From: starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: "Feminazis" and the "abortion holocaust"
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:16:07 -0500
Organization: Yale University Science & Engineering UNIX(tm), New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

Since Dennis Schenkel has alerted me to the possibility of misinterpretation
in my prior post, I should clear that up.

I was responding to an assertion allegedly made that the advocacy of abortion
rights was comparable (under the assumption that fetuses are fully human)
to the Holocaust.  It is my belief that they are not comparable --
primarily because the intent in abortions is not genocidal -- and I posted
my article in an attempt to graphically demonstrate why.  

It was not my intent to imply that the word "holocaust" -- a perfectly useful
piece of English vocabularly, though necessarily for us charged with more
meaning than for others -- should therefore be restricted in usage, any
more than the typical reference to "Constitution" [of the USA] bars general
use of the word "constitution".

My objection is only to too-free comparison of the _event_ -- the upper-case
"Holocaust" -- to other events which are not genocidal.  This
is the utter horror of the Holocaust for us, and we would ask others to
exercise sensitivity in their comparisons.

A good example of something that is in nature and intent -- though fortunately
not yet in magnitude -- comparable to the Holocaust is the "ethnic cleansing"
going on in Yugoslavia.

I think that it is true that I feel, as a Jew, entitled to some right of protest
against an excessively free employment of analogy.  I cannot think of any
thing comparable that Gentiles might feel similarly about; perhaps, say,
slurs against one's mother or something similar, though that is woefully
inadequate.   For Christians, perhaps, obscene remarks about Jesus?  I do
not know.

The long and short of the matter is that six million of us were killed, with
an intent toward killing all of us.  I believe that it is inappropriate to
make analogy with the Holocaust with things that are not demonstrably
genocidal in motive.  Certainly it is the case that abortions are not
committed, nor the rights to them advocated, with an intent to genocide.
to demonstrate to people (after the fact, as necessary) why their usage
is objectionable.   African-Americans will sometimes, as a matter of
camaraderie, call each other "nigger"; but I think most would object
strenuously to being called that in general.  "Bitch" is a fine word for
female dogs, but not for female humans.  And so forth.  The word "holocaust"
is a useful piece of vocabulary just as "constitution" is.  But as a patriot
might object to a "Bill of Rights" posted outside a brothel as disgusting
(I apologize, I'd give you better analogies... but as I said, there just
aren't many for the Holocaust -- why do you think we find it so horrible?),
so do we, not completely without basis, object to allusions to the horror
we experienced that seem to denigrate it.

Is it too fine a sensibility?  Ask a Vietnam veteran how he might feel about
an imitation Vietnam Wall ... for run-over cats.  I do not doubt that some
would find it funny.  Others would not remark on it.  Some would think it
a mockery and a desecration.

I do not in the least believe that the original comparison was intended to
make light of the Holocaust.  But I do think that people who are going
to make comparisons to our attempted genocide should, under the circumstances,
have a respect for our feelings on the matter.  If there was ever any event
where a group was better entitled to some veto power over its treatment, 
I cannot imagine it.

One analogy at least I can think of:  the recent and vehement protests by
many groups of Columbus Day celebrations.  They felt, for various reasons,
that it was an inappropriate thing to celebrate, and that their objections
on the matter should be duly respected.  I feel that in most cases the
Holocaust is an inappropriate object of comparison with supposed ills, and
that I am entitled to make my objections known.  There are few things
comparable to deliberate genocide.  

I am a firm believer in the legal protection of freedom of speech.  This
does not mean that I believe someone who makes obscene insults about
his neighbors should be responded to only with smiles.  I am making my
objections and the reasons for them known.  I am urging the readers to
respect our sensitivities on the subject of the Holocaust as we respect
theirs on the events and things and people that are of great emotional
significance to them.  

The Holocaust was not just a large number of murders.  It was a deliberate
attempt at genocide.  I have no objections whatsoever to the use of the
word "holocaust".  I object to things being treated as comparable to
the Holocaust without justification given for that comparison.  

I hope this makes my feelings clear on the subject.  I would be glad to
clarify my meaning, beliefs or reasoning further if they are at all
unclear.  It is merely an extremely sensitive issue for us, I think
understandably.

I should note, at the last, that I do not pretend to be an anointed 
spokesman for Jewry here.  I do think that in general thrust if not in
particular manifestation I represent the feelings of many of us accurately.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Daniel Starr                | "Wait! Wait! Maybe THIS will work!" |
|dstarr@minerva.cis.yale.edu |                                     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------