Non Sequiter Cartoon of 11 June 06

[Hutch]

These cartoons are often posted because the author often pokes fun at the same characters we do, especailly creationists). They are alomsot always good for a grin.

But today's (11 June)...well, just read it, especially the comment by the Gentleman in the last panel...

Still to damn big and ugly to be crying...

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

[ImaginalDisc]

It's a great cartoon, but there were plenty of gay people, gypsies, socialists, and "undesireables" of every type murdered in the holocaust, not just jews. I'd think it'd be good to point that in the cartoon.

[RandFan]

Thanks Hutch

[Skeptic]

It's a great cartoon, but there were plenty of gay people, gypsies, socialists, and "undesireables" of every type murdered in the holocaust, not just jews. I'd think it'd be good to point that in the cartoon.

(Sighhhhhhh................)

[Beady]

It's a great cartoon, but there were plenty of gay people, gypsies, socialists, and "undesireables" of every type murdered in the holocaust, not just jews. I'd think it'd be good to point that in the cartoon.

Right. Pile on the rhetoric. Shout your message so loudly that you drown yourself out. Pedantry is so much more pursuasive than eloquence.

:hit:

[Zbu]

Wow.

Now that's a good cartoon.

[Tricky]

These cartoons are often posted because the author often pokes fun at the same characters we do, especailly creationists). They are alomsot always good for a grin.

But today's (11 June)...well, just read it, especially the comment by the Gentleman in the last panel...

Still to damn big and ugly to be crying...

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/
I love Non-Sequitur not only because of who it pokes fun at, but because it has great drawing and characters. What makes this strip even more powerful is that the little girl on the bench (Danae) is kind of the foil of the strip because she is usually a terrible cynic who cares only about herself. To see her touched to tears is... well, touching in itself.

[Meffy]

Yeah. She knows when to turn the cynicism off.

[Ryokan]

Brought a tear to my eyes.

[Zep]

yep...

[Danhalen]

I'm glad you guys were able to admit getting teary eyed too. That was an awesome cartoon. It's not often that the message is portrayed so thoughtfully.

[David Swidler]

The fact that it's in standard newspaper cartoon format (even the expanded Sunday format) is another indication of Wiley's artistic talent. Even within the format constraints of syndicated cartooning - and they can be stifling - he conveys his message concisely, powerfully and without extraneous stuff or throwaway lines.

[Zep]

So we can go directly to it, instead of just the site home, here's the image link.

Non Sequiter, 11 June 2006 (http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2006/nq060611.gif)

[NobbyNobbs]

I've never had a cartoon give me chills down my back before.....

[wollery]

Wow, just wow!

[ImaginalDisc]

Right. Pile on the rhetoric. Shout your message so loudly that you drown yourself out. Pedantry is so much more pursuasive than eloquence.

:hit:
Do you have a point? You know that the victims of the holocausts were not all jewish, right?

[Tricky]

Do you have a point? You know that the victims of the holocausts were not all jewish, right?
That is true. However, I think the simplicity and effectiveness of the cartoon would have been diminished by trying to make sure nobody got left out. The holocaust is best known for the crimes committed against Jews, so that's what Wiley focussed on.

[ImaginalDisc]

That is true. However, I think the simplicity and effectiveness of the cartoon would have been diminished by trying to make sure nobody got left out. The holocaust is best known for the crimes committed against Jews, so that's what Wiley focussed on.

I can certainly understand that. There's no question that the Nazis specifically intended to exterminate the Jewish people, I just worry that sometimes we forget they were also trying to exterminate all homosexuals, and so many other groups. You may be right though, it would be more difficult to make a more inclusive cartoon. That sounds like a challenge a good cartoonist should rise to, not avoid.

[Tricky]

I can certainly understand that. There's no question that the Nazis specifically intended to exterminate the Jewish people, I just worry that sometimes we forget they were also trying to exterminate all homosexuals, and so many other groups. You may be right though, it would be more difficult to make a more inclusive cartoon. That sounds like a challenge a good cartoonist should rise to, not avoid.
LOL. Yeah, that would be a challenge. Perhaps in the central panel with the girl wearing the Star of David in the prison scene he could have added a gypsy with a bandana and earring, and for the homosexuals, two guys holding hands. I'm not sure how to draw a socialist.

[ImaginalDisc]

LOL. Yeah, that would be a challenge. Perhaps in the central panel with the girl wearing the Star of David in the prison scene he could have added a gypsy with a bandana and earring, and for the homosexuals, two guys holding hands. I'm not sure how to draw a socialist.

She was wearing a yellow star, there could easily have been someone depicted wearing a pink triangle. It just bothered me that this line, "Imagine yourself in a land where your countrymen followed the voice of a politcal extremist who didn't like your religion." and "millions of people perished just because of their faith" is true, but not the whole truth. Millions of people raised Christian, with even a small amount of jewish ancestory were also murdered. Millions of non-practicing jews were murdered. Millions of Christian homosexuals and undesireables of all stripes were killed.

I know it's not popular for me to harp on the cartoonist for failing to mention the millions of people who were murdered for reasons that had nothing to do with their faith, but I think it's wrong to ignore them.

[Mercutio]

There was a thread on here about a million years ago, about tattoos, in which Cleo spoke of her grandmother's reluctance to let anyone see the numbers on her arm. I wrote of a friend's father, who always wore short sleeves and never shied away from speaking, quietly but memorably, about his numbers and his experience. I was too young to know how brave he was, but as years go by I respect him more and more.

I sent the cartoon link to Cleo. I hope she likes it.

[Beady]

That sounds like a challenge a good cartoonist should rise to, not avoid.

Somewhere at home I've got a book that defines "Critic" as someone who knows how to get somewhere but doesn't know how to drive.

[ImaginalDisc]

Somewhere at home I've got a book that defines "Critic" as someone who knows how to get somewhere but doesn't know how to drive.
Funny, I made a perfectly workable suggestion.

[Beady]

Funny, I made a perfectly workable suggestion.

Right. You're perfectly capable of giving directions, but when it comes to getting behind the wheels and doing the actual driving...

[ImaginalDisc]

Right. You're perfectly capable of giving directions, but when it comes to getting behind the wheels and doing the actual driving...
Your objection is unreasonable. Are only fellow cartoonists allowed to praise this cartoon? No. Then are only fellow cartoonists allowed to crtique it? Likewise, the answer is no.

[Beady]

Your objection is unreasonable. Are only fellow cartoonists allowed to praise this cartoon? No. Then are only fellow cartoonists allowed to crtique it? Likewise, the answer is no.

And your critique is unreasonable. You want to overload the cartoon with so much symbolism that the message would be crushed underneath. Elegance and complexity very seldom go together.

[drkitten]

Funny, I made a perfectly workable suggestion.

I disagree. Part of "workable" is that it has to work.

And part of what makes a cartoon "work" is to keep the message simple, clear, and on-topic, without cluttering it up with extraneous material.

It's not that you're not allowed to criticize the cartoon. But as far as I can tell, your "criticism" is both ignorant and ill-founded.

[ImaginalDisc]

And your critique is unreasonable. You want to overload the cartoon with so much symbolism that the message would be crushed underneath. Elegance and complexity very seldom go together.
It is no more difficult to include all the victims of the holocaust than it is to exclude them. The two lines I objected to can be rewritten ""Imagine yourself in a land where your countrymen followed the voice of a politcal extremist who didn't like you because you were different." and "millions of people perished just because of they were different". Those two rewrites alone would include, rather than exclude, everyone who was murdered for reasons other than being jewish.

[Tricky]

Well I think the Mona Lisa would have been better if Da Vinci had painted her winking. I mean, that little half smile is just wasted on lots of people.

[ImaginalDisc]

I disagree. Part of "workable" is that it has to work.

And part of what makes a cartoon "work" is to keep the message simple, clear, and on-topic, without cluttering it up with extraneous material.

It's not that you're not allowed to criticize the cartoon. But as far as I can tell, your "criticism" is both ignorant and ill-founded.
Ignorant and ill founded? Do you dispute that millions of gentiles were killed in concnetration camps?

[Beady]

It is no more difficult to include all the victims of the holocaust than it is to exclude them.

It's not a question of difficulty, but of clarity. Just like it's not a question of your right to criticize, but the quality of that criticism. Your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge either of these points speaks for itself.

The purpose of representation is to avoid complexity. You seem to demand complexity for its own sake.

[ImaginalDisc]

It's not a question of difficulty, but of clarity. Just like it's not a question of your right to criticize, but the quality of that criticism. Your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge either of these points speaks for itself.

The purpose of representation is to avoid complexity. You seem to demand complexity for its own sake.
I'm demanding a hint of inclusion because millions of people who were murdered in Nazi death camps are being slighted.

[Beady]

Do you dispute that millions of gentiles were killed in concnetration camps?

No. We dispute your knowledge of art, we dispute your sense of proportion, and we dispute your claim that Holocaust victims cannot be sufficiently reprented by Jews, alone.

[Beady]

I'm demanding a hint of inclusion because millions of people who were murdered in Nazi death camps are being slighted.

Demand all you want.

[Tricky]

I'm demanding a hint of inclusion because millions of people who were murdered in Nazi death camps are being slighted.
And to make sure we don't leave anybody out, let's not forget those other victims, the Nazi's themselves. (At least according to Ronald Reagan (http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/realronnie.html).)
"(Nazi soldiers) were victims, just as sure as the victims in the concentration camps."

[ImaginalDisc]

And to make sure we don't leave anybody out, let's not forget those other victims, the Nazi's themselves. (At least according to Ronald Reagan (http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/realronnie.html).)
Tricky, I'm talking about the victims of the concentration camps, you know, the people with numbers tattoed on their arms, of which a majority were jewish, but of which millions were not.

[Ipecac]

I think you're being unfair to ImaginalDisc.

His point was merely that the cartoonist could have easily included more of the Nazi victims. I don't think that's an outrageous suggestion. Whether or not this would have been as effective in making the point of the cartoon could certainly be debated. I thought ImaginalDisc's suggestion, "Imagine yourself in a land where your countrymen followed the voice of a politcal extremist who didn't like you because you were different," works pretty well. Again, maybe not as effective but who knows?

Why all the vitriol?

[Tricky]

Tricky, I'm talking about the victims of the concentration camps, you know, the people with numbers tattoed on their arms, of which a majority were jewish, but of which millions were not.
I know. I'm just having some fun. I applaud your inclusiveness. But I do not fault Wiley for drawing the strip as he did. He's the artist and the artist is the best one to judge what would be effective. (Hence the Mona Lisa joke.)

[drkitten]

Ignorant and ill founded? Do you dispute that millions of gentiles were killed in concnetration camps?

Of course not.

Nor do I dispute that any formal system capable of representing arithmetic must be either incomplete or inconsistant.

Nor do I dispute that the atomic mass of cadmium is 112.411 Amu.

Nor do I dispute that Basque is a linguistic isolate with no known relatives.

Nor do I dispute that Roger Bannister ran the first recorded sub-four minute mile on May 6, 1954.

I do, however, submit, that while all five of the statements above are true, the cartoon would not be improved by incorporating any of them. In fact, I submit that incorporating any of the statements above would weaken the effectiveness of the cartoon by diluiting the message.

And I hope you won't dispute that.

[UserGoogol]

Godwin's law is so ingrained into my soul that I find holocaust references annoying even when they are legitimate comparisons. I mean there are plenty of examples of man's inhumanity to man in history, so when you keep on using the same genocide which killed tens of millions of people, it gets a little bland. Spice it up a bit.

[thaiboxerken]

That wasn't a funny cartoon at all.

[HeyLeroy]

A chill and misty eyes from the cartoon, and a shudder from all the bull following it.

Hey, the cartoon was being told from the old man's perspective. From his POV, he was just asplainin' to the little girl what his experience was like.

Jeesh.

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course not.

Nor do I dispute that any formal system capable of representing arithmetic must be either incomplete or inconsistant.

Nor do I dispute that the atomic mass of cadmium is 112.411 Amu.

Nor do I dispute that Basque is a linguistic isolate with no known relatives.

Nor do I dispute that Roger Bannister ran the first recorded sub-four minute mile on May 6, 1954.

I do, however, submit, that while all five of the statements above are true, the cartoon would not be improved by incorporating any of them. In fact, I submit that incorporating any of the statements above would weaken the effectiveness of the cartoon by diluiting the message.

And I hope you won't dispute that.

Now you're being absurd. The cartoon is about the holocaust, to mention specifically that people were murdered because of their faith is an incomplete truth.

[drkitten]

Now you're being absurd.

I am indeed. Deliberately so. To point out your own absurdity.

The cartoon is about the holocaust, to mention specifically that people were murdered because of their faith is an incomplete truth.

Yes, and to point out that the Holcaust happened without mentioning Roger Bannister's athletic accomplishment is equally an incomplete truth. A complete historical truth would start with the creation of the earth and end right now -- and would be very tedious to read.

Everything you say or write is at best an incomplete truth. And a good writer will use that necessity to his advantage to maximize the impact of the point he's trying to make, by leaving out everything else he can. This is particularly true for something as terse as a cartoon.

[thomps1d]

I am indeed. Deliberately so. To point out your own absurdity.



Yes, and to point out that the Holcaust happened without mentioning Roger Bannister's athletic accomplishment is equally an incomplete truth. A complete historical truth would start with the creation of the earth and end right now -- and would be very tedious to read.

Everything you say or write is at best an incomplete truth. And a good writer will use that necessity to his advantage to maximize the impact of the point he's trying to make, by leaving out everything else he can. This is particularly true for something as terse as a cartoon.


I find it difficult to tell if you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you genuinely do not understand ImaginalDisc's criticisms of the cartoon. To claim that "to point out that the Holcaust [sic] happened without mentioning Roger Bannister's athletic accomplishment is equally an incomplete truth" is utterly bizarre, if not overtly dishonest.

Nowhere did ImaginalDisc claim that the cartoon should include the full history of the world, or that it should even hint at doing so in an attempt to present the "complete truth". His criticism was very specific, namely that one cannot present a complete picture of the people imprisoned and murdered as a result of the Holocaust without making mention of the fact that not all of them were Jewish - and that, in truth, a sizable portion of the people so murdered were not murdered simply because of religious belief.

All that said, the cartoon was very powerful and very moving - and certainly, it's easy to see how an elderly Jewish man who was imprisoned in a concentration camp with all of his family and friends might believe that the Holocaust was strictly about the persecution of Jews. And if it's believable that a real person could feel that way, it shouldn't take any great leap to realize that it's believable to have a cartoon character act that way.

[ImaginalDisc]

I am indeed. Deliberately so. To point out your own absurdity.

In what way is my suggestion of a tiny rewrite an absurd imposition?

[bjb]

I'm also very upset that the other six million are rarely mentioned. My mom taught me about the Nazi concentration camps when I was a very small child and the number I learned was something like twelve million. However, over the years the number that gets repeated in the press is only six million, and that refers to the Jews only. I once even recieved a flyer from the Museum of Tolerance asking for donations and they somehow forgot to mention the other 6 million non-Jewish victims.

I think it's worth discussing why only the Jewish victims are remembered and the rest are forgotten, but even so, the cartoon is excellent as it is. Adding details about other oppressed groups just wouldn't work in a four-panel cartoon.

The lesson is once we start discrminating against people for their religion, we are in danger of doing what the Nazis did. Who knows, maybe someday we would imprision Islamic people for years, without charging them or putting them on trial. We might even start kidnapping people we think are dangerous to America and send them to secret prisions in Eastern Europe. The government could even start to illegally violate the privacy of American citizens under the pretext of protecting our freedom. I hope these possibilities are not too far fetched, but I'm afraid it really could happen here.

[drkitten]

I find it difficult to tell if you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you genuinely do not understand ImaginalDisc's criticisms of the cartoon.

I understand it. I merely disagree with it -- vehemently.

ImaginalDisc is claiming that a clearly-written, emotionally-evocative cartoon should be rewritten until it is no longer clearly-writen and no longer emotionally-evocative, on the grounds that it is factually incomplete.

His criticism was indeed very specific. And also ignorant, ill-founded, and misguided.

It's not about the cartoon character "[believing] that the Holocaust was strictly about the persecution of Jews" There are exactly two concentration camp victims shown in the cartoon; one "real" (the elderly man, whom we can assume was Jewish from his description), and one "fictional" (the little girl, in uniform with Star of David). Nowhere does it state or imply that only Jews were victims. Nowhere does it suggest that "the Holocaust was strictly about the persecution of Jews."

It does, however, personalize the Holocaust in terms of a single specific person's experience, in a way that abstract statistics about how many millions were killed of each category do not, and cannot. And it does so in a space a few cm square, with a very clean drawing style that heightens the effect. And this personalization -- the girl's depiction of isolation and helplessness -- would be lost if she were surrounded by a demographically-representative sample of fellow prisoners.



All that said, the cartoon was very powerful and very moving


Well, that's the point, isn't it? Would you prefer that the cartoon was very powerful and very moving -- or would you prefer that it was factually complete?

Because -- and this is the point that ImaginalDisc does not get -- you cannot have both.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Would you prefer that the cartoon was very powerful and very moving -- or would you prefer that it was factually complete?

Because -- and this is the point that ImaginalDisc does not get -- you cannot have both.
That is simply untrue. A piece of artwork or writing can be both factually correct and moving. Your assertion that factual and emotional content are mutually exclusive is ridiculous.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Complete and correct happen to be different words, with different meanings.

[Ipecac]

And this personalization -- the girl's depiction of isolation and helplessness -- would be lost if she were surrounded by a demographically-representative sample of fellow prisoners.


ImaginalDisc didn't suggest that. Tricky was the one who, sarcastically, offered the version with the demographically-representative sample. ImaginalDisc suggested changing the wording slightly. That was it.

[slingblade]

It's art. For crying out loud, it's art. It's moving and evocative because of what it does and doesn't say, and it serves its point pretty well, because we obviously haven't forgotten those whom it doesn't mention.

Art isn't meant to scientifically or factually explain the world to you. If art has a meaning, very often it's to promote dialogue; to get us talking.

Look: we're talking.

It's a comic. Kids read it. Kids won't get it. Maybe some will ask their folks to explain it. And then their folks will get a chance to explain more fully about the Holocaust, and maybe they'll tell the things that didn't get said.
Maybe they'll complain that the artist didn't do this hard work for them.
Maybe that's all this artist was trying to do....open a door for you to walk through with your kids.

Others will use it to promote their own ideologies: racism, equality, tolerance, intolerance, bigotry, hope, hatred, love. It'd be nice if we could squelch the ones who will use it to promote more hatred, but to do that, we'd have to not print the cartoon at all, huh? And then no one would benefit.

Maybe the cartoonist should have included a mention of the others. Maybe not. But maybe it's a bad idea to ask a piece of art to carry more than it can bear, and still make a point.

Maybe.

[Palimpsest]

She was wearing a yellow star, there could easily have been someone depicted wearing a pink triangle.

Just for the record, I'm gay and didn't feel excluded or ignored. The Holocaust was a big, nasty and complex story and no one person (and especially no one newspaper comic strip) can hope to tell it all. This strip had a message, and it moved me. Yes, maybe the message was simplistic and incomplete (the Holocaust wasn't all about Jews, and even antisemitism is only partly about faith, and the Nazis didn't exist in a vacuum, but tapped into long traditions of nationalism, racism, antisemitism, xenophobia, misogyny and homophobia) but... you can't have everything.

Kudos, Wiley.

[rocketdodger]

ImaginalDisc didn't suggest that. Tricky was the one who, sarcastically, offered the version with the demographically-representative sample. ImaginalDisc suggested changing the wording slightly. That was it.

Yeah, and actually, you could just change "religion"-->"ideas" and "their faith"-->"who they were" to satisfy ImaginalDisc's criteria, without affecting the cartoon at all.

I think drkitten is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, as usual.

[Skeptic]

Millions of people raised Christian, with even a small amount of jewish ancestory were also murdered. Millions of non-practicing jews were murdered.

Yes--but in both cases, for being jews according to Nazi theories.

The reason the holocaust of the jews was unique was not because they were killed and others were not. It was because of the systematic, total, and premeditated desire to kill all of them to the last baby.

The nazis kept records of, say, three jews who lived in a tiny island near Norway--and not only kept records, but went and got them to the extermination camps; under no circumstances must any jew be allowed to live. They didn't bother with similar records or actions for Jehovah's witnesses or homosexuals.

It is for this reason that the jewish holocaust in particular had become the epitome of man's inhumanity to man, the nadir of cuelty; not merely because jews were killed. For this reason, the artist used it and not other examples to illustrate evil. I fail to see what your problem with this is.

[slingblade]

I think drkitten is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, as usual.

And I think you're attacking the argument-maker instead of the argument.

[drkitten]

Yeah, and actually, you could just change "religion"-->"ideas" and "their faith"-->"who they were" to satisfy ImaginalDisc's criteria, without affecting the cartoon at all.

I disagree -- I think that this change both introduces factual inaccuracies (the handicapped weren't killed because of their ideas, nor were the gypsies nor the homosexuals), and waters down the cartoon.


I think drkitten is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, as usual.

If I were, this wouldn't make the argument wrong.

[Skeptic]

And just to point out the obvious: it is a cartoon about the holocaust of the jews, so naturally it shows jews and not others. Had he drawn a cartoon about the Darfur massacre, say, he would naturally show Sudanese victims and not jewish ones. What's exactly the problem with this is beyond me.

[drkitten]

And just to point out the obvious: it is a cartoon about the holocaust of the jews.

Well, that's one of the areas of discussion. It's not necessarily a cartoon about "the holocaust of the jews."

It's demonstrably a cartoon about Nazi atrocities, and most specifically about the various death and concentration camps. But it can just as easily be interpreted as a cartoon about the Holocaust in general, which as several people have already pointed out, included atrocities against large numbers of other identifiable groups.

There are at least two different interpretations that can be placed on the cartoon; the girl in the camp uniform with the Star of David can be a symbol for the specifically Jewish victims of the Holocaust, or for the Holocaust victims generally, without regard to the reason they were imprisoned and killed. There's nothing about the writing or message that suggests that the killing of the Jews was in any way "worse" than the killing of the rest of the victims, or (to state the same thing another way) that we are supposed to somehow approve of the rest of the victims while regretting that the Jews got swept up in the otherwise justified net.

The Holocaust was not specifically about the Jews. This is a point that needs to be made.

But it doesn't need to be made every single time that the Holocaust is presented or discussed, especially not at the expense of the overall message.

[Beady]

Why all the vitriol?

Speaking for myself, I get more than a little tired of the yutzes who, no matter how well something is done, think they know a way to do it better.

Besides, there's also more than a hint of Political Correctness in ID's position, and at least as much pomposity in the way it's presented ("I demand...").

[Beady]

The Holocaust was not specifically about the Jews. This is a point that needs to be made.

But it doesn't need to be made every single time that the Holocaust is presented or discussed, especially not at the expense of the overall message.

Here's the pertinent section from the Table of Contents, of the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust:

3 Victims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims)

3.1 Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Jews)
3.2 Poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Poles)
3.3 Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Russians.2C_Ukrainians.2C_Belarussians)
3.4 Roma, Sinti, and Manush ('Gypsies') (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Roma.2C_Sinti.2C_and_Manush_.28.27Gypsie s.27.29)
3.5 Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Serbs)
3.6 Freemasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Freemasons)
3.7 Communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Communists)
3.8 Homosexuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Homosexuals)
3.9 Religious groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Religious_groups)
3.10 Disabled people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Disabled_people)
3.11 Others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Others)Many of these groups have subgroups. If ID is going to "demand" (his word) representation for all groups everytime the Holocaust is mentioned, then discussing or just mentioning the Holocaust is going to resemble a Monty Python routine.

Hey, ID? Have you stopped saying "Mankind" because it doesn't include all of Humanity? Have you stopped saying "sunset" and "sunrise" because they are factually inaccurate? Do you refuse to round off Pi to two decimals because it's technically wrong?

[ImaginalDisc]

Here's the pertinent section from the Table of Contents, of the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust:

3 Victims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims)

3.1 Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Jews)
3.2 Poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Poles)
3.3 Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Russians.2C_Ukrainians.2C_Belarussians)
3.4 Roma, Sinti, and Manush ('Gypsies') (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Roma.2C_Sinti.2C_and_Manush_.28.27Gypsie s.27.29)
3.5 Serbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Serbs)
3.6 Freemasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Freemasons)
3.7 Communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Communists)
3.8 Homosexuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Homosexuals)
3.9 Religious groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Religious_groups)
3.10 Disabled people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Disabled_people)
3.11 Others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Others)Many of these groups have subgroups. If ID is going to "demand" (his word) representation for all groups everytime the Holocaust is mentioned, then discussing or just mentioning the Holocaust is going to resemble a Monty Python routine.

Hey, ID? Have you stopped saying "Mankind" because it doesn't include all of Humanity? Have you stopped saying "sunset" and "sunrise" because they are factually inaccurate? Do you refuse to round off Pi to two decimals because it's technically wrong?

Are you done? Please read my proposed rewrites more carefully.

[ImaginalDisc]

Speaking for myself, I get more than a little tired of the yutzes who, no matter how well something is done, think they know a way to do it better.

Besides, there's also more than a hint of Political Correctness in ID's position, and at least as much pomposity in the way it's presented ("I demand...").
Oh for goodness' sake, it was a rhetorical inversion of your previous suggestion that I was demanding something. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1699372#post1699372

[Beerina]

And your critique is unreasonable. You want to overload the cartoon with so much symbolism that the message would be crushed underneath. Elegance and complexity very seldom go together.

It's reminiscent of the brief resurgance of PC idiocy after 911 when they wanted to make a statue of the firefighters raising the flag, making one latino and another African American, when none of the three actually were.

[Beerina]

Speaking for myself, I get more than a little tired of the yutzes who, no matter how well something is done, think they know a way to do it better.

My 15 year old son is at that stage in his life right now -- he has to contradict everything everybody says and try to argue it to achieve dominance.

[Beerina]

Well I think the Mona Lisa would have been better if Da Vinci had painted her winking. I mean, that little half smile is just wasted on lots of people.

She should have her tongue out, too, lightly licking her upper lip. Also, one hand should be in the form of devil horns. And all that black, too much, let's color it up a bit.

[Beleth]

When I first saw the cartoon in the paper (yeah, I still read the Sunday paper, how about how about that), I noticed the focus on the religious aspect of the Holocaust too, but I came to a different conclusion. I concluded that the way it was presented made it easier for people to compare those times and political situation to our current times and political situation.

When I re-read the line
"Imagine yourself in a land where your countrymen followed the voice of political extremists who didn't like your religion",
the first thing I thought of was
"Oh, kind of like how American Muslims must feel right now."


... or atheists, for that matter.

[David Swidler]

I can actually see having a beef with cartoon in terms of historical accuracy - not because it isn't inclusive enough but because it's fatually inaccurate. Nazi ideology didn't view Jews as a religion so much as a race, so the cartoon's terminology leaves something to be desired. But it still gets its point across clearly.

[HeyLeroy]

I think everyone's getting a little too worked up over this. ImaginalDisc is certainly entitled to his/her opinion, and the cartoon didn't work for whatever reason. I can understand the point ID is trying to make, but I just don't agree.

What about the estimated 35,000,000 Chinese, killed by the Japanese, between 1937 and 1935?

I'm not saying you're wrong, ID, I just don't quite agree.

[Almo]

When I first saw the cartoon in the paper (yeah, I still read the Sunday paper, how about how about that), I noticed the focus on the religious aspect of the Holocaust too, but I came to a different conclusion. I concluded that the way it was presented made it easier for people to compare those times and political situation to our current times and political situation.

When I re-read the line
"Imagine yourself in a land where your countrymen followed the voice of political extremists who didn't like your religion",
the first thing I thought of was
"Oh, kind of like how American Muslims must feel right now."
... or atheists, for that matter.

Dood... good point. Hadn't thought of that. As for the other argument, the elegance of the cartoon would most certainly have been marred by "inclusion."

[Beady]

Oh for goodness' sake, it was a rhetorical inversion of your previous suggestion that I was demanding something. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1699372#post1699372

"The only reason I said 'demand' was because you did."

Yeah. Right.

[Moochie]

I'm also very upset that the other six million are rarely mentioned. My mom taught me about the Nazi concentration camps when I was a very small child and the number I learned was something like twelve million. However, over the years the number that gets repeated in the press is only six million, and that refers to the Jews only. I once even recieved a flyer from the Museum of Tolerance asking for donations and they somehow forgot to mention the other 6 million non-Jewish victims.

I think it's worth discussing why only the Jewish victims are remembered and the rest are forgotten, but even so, the cartoon is excellent as it is. Adding details about other oppressed groups just wouldn't work in a four-panel cartoon.

The lesson is once we start discrminating against people for their religion, we are in danger of doing what the Nazis did. Who knows, maybe someday we would imprision Islamic people for years, without charging them or putting them on trial. We might even start kidnapping people we think are dangerous to America and send them to secret prisions in Eastern Europe. The government could even start to illegally violate the privacy of American citizens under the pretext of protecting our freedom. I hope these possibilities are not too far fetched, but I'm afraid it really could happen here.


I'm German born who is now Australian. My father fought on the German side during WWII, although he wasn't a member of the NAZI party.

My maternal grandfather married several times. One of his wives was of Moroccan descent, and she was black. The NAZIs tattooed her along with everyone else they thought didn't fit their hideous notions of racial purity.

Fortunately, she survived the war and lived into the 90s, always bearing that number on her arm.

Unfortunately, millions of others, a great many non-Jewish, didn't survive, among them hundreds of thousands of Germans who disagreed with the regime or in some way fell afoul of the regime's particular prejudices.

These people, and their ancestors, deserve a voice, too, and need to be heard among the cacophany of claimants to Germany's wealth.

M.

[Beady]

These people, and their ancestors, deserve a voice, too, and need to be heard among the cacophany of claimants to Germany's wealth.

Who in h*ll is talking about "claimants to Germany's wealth"? We're talking about having to go through an entire litany everytime someone mentions the word "holocaust."

So, tell me: How many different groups do *you* specifically mention whenever the subject arises?