Try this experiment. Say the word "genocide." Out loud. Repeatedly. Keep saying the word forty, fifty times. Now stop. Say the word again and try to think what it means. Don't be surprised if it doesn't carry the moral weight it once did such minutes before.
Words are our connection to meaning. Not only are words necessary to convey what we are thinking but they are essential to forming our thoughts. When words are used properly they allow us to interact with reality. When they are devalued, through overuse or misuse, words lose the luminescence that is given off by meaning.
Recently there has been a lot of discussion about various political factions on the left equating President Bush with Hitler. Almost all of the posts have condemned the comparison and pointed out its absurdity. But I believe that few, if any, have discussed the true danger in making the association. Too much focus has been on defending President Bush, as if such a defense was even required. Some statements are so obviously stupid and false that even the people that making them don't believe the truth of their claim.
And therein lies the problem. By putting Bush on the same level as Hitler it not only drags down the name of the President but also helps improve the name "Hitler." Most of the people who are making the statement were not alive during the time of the Third Reich. The atrocities of Hitler are simply stories in history books and images on the movie screen. Those of us who weren't born before WWII know the denotation of the name "Hitler" but we have no experience with the connotation. Hitler, to us, is an abstract term.
Eventually, the trivialization of the name will continue until the word has only a vague meaning, perhaps implying a "bad" person (e.g., Attilla the Hun). But when we disassociate the terms "Hitler" and "genocide" our culture loses another weapon in our moral arsenal. We lose the ability to symbolize horror by invoking a single name. We lose a means to invoke unspeakable suffering by giving it a human face. In the end, we lose our memory. When that happens, when we forget what evils that one man can lead others into committing, we won't have to wait long before someone else rises to add their name to the list of history's monsters.
Update: To be fair, I have to add that this goes for those on the Right who would make the same comparisions between Dean and Hitler. Thanks to Robert Tagorda for pointing that out.
Update 2: Oops. I should have read my comments. A hat tip to T.Girsch from Lean Left for pointing out the same article.
Update 3: Matthew Stinson makes the same point.
1
There's some validity to this, but the problem I see here is that your tone would seem to indicate that it's only the Democrats who are guilty of such rhetoric. Far from it.
posted on 01.06.2004 4:14 PM2
Dean is an abortionist. He has killed many children with his own bare hands. He is full of hate and anger, waving his hands about like a certain Austrian a few years back.
Who is more like Hitler?
posted on 01.06.2004 4:20 PM3
I think you are exactly right about this. Well said. Nice to know you exist.
posted on 01.06.2004 4:53 PM4
This cartoon http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/cartoons/01-06-2004.gif also has a pretty good breakdown. You will have to google "Godwin's Law", but it basically boils down to...the first party in an argument to call the other party a nazi or Hitler ends the thread and loses the argument.
This is actually a topic I've been bothered about. We have cheapened our language. For example, Metallica is an Awesome band (this is something I personally disagree with, but work with me here) and "Our God is an Awesome God". What does awesome mean?
Is Metallica awe inspiring? Do I tremble when I see them on stage? No.
Honestly, I'm just complaining. I don't have a solution; I don't think there is one. Kinda hard to go from "Metallica's Awesome" to "Yea verily, I heartily enjoy listening to a few of Hetfields Riffs".
Let me know when I start making sense. Later.
posted on 01.06.2004 7:49 PM5
Steve:
Gimme a break. Bush prefers to wait until AFTER they're born to sentence them to death. This makes him better somehow? Please.
Also, "aborting innocents" is bad, but "bombing innocents" is okay? Please.
Save the anti-abortionist rhetoric for a forum in which it's appropriate.
posted on 01.06.2004 7:57 PM6
tgirsch, it isn't rhetoric, and this is called Evangelical Outpost, so it surely is appropriate here.
Samuel,
I disagree with you, because National Socialism is a real system, and fascism is a real ideology, and neither are dead. To declare the terms off-limits, to call anyone who uses the terms correctly the loser of an argument is fallacious and very unhelpful to making sure of "never again"
7
Steve: It was a joke. I wasn't as specific as I should have been. Godwin's Law refers to Usenet postings (Blogs probably fall into this as well.)
I am well aware of the life that is still in Naziism and fascism. I wasn't at all implying they were dead or that we should eliminate the terms. I had two different topics in my posting which is probably what caused the confusion.
posted on 01.07.2004 7:08 AM8
Your moral/ethical points are well-taken.
It's also (forgive me) a "tactical" problem. Any factual response, (e.g. "Where are the death camps?") invites further nonsense.
It's the "big lie" technique. Grrrr!
posted on 01.07.2004 10:58 AM9
Steve:
it isn't rhetoricOf course it is.
and this is called Evangelical Outpost, so it surely is appropriate here.So I can comment on any religious topic in any thread on this blog, regardless of the topic of that particular thread? I can go to the nudist thread and comment on the evils of public prayer, simply because the blog is called "evangelical outpost?"
Surely you see how silly that is. If you can convince me of the relevance of posting Dean's status as an "abortinist" in a thread concerning inappropriate attack ads, I'll be glad to change my stance. Until then, yawn.
posted on 01.07.2004 2:46 PM10
Another problem with the "whoever=Hitler" accusation, in my opinion, is that it indicates a certain amount of overt or covert anti-Semitism on the part of the accuser. That is, as you point out in your post, it trivializes the horror that was inflicted on the Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe, which (perhaps) reveals an attitude towards Jews that says that the Holocaust wasn't that important. Accusing anyone of being equivalent to an evil, genocidal mass-murderer, simply because you disagree with that person's politics, is ridiculous. Smearing someone in that manner reveals more about the accuser than it does the target.
posted on 01.07.2004 9:49 PM11
When the Bush = Hitler thing is said, it is always said in the context of Bush = Fascism. Everyone knows that. The problem is that people like to over-analyze. It's a simple statement of Bush = Fascism. Mussolini defined fascism as a marriage of the State and Corporations. Hitler defined it the same way but included that the support of the people needed to be patriotic to the point of nationalism. So, when we have a President who is 100% in bed with Corporate interests, and a public that has been snowed into believing the world is a simple matter of "us vs them" (who said "you're either with us or you're against us?"), and when you have a government seeking to find any excuse to circumvent Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms... etc. You end up with a legitimate reason to state Bush = Hitler (meaning Bush = Fascism). You "over-analyzing" types want to get into the nitty gritty of Hitler's actions. No, it's a simple comparison of Hitler's *POLITICS*.
posted on 01.19.2004 6:16 PM