Why is Denying Nanking ok and Denying the Holocaust not?

I know, you usually expect this kind of thing from Dirt, but I was reading this review of a documentary about Nanking coming out, and it still baffles me. Stuff like Unit 731 and Nanking seem to be swept under the rug, whereas when Iran questions the idea of the Holocaust, everyone jumps all over condemning them and it makes our news. Is it because we’re embarassed at our own mistreatment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry? I’m not sure, but it does irk me. Perhaps the documentary will help bring more awareness about it or something.

Danying Nanking isn’t OK. I don’t think anyone gives Japanese historical revisionists a free pass. I’ve personally pointed to revisionist Japanese propaganda disparagingly more than once.

Because the Germans kept good records and the Japanese didn’t.

Also, Jewish-Americans are well organized and politicized. Chinese-Americans aren’t.

Everything pales in comparison to the Victorian Holocaust, and the similar “sweeping under the rug” treatment it receives.

What? Film records aren’t good enough?

I’m sorry, I didn’t mean that we thought it was ok here, it’s kinda just my dissatisfaction with the universe, or something. Most of Europe is pretty guilty in regards to the exploitation of Africa, for instance. I think that the further it goes back in history, the ‘sting’ of it is lessened. But it shouldn’t be forgotten, and should be apologized for.

Because, as Communists now, the Chinese have become traditional enemies of the USA. And China doesn’t make a big deal out of it unless the Prime Minister of Japan visits Yakasuni Shrine. I think there’s a certain amount of ethnocentric pride involved too, at least where China is concerned. It doesn’t like to bring up, to admit, that there was a time that China was a victim of Japan. If China doesn’t represent itself as a victim, there’s no reason for anybody to see it as victim. It’s just another tragedy of war. Plus, as a society, the Chinese do not like to share their dirty laundry outside of the “family.” It’s shameful moment in their history that is ultimately between China and Japan.

Edit: Thank you for posting the review.

There’s this part in Churchill’s biography where he’s thrilled at the excitement of running down hordes of Africans as part of the cavalry. Dehumanization wasn’t started with Guantanamo.

What makes the WWII Holocaust different is that it was an engineering project, mathematically optimized for the most efficient genocide possible. It’s the impassivity of the German try at genocide that makes it rise to its own level of horror.

Impassivity? How would that be any different from the British enforced starvation in India?

The ww2 holocaust has the distinction of applying industrial methods to genocide, but neither the results nor the motivations behind it stand out as some sort of exceptional atrocity amongst which all other atrocities pale. I don’t mean to act callous, It is certainly a horrifying event and one of the great tragedies of history, I just fail to see why this is more horrible than any of the other horrors visited on populations by genocidal rulers.

The Holocaust gets press because the victims are considered “white” today, it’s an issue that still comes up in relation to the middle east, they have an extremely effective set of lobbying groups, and all the other major genocides have various political roadblocks to relevance. I don’t think you need any other explanations.

The Jews control the media!

That’s a fairly ignorant thing to say.

Most people agree that there is a difference between poor or callous management and the systematic destruction of life as an end in and of itself. In law, the distinction is best observed in the terms manslaughter and murder.

As the European Holocaust was a highly organized death machine, it tends to impress itself firmly upon the memory of a world used to bumbling accidental holocausts.

But if we’re going for worst Pre-World War offenders, the Dutch certainly take the cake. They’ve committed genocide everywhere from the Congo, where the bones of locals worked to death were ground and used to pave pathways, to South East Asia, where entire peoples were butchered so as to more efficiently control the production of cloves.

Are you saying that the destruction of the Congo was a strictly Flemish enterprise or does Belgium=Netherlands to you?

God, you just can’t have a reasonable discussion about this subject. AIPAC is like Bigfoot or something.

http://www.documentary.org/programs/docuweek_qa_07.php?progid=B

An interview with the filmmakers.

I’ve found this to be true as well. When I first brought this up on the boards I frequent, it was met with apathy. The harder I pressed for recognition on this topic, the more derision I received. In response, I became a fanatic on the subject. Which, honestly, didn’t help the message.

Or the Stalin enforced starvation of the Ukraine? Where you can also say that the full power of the state was used (through removing all food from the Ukraine, selling much of it to other countries) to ensure that starvation would occur?

What’s different about the Holocaust is that the people targeted are 1) terrified that it will happen again, 2) capable and willing to take action they think will prevent it from happening again.

The Chinese are not afraid of it happening again because the Chinese will damn well nuke anyone who tries. And everybody knows it, to the point where it isn’t even necessary to point this out.

The American Indians aren’t plugged in to the cultural life of the West, so don’t have the ability to cast themselves as unique victims. Also, their war is over. It’s lost and done. Things are what they are.

The Rwandan Tutsis built themselves an army and stopped things by their own force of arms, so there goes the victim card. Also, there’s the undercurrent of “it’s just a bunch of black savages massacring each other; who cares”. Same thing as the response to Darfur now.

Genghis Khan made mountains of skulls, in cities nobody remembers now. And also some we do but that don’t make a big deal of it. The Mongols are largely responsible for turning that open and tolerant Islamic Caliphate the appeasers keep lecturing us about back into a desert wasteland full of reactionary and paranoid tribesmen and no dependable central authority anywhere. Also, the destruction of the Persian highland irrigation system, which was never replaced.

The Aztecs, whose descendants now work for your local construction crews and landscaping businesses, were so unspeakably brutal that the other Mexican tribes instantly defected to a few hundred Spanish adventurers, because no option could be worse than the status quo.

Stalin and Mao each killed far more than Hitler ever did. But those victims weren’t Jews.

What makes the Holocaust unique is that it targeted the Jews. That’s it. It was not unique as an act of human evil or any such thing. Worse things have been done in the past and will be done again. It’s just that this time, it was the Jews, and a lot of Jewish people are perfectly willing to use whatever influence they have to see it doesn’t happen to them again.

Didn’t you just get done saying no explanations other than yours are needed? And now you’re wondering where the reasonable discussions have gone.

What a schmuck.

Turks. Armenians. Discuss.