Shalom Y'All!
"John W. Nichols, M.A." wrote:
> Russell's statement (based on the pub date you showed) is at least 70
> years old. Was what he said inconsistent with what was known (or at
> least thought) in those days? He is to be condemned and dismissed in
> toto, because he did not know what we know today?
I'm very sure that you don't mean to imply that the 1903 genocide of the Hereros
is somehow excusable as they did not know what we know today. I'm sure that you
don't mean to imply that the 1915 genocide of almost 2 million Armenians is
acceptable as it was simply a different time in history. I can't imagine that
you meant to imply that we should hold a different standard of evaluation to the
Soviet-created famine that resulted in millions dead simply because it occurred
70 years ago. I am definitely sure you did not mean to imply anything about the
Holocaust.
Bertrand Russell was discussing genocide and using the vulgar term
"extermination; a term often used by perpetrators when discussing the genocide of
a people perceived as "vermin". I do not believe we can easily dismiss his
comments due to some form of historical relativism. Indeed, while eugenics was
in its heyday at that time (particularly in the United States), the vast amount
of literature on this topic dealt with sterilization, selective breeding, or
immigration policies. It was not normative to argue in favor of genocide; this
was not viewed as acceptable at the time.
I should add that in today's current climate, genocide is also viewed as an
atrocity. However, it continues to occur as I write this e-mail (e.g. the ethnic
cleansing of the Shan and Karen in Burma/Myanmar).
Warm regards,
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
