Victimhood Competition Jews Beat Ukrainians Govier

Victims and Victimhood, by Trudy Govier. 2015

Victim Olympics: Victimhood Competition. Jews Beat Ukes. Holocaust Supremacism: A “Second Wounding” of Peoples Whose Genocides Have Been Ignored or Marginalized

The most interesting, and relevant, part of this work discusses the competitive victimhood, between Ukrainian-Canadians and Jews, over the exhibition, of their respective genocides (Holodomor and Holocaust), at the Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. (pp. 59-65). That is the focus of my review. Owing to the fact that some of the information in this book is outdated, I include novel information in my review.

HOLOCAUST PREEMINENCE: A “SECOND WOUNDING” OF PEOPLES WHOSE GENOCIDES HAVE GONE UNRECOGNIZED

What does it matter that, so many decades after WWII, the Holocaust gets almost all the attention, and all other genocides are marginalized, if not ignored entirely? What does it matter that the Holocaust is now a self-appointed “stand-in” or “representative” for all genocides? A lot, as it turns out.

Author Govier sagely comments, “What is ‘second wounding’? The point of this expression is that silence about a person’s wounds is itself a wound, because wounded people need acknowledgement and attention. If their wounds are unseen and their stories unheard, their needs will be unmet. To be met, they must be acknowledged. In virtue of their suffering experience, victims merit deference and respect.” (p. 11). Yes, ALL victims of genocide—not only the Jews. Recognition of one’s genocide is, or should be recognized, as a basic civil right. Therefore, Holocaust supremacism is a violation of other peoples’ civil rights.

RATIONALIZING HOLOCAUST SUPREMACY

An elaborate body of Holocaustspeak has been developed to justify the pre-eminence of the Holocaust over all other genocides. Author Trudy Govier, however, seems to focus primarily on the numbers of dead, and the rather abstract “who suffered more” question. (e. g, p. 10, 62). In actuality, it is not a question of numbers: It is a question of inferred significance. For instance, we hear the well-worn claim that Jews were targeted for total annihilation by Hitler (e. g, p. 60), while Ukrainians were never targeted for total annihilation by Stalin. We are also reassured that the Great Famine was a rational act, in that it served to eliminate opposition to Soviet policies, while the Holocaust really served no rational purpose for the Nazis.

It most certainly does not follow that a more-comprehensive genocide is one iota more significant than a less-comprehensive genocide. In any case, the “total annihilation of Jews”, Hitler’s rhetoric aside, is a myth. Nor is a “less-rational” genocide one iota more significant than a “more-rational” one. Besides, “rationality” in genocide, whatever it is supposed to mean is, first and foremost, in the eye of the perpetrator.

But what does all this matter? The Holocaust-supremacist memes do not need facts: They have become “truth” from constant propaganda. So the average person, even if equally familiar with the Holodomor and Holocaust, will think that the Holodomor was an inferior event because, after all, the Ukrainians underwent “only” a partial and moreover “rationally-conceived” genocide.

HOLODOMOR VS HOLOCAUST: COMPETITIVE VICTIMHOOD AT THE MUSEUM OF HUMAN RIGHTS AT WINNIPEG

I now add to the information that author Trudy Govier has presented on this subject. (pp. 59-65). The following paragraphs are partly based on supplementary information in accordance with a January 6, 2011 press release of the Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg.

The Museum was to devote a permanent zone (gallery) solely to the Holocaust, and identified it as such. In contrast, and in spite of the courageous activism of Canadian-Ukrainians, the Holodomor never got the recognition it deserved—a stand-alone permanent zone (gallery). Instead, although being recognized as a permanent exhibit, it was to be relegated into the Mass Atrocity permanent zone (gallery). This was clearly a double insult. It not only marginalized the Great Famine, but also redefined it, in an Orwellian way, from a genocide into merely a generic atrocity.

The Holodomor bus [Holodomor Mobile Classroom], parked outside the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, carried its own implications. It almost said that the Holodomor was an also-ran event, if not a partly-unwelcome wandering stepchild of the Museum.

Now consider more recent information (personal communication from the Museum, July 2017). A number of exhibits on the Holodomor were opened in the Breaking the Silence gallery. Its placement there, combined with the very name of the gallery, implied that the Holodomor was a sort of “warning” or “warm-up” genocide for the “real” genocide that was unfolding–that of the Jews under Hitler. [The same stratagem was tried for the Armenian Genocide (Aghets) at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) in Washington. See my review of PRESERVING MEMORY, by Linenthal.]

In addition, a number of exhibits pertaining to the Holodomor were included in the Examining the Holocaust gallery. This implies that the Holodomor, at best, plays second fiddle to the Holocaust. At worst, the Holodomor is a footnote to the Holocaust.

HOLODOMOR VS HOLOCAUST: A ZERO-SUM GAME?

Incredibly, having written so thoughtfully about “second wounding”, Govier turns around, and tells the reader that attention to the Shoah, and Great Famine in Ukraine, need not be a zero-sum game. (p. 61). The informed reader may find this statement rather naïve, as I did.

The gross imbalance in recognition, between the genocides of Ukrainians and Jews, is much broader than just the situation at the Canadian Museum of Human Rights in Winnipeg. In spite of the courageous activism of Canadian-Ukrainians, the Holodomor has never gotten more than a small fraction of the coverage, in major Canadian newspapers, of the Holocaust.

There are various other benefits to Jews that accrue from the fact and pervasiveness of Holocaust Supremacy, none of which are discussed by author Trudy Govier. As Norman Finkelstein pointed out, “Unique suffering confers unique entitlement.” He was thinking primarily in terms of political advantages. In addition, the preeminence of the Holocaust elevates Jews to a perpetual moral high ground from which they control the discourse. For instance, Jews freely accuse others (e. g, Ukrainians of Nazi collaboration), while exempting themselves from mention of Jewish crimes (e. g, the complicity of the Zydkomuna (Judeo-Bolshevism) in the Holodomor).

Finally, Holocaust supremacism dictates that history be increasingly rewritten from a Jewish point of view, and not only that during WWII. This means that the average person is more likely to view Ukrainian history through the lenses of the Jewish experience than to understand it in accordance with the experiences of the Ukrainian people. For instance, the average person is more likely to remember Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis than to appreciate the coterminous sufferings of the Ukrainian people under Hitler, much less the earlier sufferings of the Ukrainian people under Stalin.