It isn’t Holocaust denial. This is what Holocaust means (from Wikipedia):
The Holocaust, known in Hebrew as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.
She would only be denying certain actions of the Nazis. It still doesn’t count.
Edit: On your last paragraph, I know. Rowling is a Nat-Z as well. That’s why I found it extremely unlikely that she’s a Holocaust denier, and why I used a Jewish supremacist source as they would never let that slide.
Victims of Nazi Germany, I suppose. I still largely say Holocaust to piss off Zionists. My point was that she’s at best a revisionist, even if we used the more comprehensive definition and even if she denied that trans people were killed (which she seems not to).
the term Holocaust is sometimes used to include the murder and persecution of non-Jewish groups, such as the Romani and Soviet POWs.
And I disagree, because it’s not sometimes. It’s most of the time.
Encyclopedia Brittanica: Holocaust, the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany
History.com: The Holocaust was the state-sponsored persecution and mass murder of millions of European Jews, Romani people, the intellectually disabled, political dissidents and homosexuals by the German Nazi
See, I think it’s really irresponsible to do as Rowling does and make the Holocaust solely about Jewish people and not the other groups.
First, the etymological argument. Holocaust means whole-burning. Not Jew-burning. It’s not called the Loudaicaust, is it? Indeed, according to Wikipedia, people used to say “The Jewish holocaust” up until special importance was assigned to the Jewish persecution and people began to conflate the two.
Second and more importantly, the ethical argument. When we assign special importance to the persecution of Jewish people, we forget the historical oppression of other groups. Which is exactly what Hitler, Rowling, and Netanyahu want us to forget. All three are aligned as fascists who want to tear down history and forget the suffering of those they deem subhuman. Anti-semitism does not exist in a vacuum. It always operates as part of a broader ideology we call fascism. The ideology of all three of these people. The Holocaust is what the fascists did. They did it to many different people. Never forget.
And finally, you moved the goalposts. When you cited Jewish News UK, your position was that she didn’t deny the persecution of trans people, because that’s what Jewish News said. You’ve already lost the argument, and now you’re trying to save face for Rowling by quibbling over technicalities.
And I agree with you, Holocaust shouldn’t just mean the Jewish victims. I’m not a Jewish exceptionalist. But it is largely what it means today, and Rowling still has not denied the genocide of other persecuted groups. Only the raid of The Institute of Sexology and trans people being the first victims, which still doesn’t count.
Anti-semitism does not exist in a vacuum. It always operates as part of a broader ideology we call fascism.
I would go as far as to say that antisemitism just doesn’t exist today (mandatory Norman Finkelstein, who is Jewish himself and whose parents are Holocaust survivors). It is in no way a mainstream political current. What is far more threatening today is Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism. That is what’s causing the Gaza genocide right now. Modern fascists are not antisemites, they’re the opposite.
(…)your position was that she didn’t deny the persecution of trans people(…)
That’s not what I said. She probably does, it still doesn’t count. Even if she did deny that trans people were killed (which as far as I can see she hasn’t) and we used a more encompassing definition of the Holocaust, that just makes her a Holocaust revisionist, not a denier.
Modern Israeli politics aside, and thats a huge aside, saying that antisemitism doesn’t exist is a bold claim seeing as the one thing you can bet on existing pretty much any time and any where in the last couple millenia is antisemitism.
I’m not Jewish. I have no dog in this race. I just like going down history rabbit holes and it always makes me laugh when “Opinions on Jewish People” seems to show up randomly as a section on the wiki. Almost like it’s a genetic predisposition in some people. It’s fascinating.
Nat-Z stands for National Zionist. And I’m not a Jewish supremacist.
What I meant by that was that any kind of rhetoric that would harm the Zio victim narrative in any way would get a huge hit piece from them, not defense.
It isn’t Holocaust denial. This is what Holocaust means (from Wikipedia):
She would only be denying certain actions of the Nazis. It still doesn’t count.
Edit: On your last paragraph, I know. Rowling is a Nat-Z as well. That’s why I found it extremely unlikely that she’s a Holocaust denier, and why I used a Jewish supremacist source as they would never let that slide.
So what term do we use for the non-jews that were rounded up and sent to the same concentration camps and murdered?
Victims of Nazi Germany, I suppose. I still largely say Holocaust to piss off Zionists. My point was that she’s at best a revisionist, even if we used the more comprehensive definition and even if she denied that trans people were killed (which she seems not to).
The Wikipedia also says
And I disagree, because it’s not sometimes. It’s most of the time.
Encyclopedia Brittanica: Holocaust, the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany
History.com: The Holocaust was the state-sponsored persecution and mass murder of millions of European Jews, Romani people, the intellectually disabled, political dissidents and homosexuals by the German Nazi
See, I think it’s really irresponsible to do as Rowling does and make the Holocaust solely about Jewish people and not the other groups.
First, the etymological argument. Holocaust means whole-burning. Not Jew-burning. It’s not called the Loudaicaust, is it? Indeed, according to Wikipedia, people used to say “The Jewish holocaust” up until special importance was assigned to the Jewish persecution and people began to conflate the two.
Second and more importantly, the ethical argument. When we assign special importance to the persecution of Jewish people, we forget the historical oppression of other groups. Which is exactly what Hitler, Rowling, and Netanyahu want us to forget. All three are aligned as fascists who want to tear down history and forget the suffering of those they deem subhuman. Anti-semitism does not exist in a vacuum. It always operates as part of a broader ideology we call fascism. The ideology of all three of these people. The Holocaust is what the fascists did. They did it to many different people. Never forget.
And finally, you moved the goalposts. When you cited Jewish News UK, your position was that she didn’t deny the persecution of trans people, because that’s what Jewish News said. You’ve already lost the argument, and now you’re trying to save face for Rowling by quibbling over technicalities.
You mean history.com as in the History Channel?
And I agree with you, Holocaust shouldn’t just mean the Jewish victims. I’m not a Jewish exceptionalist. But it is largely what it means today, and Rowling still has not denied the genocide of other persecuted groups. Only the raid of The Institute of Sexology and trans people being the first victims, which still doesn’t count.
I would go as far as to say that antisemitism just doesn’t exist today (mandatory Norman Finkelstein, who is Jewish himself and whose parents are Holocaust survivors). It is in no way a mainstream political current. What is far more threatening today is Jewish supremacism and exceptionalism. That is what’s causing the Gaza genocide right now. Modern fascists are not antisemites, they’re the opposite.
That’s not what I said. She probably does, it still doesn’t count. Even if she did deny that trans people were killed (which as far as I can see she hasn’t) and we used a more encompassing definition of the Holocaust, that just makes her a Holocaust revisionist, not a denier.
Modern Israeli politics aside, and thats a huge aside, saying that antisemitism doesn’t exist is a bold claim seeing as the one thing you can bet on existing pretty much any time and any where in the last couple millenia is antisemitism.
I’m not Jewish. I have no dog in this race. I just like going down history rabbit holes and it always makes me laugh when “Opinions on Jewish People” seems to show up randomly as a section on the wiki. Almost like it’s a genetic predisposition in some people. It’s fascinating.
Please tell us about modern-day antisemitism. It would actually be awesome to hear the examples cited in the video existing. Prove me wrong.
And calling worldwide Jewish exceptionalism both in politics and in society “modern Israeli politics” is pretty fucking crazy, not gonna lie.
What do you mean by this? Aren’t most Nazis denying the Holocaust?
I’d argue the opposite. Supremacists of any kind don’t care about facts and only care about “their side”
Nat-Z stands for National Zionist. And I’m not a Jewish supremacist.
What I meant by that was that any kind of rhetoric that would harm the Zio victim narrative in any way would get a huge hit piece from them, not defense.
The Zionist narrative has always downplayed or erased non-jewish holocaust victims.
I know. I don’t do that?