090125-FN1

1. To say even this much is something of an interpretation, based on accepting the Jewish lawyer, Rafael Lemkin’s sociological definition of genocide as a cluser of policies operating in stages at economic, linguistic, political, cultural, and biological levels. In his schema, economic discriminations, political exclusions, linguistic prohibitions, and the rationing of food, medicine, and shelter --- when calculated to efface a given group -- constitute genocide. International law defines genocide more restrictively as the killing of a “substantial” number of a target group members with the intent to eradicate them as a group. (I.e. killing substantial numbers on a battle field would not be “genocide”) International law adopts a more restrictive definition because there are obvious problems of demarcation with Lemkin’s categories. For example, does an English-only ballot measure constitute a form of “genocide” ? Does swamping the world with Disney cartoons constitute a form of homogenization that is culturally genocidal? Relevant portions of Lemkin's studies can be found at http://www.preventgenocide.org

In addition to these definitional issues, there are developmental issues which focus on whether whatever took place happened haphazardly and more or less ad hoc or pursuant to a long standing and pre-existing intent and objective (if not “plan”). The Wansee on line museum contains discussions of these issues.

The purpose of this brief Note and Comment is not even to attempt a “summary” of the historical issues but to point out in a quick and illustrative way that, beyond negating that some form of genocide was committed against Jews, the concept of “holocaust denial” results in absurdities
.