A Question of What is Appropriate
[UseNet headers trimmed]
From: abels@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de (Nele Abels)
"My opinions, the
"Loquientiae multum,
A question of appropriatness
Is it fitting to introduce contributions to this newsgroup which
base on the essays published at Mr. Giwer's web-site? Would the
open use of these often senselessly polemic texts mean in itself
an unjustified attack on an author who would be exposed and ridiculed
out of context? Or would pointing at these texts lead the discussion
away from the topic "holocaust-revisionism" and to different matters
who certainly would need correction, but are irrelevant anyway?
These questions need careful consideration.
It would be tempting and easy to take over the ductus of the
"revisionists" and to demolish Mr. Giwer's texts in a highly
effective but polemic way. Indeed, some "traditionalists" try to
fight fire with fire and to meet the holocaust-deniers with their
own weapons. Often enough, such confrontations mutate to an exchange
of vulgar outbursts beyond every decency. This has to be avoided by
all means. I myself am not completely free of guild on that account.
For the sake of unnecessary sarcasm, in my contribution dealing with
Mr. Giwer's feeble attempts as an student of literature, I did not
deal sufficiently with the point I wished to make. I did not
elaborate sufficiently on Mr. Giwer's false conception of the
academic discussion and on his discoursive autism. Now, I think the
tone of my essay was inappropiate, yet I still think its intention
is justified.
Is it therefore possible to find a general criterium which helps
to discern in what boundaries text like those by Mr. Giwer may be
taken into the discussion of this newsgroup? To answer this, the
present discussion itself has to be regarded. The topic of this
newsgroup, "Holocaust-revisionism", is a historical topic.
I could
be expected that the discussion would be done following the methods
of the historian: use of printed or photographical sources with
complete annotations, their interpretation following a rational and
comprehensible argumentation, leading to a comprehensive thesis
which is offered the public for further discussion. Already a short
glance at the articles posted here shows that there is nothing like
that. From the side of the "traditionalists" a multitude of
sources and commentaries is given frequently, but unfortunately not
always. The untiring work of Dr. Keren is especially important here.
The answer from the "revisionist" side, overwhelmingly often by
Mr. Giwer himself, exhaust themselves most times in denying with
one or two lines of own text isolated points, often of minor impor-
tance.
Own quotations of sources can nearly never be found with
"revisionists", if this is the rare case, they are often enough
torn out of their context or (knowingly?) misunderstood. Often,
the discussion is pushed on scientific grounds by the "revisionists",
in the wrong assumption that historiographic methods are identical
to scientific methods, and that therefore induction and assumption
are valid to the same extent as in science. Many times, the
"revisionist" discourse gets completely lost in the playing grounds
of sophistic speculations. The reason for this is of course that
there is no supporting material for holocaust-deniers because there
can be no doubt that holocaust has happened. But another reason is
a special "revisionist" concept of history.
The discussion over the last two weeks has been symptomatic for
this particular view on history. One utterance by Mr. Giwer was
especially memorable for me. He depicted Dr. Keren's posts quoting
the testimonies of witnesses of the SS crimes as completely
irrelevant. On the first sight, such a remark is extremely
astonishing. Such testimonies are historical sources, even if they
are subjective and therefore have to be qualified carefully by
the historian. Such sources serve the purpose of "finding the
historical truth", the cause which is always given by the deniers
as an apology for their acting.
On the second sight, this remark
shows that for the "revisionists" the discussion of a historical
problem, in this case the Holocaust, is not lead for the sake of
illuminating a past reality and therefore is on principle neutral,
but that the discourse gains it reason out of itself and only for them.
Mr. Giwer wants to sustain the meaning, which the discussion presents to
him, by trying to manipulate it following his own set of rules. He
wants to decide what kind of sources may be used, which topics may
be discussed, which contributions are in context and which are out.
This way, he tries to construct a personal possessionship of the
discussion.
By this ownership, his discussing of a historical past
becomes the expression for an entirely subjective concept of history.
Because a source has per se no value as a statement on the past, but
gains its meaning only through the positive appreciation of the
""revisionist", every objective talk on history ends. "History" in
the eyes of the "revisionist" therefore finds its existence only
as an affirmative instrument of their own weltanschauung. Thus Mr.
Giwer's recent threats and "spams" can only be understood in the way
that the discussion has started to threaten his "opinions", therefore
he was forced to intercept as a regulator. From my point of view, this
is of course a highly appreciable result. "Der getroffene Hund bellt",
as a German proverb says.
On the other hand, this concept of history makes it impossible to
convince a holocaust-denier in any point. Every attempt to meet them
on the level of reason must be vain and will probably be followed by
an emotional response - as this would be the case with an attack on a
religious belief. Indeed, Mr. Giwer's frequent accusations of the
"holohuggers" being "religios follower of the cult of holocaust" is
betraying. His attacks, as the attacks of a "believer in true reason"
against the "emotional errants" reminds of the attacks of a heretic
on orthodox. Not that the holocaust research would be connected in any
way with such connotations, but that Mr. Giwer uses such metaphors,
hints at him thinking in such categories, at least subconciously.
Lipstadt draws in "Denying the Holocaust" the conclusion, that every
conversation with holocaust-deniers is contra-productive and therefore
to be avoided. I do not follow Lipstadt here. I mean that one has to
take the stand against deniers' claims by all means and that one has to
take into account their special concept of history. That does not at all
mean that we have to let ourselves be drawn into their weird dialectics.
On contrary, this means that the discussion of historical facts using
sources must only be a part of the discourse. The other, and as I think
more important, part must be analysing "revisionist" argumentation and
their travesty of history. And here the true motives of the holocaust
deniers must be brought in the open. As long as we accept their claim of
just defending their position "for the sake of truth", we will not be
able to doubt the justification of their acting. The search for truth is
the most important and the purest motive of the historian.
To disprove the "revisionist" claim of searching for the truth, we may
also use material which is connected only indirectly with this newsgroup.
It is appropriate to quote an essay in which Mr. Giwer proposes to intern
those dependent on the social services in concentration camps. This allows
conclusions on his motives of trying to improve the image of German
fascism. It is possible to present Mr. Giwer's opinion that Socialism,
Fascism and Liberalism are synonymous because it illustrates his inability
to use historical terms in their precise meaning and therefore his
incompetence of judging historical sources. It is fitting to demonstrate
Mr. Giwers stubborn habit of searching only for cues in source texts and
to connect them in his mind to the meaning he wants them to have. This
shows sufficiently his attitude that history may be manipulated for the
ends of appologizing his opinions.
The utterances of the "revisionists" must themselves be taken into
account as a source of historical studies. As long as this does not take
the forms of a polemic, we do not need to show any consideration. Remarks
like Mr. Giwer's protestations he wouldn't need to prove the theses put
forward in his essays because these are "opinion-pieces" and therefore
above critique in a public discussion, are in this context amusing, if
anything. Nethertheless they should be documented because they are telling.
To these ends I will (when I have time to do so) then and there
dissect some of Mr. Giwer's more interesting essays. I hope he will not
withstand the temptation to answer and thus to expose himself even more.
I will collect his contributions to the discussion and to condense them
as a criticism of "revisionist" techniques of discussion shown on a
grateful object. This is in my opinion the only way to defend speaking
with holocaust-deniers.
[ Index ]
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: What is appropriate?
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 96 12:47:39 GMT
Organization: Hochschulrechenzentrum der Universitaet Marburg
Message-ID: <4ragsd$ink@surz03fi.HRZ.Uni-Marburg.DE>
only opinions
worth having."
M. Giwer
sapientiae parum."
Sallust