> I asserted that a number of Arabs and Muslims suffer from what can be
> called "Holocaust envy" (at
> <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20060508/038013.html>).
> So do many American Indians and others who suffered -- or still
> suffer -- from oppressions that are downplayed or dismissed altogether
> by many. You see, the Holocaust has become _the_ standard of evil,
> and many are tempted to analogize their oppression to the Holocaust --
> hence the prevalence of the term "genocide" among leftists, too, not
> just among genocide-mongers of the Right.
"Holocaust envy"? I think that as far as Native Americans are concerned a better label might be "victim worthiness catagorization fatigue". It isn't envy but fatigue. While I believe that comparing and rating holocausts against some standard is a poor way to spend ones time I don't know why you would use the term envy the way you do. I have absolutely no envy in this matter, nor do any NA writers that I am aware of, but I am tired of the way our culture rates the worthiness of victims. I can't speak to Muslim or Arab "holocaust envy" as I don't feel I am familiar enough with their situation to do so but my initial reaction is to find that assertion less than compelling.
Fatigue is probably the best word for it. Can you imagine anyone but a raving lunatic telling someone who is jewish directly to their face that "yes, the holocaust was terrible but WWII drew the US much more into world affairs and allowed for the rebuilding and modernizing of Europe and Japan as well as serving to increase the rate of technological advances so in the end it was all for the best"? NA's are told this all the time and it is considered an accurate historic appraisal by most people. I've seen it written on this list as well. This engenders fatigue (and anger) but certainly not envy. The Nazi atrocities were really only unique in their technological application. Steinberg is wrong when he writes: "And it was part of the special horror of the Holocaust that everything about its victims but the bare datum of their Jewishness was obliterated before the actual living Jews, personal lives and family histories stripped away with their clothing, were obliterated themselves."
> Another reason is that a combination of moralism and capitalism tends
> to have us believe that intentional wrongs are more of a problem than
> unintentional wrongs. A case can be made that, morally speaking,
> intentional wrongs are worse than unintentional wrongs. But, in terms
> of consequences, unintentional wrongs are often much worse than
> intentional wrongs. Some can be induced to understand this point
> intellectually, but many find it unsatisfying, trapped as they are in
> conventional morality.
>
> I suspect that these two reasons led Ward Churchill to develop his
> apparent belief in, for instance, a case of an intentional spreading
> of smallpox where he couldn't find written records for it. (I don't
> think he deliberately tried to lie -- he probably talked himself into
> believing it, as many -- including scholars -- do about what they want
> to believe.)
>
> --
> Yoshie
Why shouldn't we initially consider the spreading of smallpox among the Mandan as intentional rather than unintentional? While I agree the record does not support Churchills assertions in this instance I see no reason to assume any instances of infectious disease spreading among NA's are unintentional unless proven otherwise. I believe just the opposite, they should be considered intentional until proven to be otherwise. I like Churchill's work but after reviewing the evidence it is obvious that he has either made an initial error that he refuses to acknowledge and correct or else he made shit up to suit his needs. It's very sad.
After reading the Investigative Committee Findings Report I am a bit surprised by the plagiarism findings. Those are really crappy conclusions. Churchill is obviously guilty of fabrication and falsification as well as failure to comply with established standards so I don't know why the committee felt compelled to throw in the plagiarism. It is far from obvious that he is guilty of anything other than the failure to comply with established standards regarding authors names on publications. In light of the rather significant body of work he has amassed it is disingenuous to focus on such minute, insignificant and otherwise explainable errors. The committee simply chose to disbelieve Churchill's explanation, not because of any overwhelming evidence, but for reasons they have kept to themselves.
John Thornton