Holocaust Exceptional Politics Not Factuality Moses

Conceptual Blockages and Definitional Dilemmas in the ‘Racial Century”: Genocides of Indigenous Peoples and the Holocaust, by A. Dirk Moses. 2002

The Presumed Exceptionality of the Holocaust Has No Factual Basis. It is Instead Based on Philosophy, Metaphysics, and—Especially—Politics. It is Inherently Divisive, Inconsiderate of All the Other Genocides, and Inevitably the Source of Victimhood Olympics

The author, Anthony Dirk Moses, is a historian and a specialist in genocide. Agree with him or not, but acknowledge that he knows what he is talking about.

Although this academic paper was now written 17 years ago, it remains relevant. While the presumed exceptionality of the Jews’ Holocaust is no longer much discussed in academia, it is still very much tacitly treated, as fact, for purposes of the educational and political policies that govern the western world. Thus, the Holocaust continues to enjoy an over-signification and over-attention that is not remotely true of the genocide of any other people. We are still far, far from Genocide Recognition Equality.

The following include quotes from author Anthony Dirk Moses.

HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM DISENFRANCHIZES THE GENOCIDES OF NONWHITE PEOPLES—AND NOT ONLY THE GENOCIDES OF NONWHITE PEOPLES. IT DISENFRANCHIZES ALL THE GENOCIDES OF NON-JEWS

“Underlying this asymmetry is the claim that the Holocaust is ‘unique’, ‘unprecedented or ‘singular’. Its implications for the study of indigenous genocide are as significant as they are dire: that such ‘lesser’ or ‘incomplete’ genocides—if indeed they are considered genocides at all—are marginal or even ‘primitive’, thereby reinforcing hegemonic Eurocentrism, and that the moral cache of the indigenous survivors of colonialism is less than that of the Jews.” (p. 4).

However, this problem is not limited to the disenfranchisement, by Holocaust supremacism, of the genocides of nonwhite peoples. Last time I checked, Poles are white people. The Nazi German genocide of the Poles (the Polokaust) ALSO is ‘lesser’, ‘incomplete’, and even ‘primitive’, assuming that it is recognized as genocide at all. [We are assured, after all, that “only” 10% of the Polish population was killed. Yes, “only” 10%. What a relief!] Clearly, the problem is not Eurocentrism: The problem is Judeocentrism. There is no escaping the fact that the genocides of non-Jews are not treated with the same seriousness as the Nazi German genocide of the Jews. Does this not border on racism?

HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM, BY ITS VERY NATURE, IS DIVISIVE. IT DRIVES VICTIMHOOD COMPETITION

“Identity politics and academic enquiry are often conflated in polemical expressions of group trauma, and rancor sets the tone. The question almost raises itself: should the victim’s point of view be authoritative in this field when different victim groups make incommensurable, indeed competing, claims?’ (p. 10).

HOLOCAUST EXCEPTIONALISM AND HOLOCAUST UNIQUENESS ARE NOT BASED ON FACTS

“What is more, whether the similarities [between the Shoah and the genocides of non-Jews] are more significant than the differences is ultimately POLITICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL, rather than a historical, question and, as we have seen, the answers are driven by passionate, extra-historical considerations.” (p. 18; Emphasis added).

“Uniqueness is not a useful category for historical research; IT IS A RELIGIOUS OR METAPHYSICAL CATEGORY, and should be left to theologians and philosophers to ponder for their respective reading communities. Where historians employ it, they stand in danger of relinquishing their critical role and assuming that of the prophet or sage who offers perspectives for group solidarity and self-assertion.” (pp. 18-19; Emphasis added).