Elizabeth (the delinquent, ecumenical) (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hermionesviolin) wrote2008-05-04 09:33 pm
hermionesviolin) wrote2008-05-04 09:33 pm
Entry tags:
HP-nacht
I don't see a writeup on fandom_wank, but people have hat-tipped ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
amireal, chopchica, jennem, thebratqueen, and zvi_likes_tv, so you can check them out for details and commentary. [Apparently there is a bit of a roundup at UnfunnyBusiness.]
Basically, there's a Harry Potter RPG over on IJ which titled itself Kristallnacht. The premise is exploring what would happen if Grindelwald (who is posited as a Hitler-like figure in the books) hadn't gotten defeated. Anyway, people protested that using the name of an actual historical event was offensive, and some of the people supporting the Kristallnacht name did not respond well. (Though they have since changed the name to Hexennacht.)
As the furor was going on,fox1013 made an icon which says: "Things Which Can Reasonably Be Compared To The Holocaust (a list): 1. The Holocaust."
My immediate reaction to the icon was some hesitancy, because of course I think comparisons can be useful in understanding things, but Holocaust (and/or Hitler) comparisons get made so frequently and so loosely that I would really be okay with some kind of unofficial moratorium. (An official moratorium would offend my libertarian sensibilities, but if people made more of an effort to stop and think about the criticisms they really wanted to invoke, rather than knee-jerk invoking the biggest baddest evol they can think of, I would be happier.)
Before I went to bed last night, I saw a couple commenters (mecurtin and furies) on her post problematizing the icon, so I was mulling on that as I went to sleep, and one of the things I thought of was that yes, there have been other genocides and etc., but the Holocaust is so complex that bits are always lost when comparisons are made, especially because the Holocaust/Hitler is usually invoked not so much as a comparison but as an equivalency, which sets up a straw man argument which helps no one.
Today I read the discussions that stemmed from those comments and herein c&p excerpts:
Fox said, "In the real world, yes, there are many events of genocide which can and should be discussed together, providing context as well as a growing horror that these things keep happening." (She went on to say that her icon was intended to be understood in the context of the fannish discussion she was referencing in the entry in which she used the icon.)
CallunaV weighed in on the criticism of the icon, saying, "Will it help if I say that I think the point here is not that nothing has ever been as atrocious as the Holocaust or ever could be, but that the Holocaust was a unique event, an atrocity which is unlike any other, and should not be invoked casually, like name-dropping in the atrocity cocktail lounge?" (She went on to say other smart things, but I think that snippet really encapsulates it so well.)
furies pointed out that, "if we insist that each event is a separate, unique, incomparable point in time, we lose what makes this happen again and again, albeit in different parameters," and also commented that, "i think americans in particular have a certain way of 'fetishizing' hitler as the ultimate 'evil' that it paints a portrait we again don't have to think about. if hilter is banned to this place of 'evil' that we make unique, we don't have to think about the parts of ourselves and our neighbors who shared things with hitler, or how deep national myths touch people, or how people continually look for scapegoats and messiahs in times of crisis." I can't speak to whether Americans do it more than anyone else, but it definitely happens -- cf. Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust (one of the great books I read in SOC 101).
amireal pointed out that, "the things that led to Darfur are not the things that led to The Holocaust are not the things that led to any other moment in history that can be labeled Genocide" (which also makes me think of discussions about labeling things "genocide" vs. "mass murder").
amireal, chopchica, jennem, thebratqueen, and zvi_likes_tv, so you can check them out for details and commentary. [Apparently there is a bit of a roundup at UnfunnyBusiness.]Basically, there's a Harry Potter RPG over on IJ which titled itself Kristallnacht. The premise is exploring what would happen if Grindelwald (who is posited as a Hitler-like figure in the books) hadn't gotten defeated. Anyway, people protested that using the name of an actual historical event was offensive, and some of the people supporting the Kristallnacht name did not respond well. (Though they have since changed the name to Hexennacht.)
As the furor was going on,
fox1013 made an icon which says: "Things Which Can Reasonably Be Compared To The Holocaust (a list): 1. The Holocaust." My immediate reaction to the icon was some hesitancy, because of course I think comparisons can be useful in understanding things, but Holocaust (and/or Hitler) comparisons get made so frequently and so loosely that I would really be okay with some kind of unofficial moratorium. (An official moratorium would offend my libertarian sensibilities, but if people made more of an effort to stop and think about the criticisms they really wanted to invoke, rather than knee-jerk invoking the biggest baddest evol they can think of, I would be happier.)
Before I went to bed last night, I saw a couple commenters (mecurtin and furies) on her post problematizing the icon, so I was mulling on that as I went to sleep, and one of the things I thought of was that yes, there have been other genocides and etc., but the Holocaust is so complex that bits are always lost when comparisons are made, especially because the Holocaust/Hitler is usually invoked not so much as a comparison but as an equivalency, which sets up a straw man argument which helps no one.
Today I read the discussions that stemmed from those comments and herein c&p excerpts:
Fox said, "In the real world, yes, there are many events of genocide which can and should be discussed together, providing context as well as a growing horror that these things keep happening." (She went on to say that her icon was intended to be understood in the context of the fannish discussion she was referencing in the entry in which she used the icon.)
CallunaV weighed in on the criticism of the icon, saying, "Will it help if I say that I think the point here is not that nothing has ever been as atrocious as the Holocaust or ever could be, but that the Holocaust was a unique event, an atrocity which is unlike any other, and should not be invoked casually, like name-dropping in the atrocity cocktail lounge?" (She went on to say other smart things, but I think that snippet really encapsulates it so well.)
furies pointed out that, "if we insist that each event is a separate, unique, incomparable point in time, we lose what makes this happen again and again, albeit in different parameters," and also commented that, "i think americans in particular have a certain way of 'fetishizing' hitler as the ultimate 'evil' that it paints a portrait we again don't have to think about. if hilter is banned to this place of 'evil' that we make unique, we don't have to think about the parts of ourselves and our neighbors who shared things with hitler, or how deep national myths touch people, or how people continually look for scapegoats and messiahs in times of crisis." I can't speak to whether Americans do it more than anyone else, but it definitely happens -- cf. Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust (one of the great books I read in SOC 101).
amireal pointed out that, "the things that led to Darfur are not the things that led to The Holocaust are not the things that led to any other moment in history that can be labeled Genocide" (which also makes me think of discussions about labeling things "genocide" vs. "mass murder").
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I can ILL the book.
no subject
Yes, the fact that Grindelwald definitely has that Germanic ring to it does make him seem rather Hitler-esque. But Voldemort, who reinvented himself (from nobody mudblood Tom Riddle into Lord Voldemort, heir of Slytherin) and then took it upon himself to attack others like him--other people of mixed blood... *shakes her head* Both had the same goal. Magic in the hands of the magical. And both wanted to be the most powerful wizard who ever lived. Both committed horrible atrocities to attain their goal. So why associate one and not the other?
Also, I don't know how Grindelwald's operation was set up. I do know how Voldemort's was. Wizards he mostly trusted were put into positions of power. Sound familiar?
I think what bothers me MOST about the whole issue is that the focus is on one character whose name happens to sound like he could be German. Whoopdeedoo.
no subject
Given Grindelwald's focus on "greater good" and all, I don't think it seems a particular stretch to see him (as well as Voldemort) as a Hitler-like figure -- though I really can't speak to that in detail as I didn't read the 7th book closely; I just sort of let myself be carried along by the narrative.