I get blue points for getting that West Wing question right, but no red points for thinking that the show's a steaming pile of crap. Red points for knowing the evil origins of Sam's Club, but now blue ones for thinking Wal-Mart is evil and refusing to shop there. And I got blue points for being willing to purchase Angels in America for my home video collection, despite the caveat that went through my head: as long as it's cheap.
So fear not; if you have a blue sort of personality, but your upbringings are red, then that simply means that you have overcome the primitive, Neolithic throwback culture in which you had the supreme misfortune to be reared and have, through your own exertions, enlightened yourself to a more refined and better state and should be congratulated. That, or you persist in wallowing in an incoherent orgy or pseudo-new age claptrap, in some sad, juvenile attempt to "rebel"- indulging in drab delusions of intellectual sophistication, bathing in the fetid mantra of whatever self-hating, existential philosophy involving imagined persecution and dodging of responsibility, happens to be fashionable at the moment.
Well, that or the test is entirely B.S.
Take your pick.
A lot of it seemed fairly obvious to me, but then I wonder if that's part of the thesis. There were several questions in there that made me say, "Isn't that obvious?", and several more that made me say, "What the hell are they even asking?" It may be that there are areas of the country where those roles are reversed. But I don't really know whether its a crock or not.
Norman Mailer... HA!
I haven't really watched the West Wing much, as its on TV which is something I avoid doing, but I loved all of Sorkin's previous work (especially Sports Night) so I suspect I'd like it. I liked the episodes I saw anyway. I do think Martin Sheen should maybe stop pretending that he's actually the president in political appearances, though.
It's worth mentioning that everyone who has reported on the test so far lives in Michigan, a perennial "swing" state, home of the Reagan Democrats and as purple as it gets. I wonder how the scores turn out for people from Nebraska (very red) and Massachussetts (very Blue and misspelled).
Don't you have friends or relatives that were raised in other states? Can't they be forced to take the test and report the results to your blog?
Come on! This is my idle curiosity here that needs to be satisfied. Use some emotional blackmail or something.
Speaking of Slate, their "cover story" at the moment is Sullentrop's account about how the "I, Robot" movie got Asimov completely wrong. This was interesting to me as I had just come from the movie when I read it and thought that it got Asimov generally right (though at a VERY shallow level).
http://slate.msn.com/id/2103979/
Anyway, Sullentrop's assesment of what Asimov really felt about his robotic creations was exactly the opposite of my own. I'm not sure he read any of Asimov's later works where he explores the downside of having perfectly loyal, paternalistic, extermely capable slaves to care for you.
Not that I expect that you've seen the movie, read the early Asimov Robot novels, or the later Asimov Robot novels, or particularly care either way. I was hoping rabid technosavy sci-fi fans would flame C.S. from The Fray, but they're still too busy commenting on Bill Cosby.
Not to mention in the Day to Day coverage of the new Metallica documentary they mention Jason Newstead as the original bassist. Its a bad bad day for Slate factcheckers.
I agree, andy. I saw "I, Robot" this weekend. Although the movie wasn't what I thought it would be (all Hollywoodized and stuff) I thought it was pretty loyal to Asimov's books. I'm surprised with what was said about the "Foundation" series. I just finished reading that this summer. I can see how a cult would want to use those books as a religious text to follow, but there are better choices for cult followings in the sci-fi world ("A Stranger in a Strange Land" for instance). Andy, if you haven't read the Foundation series, you should. I think you'd like it. I'd make a movie out of it :-) (but I think I could make a movie out of anything.) Although, now that I think about it, religion in the Foundation series was predominant only in the first book. I guess the Second Foundation could be counted as a religion, but that was only prominent in the third book. Blah!!!! I'm stopping now.
I read Foundation a long time ago and always wanted to see it as a movie despite the fact that it would be REALLY hard to turn it into the kind of movie anyone would want to see. I think parts I and III of the first Foundation book (the parts with Hari Seldon and Salvor Hardin) could be combined to make a watchable 90 minute art-house sci-fi movie... no more of a Lawrence of Arabia meets The Usual Suspects type dealie...
Laura, have you read the later Foundation works: Foundation's Edge, Prelude to Foundation, Foundation and Earth, and Forward the Foundation? They are relevant to any discussion about Asimov and his robots (crossover: not just for NBC any more). Prelude to Foundation would make a better (more standard sci-fi) movie than any of the material in the original trilogy, but it really only works as a prequele to the original trilogy... there's not a lot there without the Foundation resonance.
Any of the other major robot novels would make good movie material, being structured as murder mysteries (something not ignored by the I, Robot movie makers), but I would really like to see the full novel treatment of Nightfall turned into a movie. The original Nightfall short story was the story that launced Asimov's career, but later he wrote, with Robert Silverberg, a full novel treatment of the same story that was truely outstanding and, I think, would translate well.
I haven't read the later Foundation books, because I don't know if my daddy owns them. I usually find books to read by going downstairs to the basement and searching through the piles of dusty books and dead spiders for something interesting to read. You guys would like our basement. It's a treasure trove of old time nerdyness.
Yes, yes I would.