h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What sticks in my mind about the Nazi genocide of Jews is the thought of systematically shipping people of all ages and genders to concentraion camps where they were worked to death, in many cases starving, and then having the gold fillings in their teeth melted down, and their bodies rendered.

In the Third or 4th century C.E.[Common Era, i.e. A.D.], Christians were debating whether to kill all the Jews, but Saint Augustine saved their bacon by successfully arguing that the Jews should remain alive, as Jews, as a reminder of the part they played in Jesus' crucifixion. Alive, yes, but not allowed to prosper. Over the ensuing centuries, Christians saw to it that prosperity was not in the picture for them.

Did Hitler have in the back of his mind some notion that Saint Augustine was wrong? German anti-semitism was apparently building in the 19th century. I haven't done enough research to know what was on their minds in that period.

War-time slaughter normally focusses on soldiers killing other soldiers. This all too often tips over into burning the enemies' crops, burning whole cities [Sherman's burning of Atlanta, etc.], sieges [the Siege of Leninggrad], and all too often rape of the enemies' women. In Roman times, the enemy's soldiers might be killed, and the women taken as wives. Women and children endured great misery, but wholesale slaughter of a race was not in that particular mindset.

I'm not sure I will ever *understand* what was in Hitler's mind that went so far beyond the anti-semitism that was so virulent by his time.

I'd like to rephrase the first sentence of the second paragraph in my previous post.

"...but Saint Augustine saved their bacon by successfully arguing that the Jews should remain alive, as Jews, as a reminder of the part they *allegedly* played in Jesus' crucifixion."

I think it depends upon the phase you're talking about during the roman empire but they were quite happy to attempt (or even manage) the genocidal destruction of entire civilisations.
Carthage for example, cis-alpine Gaul was depopulated I believe and as I already mentioned, we have affection for Hadrian for his wall, in Rome one can marvel at his barely hidden homosexuality and taste lovely villas and for a single man, but the Jews hate him with a passion since he put them to the sword in a really quite stunning pogrom. The reason there were very few Jews left in the promised land (aka modern Israel etc) until the end of WWII down to Hadrian and his putting down of a major Jewish revolt.
That's all pagan Rome of course.

it wasn't just the Jews that Hitler did that to. I think that was the original point that sparked this thread?

and, sorry, but >>Saint Augustine saved their bacon<<

Well yes, I did cite two other major roman genoicides there.

And yes, the bacon comment had occurred to me too

"Why is it seen as the worst, beyond compare?"

Because we all know all about it. We can name major victims and perpetrators. And we can do this because the genocide was incomplete, and those killed by it had enough surviving relatives who were rich and influential enough in the media to ensure the story got told, and got told again, and keeps on getting told. Other comparable genocides didn't leave behind a vocal group of survivors with access to major motion picture studio production facilities and networked television stations.

"Over the ensuing centuries, Christians saw to it that prosperity was not in the picture for them. "



It's almost funny how diametrically opposed to reality that statement is. Christians were almost as effective in that mission as they were in their mission to ensure that Jesus was forgotten as soon as possible.

In the real world, hundreds of years ago, Christians abjured usury (the lending of money at interest), much as do observant Muslims today. Oddly, however, they didn't seem to bothered about the business of actually *borrowing* money, only the business of lending it. As a result, the only people you could go to for a loan were non-Christians, who were permitted to loan money because hey, they were going to hell anyway so no harm done. So Jews set up as money lenders. If that was the Christians' "plan" for seeing to it that Jews didn't prosper, then Christians are even dumber than I thought they were, and believe me, that's pretty dumb.

In fact the banning of usury and other, similar limitations on what Jews were permitted to do for a living, all but ensured the extreme (financial) prosperity of (some) Jews compared to Christians.

What surprised me in the 50 years' thread was that apparently, in the UK, it is compulsory to learn about the holocaust. When did that start? I did my A-levels in 1972 (under the auspices of West Suffolk CC, Cambridge Examination Board) and paid very good attention in history. We didn't do the 2nd world war at all. The most modern thing we did was the Industrial Revolution and a little bit about the 6 days' war in Israel, when it happened in 1967. So this must either only be in certain syllabuses in certain counties, or it has been enforced since 1972. That means that it wasn't taught until over 30 years after it happened. By that time, I was living in Germany, and I can tell you, they had other things going on by then. The main worry in the early 70s was when and whether the two Germanies would ever be reunited.

I'd assume anything like that, covering the whole country, would have to have come in after the introduction of the National Curriculum (in the late '80s maybe?)

Having said that, I didn't study "Nazi Germany" for five years. One part of the GCSE course was about the rise of the Nazis. That was a two-year course with a lot more than that on the syllabus.

My school did WWI in our 1st year of upper school (3rd year as it was called) and then those who did history at O' Level did WWII for that - this was in the mid 80s.
Don't really know what emphasis was given to the holocaust though as I was unable to study history at O'level due to my 'choices'

It is I think though true that it is a pretty recent trend for us all to have to wear virtual hair shirts and perform virtual self flagellation for the crimes of others so I suspect it was not emphasised as much as now back then.

To be honest, I suspect that the paragraph of Sol's that TC is talking about is a spoof worthy of The Onion.

If not, then I'd have to ask for sources. It's what I learned to do in history class.

(Oh no, that wasn't a spoof. It is compulsory to teach the holocaust in England now. Turns out that's not true of the rest of the UK though. http://www.het.org.uk/index.php/holocaust-education-in-the-uk The rest of it was true too. I did a PGCE in secondary school history teaching a few years ago. The Nazification of school history in the UK is a real phenomenon, but it's a seperate issue to this and rather accidental. What happens is that you tend to do medieval in year 1 (7) and then early modern in year 2 (8) and then 20th centry, especially the two world wars in year 3 (9). Then when it comes time to pick the GCSE options, it seems logical to build on the stuff they have just done, so the WWs again, and again at A level the same reasoning increases the likelihood that the WW2 module gets picked and then when those students go to Uni, they tend to stick with the 20th century and the world wars and so when they become teachers... They were talking about breaking the cycle when I was with the programme, but... )

"The Nazification of school history in the UK is a real phenomenon".

Do you write for the Daily Mail Sol? That's emotive, panic-mongering language if I've ever heard it.

Here's a school I picked at random for example and their history syllabus. It's pretty good, but there is a distinct harping on about WW2, wouldn't you say?

Year 7: http://www.stmaryleboneschool.com/pdf/Curriculum/KS3_Year7.pdf

Year 8: http://www.stmaryleboneschool.com/pdf/Curriculum/KS3_Year8.pdf

Year 9: http://www.stmaryleboneschool.com/pdf/Curriculum/KS3_Year9.pdf

GCSEs: http://www.stmaryleboneschool.com/our_school/ks4curriculum/history.htm

A levels: http://www.stmaryleboneschool.com/our_school/ks5curriculum/history.htm

That's what is was called by people who research the effect of history teaching on pupils, KB, aka tutors of history teaching. It's not a value judgement, it's a description of a certain weighting that accidentally crept into the way history got taught.

Well, I don't know about "harping on" (more emotive language), but it is kind of impossible to understand modern Europe without touching on a major war that affected every single part of it - even neutral countries - and changed the face of Europe forever.

And, sorry for another post, to make it clear because perhaps I hadn't, I am not saying, and neither were the people who pointed this out, that this was as such a bad thing in and of itself. You can certainly make a case for both WW2 and the holocaust making it onto any history syllabus on their own merits as an important subject anyway. It was just that at one point the focus had got so narrow that pupils were starting to display a distinct tendency to equate current Germans with the Nazis while at the same time, again at one point and probably not now in most places, the main focus was on a period of time when the Nazis were quite successful, for a given value of 'successful', which was also, apparently, somewhat coloring pupils' views. Neither of those outcomes, I hope we can agree, is desirable and that was the concern - how choices about syllabus design can unintentionally shape students views.

Now, Solnushka, it isn't exactly an ideologically-neutral term, is it?

Besides which, "people who research the effect of history teaching on pupils" are not "also known as" the "tutors of history teaching".

< smlpost > Ah, well, yes, harping on. True true, but I'm an early modern girl myself, and I found the prospect of having to go over and over 20th century history a bit boring. That's the thing though, to an extent I'm a product of my time as a student. I did early modern for five years straight.

The thing about history is it isn't just about what actually happened it's about what people think happened. And what they think is important to study.

KB: I actually don't want to get into an argument with you because I think it is my language which is offending you rather than what I am trying to say. I am clearly not getting my point across. Which is, of course, my fault. So I'll stop.

Except to say that teacher trainers do pay attention to things like the effect of how their subject is taught on their pupils, and some of them are involved in that research. For example: http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/3290/

I'm not offended, but I'd agree that you aren't getting your point across well.