Dare to Compare: Americanizing the Holocaust 

by Lilian Friedburg

This article discusses those who compare the treatment of the American Natives to the Holocaust of the Jews. Friedburg discusses the fact that those who try to make this comparison are often shunned in the intellectual world. She discusses the fact that those that make the treatment of the American Indians sound innocent and understandable, those that say they it was a regrettable but necessary consequence of the rising of the next great country, are published and popularized. Those that try to do the some with the holocaust however, are met with scorn and loathing. Those scholars that try to create an explanation for the way the Nazi soldiers acted, and make them out as good men just following orders, face a brick wall of vehemence. he then shows that America is, to put it simply, in denial. She show that we not only killed more innocent people that the Nazis did, we also killed a greater percentage. We even used the same language to excuse ourselves. In both cases, those being exterminated were made out to be less than human. They were smeared and down talked until they became a race that must be destroyed to make space for the better race. The only real difference between the two situations is that we were successful, which is why the United States is not seen under the shadow of genocide. Ours was erased by historians. It was explained away, made understandable, and warped to the point that hardly anyone knows what actually happened. 

This article is perfect for my paper because it is exactly what I wil be talking about. Not only does it reveal many of the facts that are hardly heard, back them up in a scholarly way, and show similarities between the two genocides, it also leads me to many new sources. Since it spends much of its time debunking common false beliefs, I will use this article to help me predict many counter-arguments to my paper, and answer them before they are brought up.

Argument

Lacie seems to believe that as citizens of the United States, we pay the government in taxes to keep us safe. We pay those in power to give huge companies regulations to prevent them from becoming corrupt. Even with these safeguards in place however, the food industry has become corrupt. Sanitation has been tossed out the window for the extra buck. Nearly the entire system has been taken over by four companies who control everything. They control the farmers that produce the food, and thus they control what is produced, how it is produced, and who produces it. It is extremely disappointing to see that even after all the tax payer's dollars have gone to the government, these companies are getting away with what they are doing. These few people in power are simple business men, and are in it simply for the money. The animals that they have power over are treated cruelly, and hygiene is not respected in the least. Everything is done to make these CEOs the next quick buck. The animals are even being changed. Cows, which were originally grass grazers, have evolved to eat only corn. The entire system is set up to make the few people in power a lot of money. There is no other point to it. The taxpayer's dollar should have gone to fixing these loopholes in the system. The government has a responsibility to fix this.

As citizens of the United States of America, I do indeed believe that we pay taxes to the government in order to keep us safe. The government however, can only do so much to protect us from ourselves. Much of what is done in the food industry is necessary. The treatment of the animals keeps the cost down as more space is more money. Raising the animals at their normal rate takes more time, and as we all know time is money. Raising the animals to be their intended size would require more animals and provide less meat, which would as a result cost more. The taxpayer has brought this upon himself. The government can only do so much to control these companies, part of that responsibility lies with the people. By constantly buying the cheaper foods, the people have supported the companies that produce their food in the cheapest way possible. The government has done nothing wrong, the companies have only been supported, and thus all the responsibility lies on the citizen, the taxpayer. We don't have much variety in companies because we have supported and built up these companies that are in power. We have put them on the pedestals that they are standing on. They didn't go there by themselves, we encouraged them.

To compromise this issue, we all must make compromises. Perhaps yes the government ought to keep a tighter watch on sanitation and on animal cruelty policies. We as the buyers must keep a watch on what we are buying. We can not simply buy whatever is cheapest. Perhaps we ought to track the companies that we buy from.

The Holocaust of the Chickens

Goosebumps crawled up my spine as the corpses of chickens rolled before my eyes, dangling by their legs from grim looking hooks. I realize that they are just chickens, but I am currently studying the holocaust of the Jews, as well the annihilation of the American Indians, and I couldn't help but see the similarities flashing before my eyes. Yes I understand that they are just animals, and the levels of evil in question here are on entirely different scales. But nonetheless there seem to be undeniable parallels, the greatest of which seems to me to be the veiling of the truth. I always wondered why some people are vegetarians
because of animals cruelty. I've always heard these vague stories of how animals are mistreated, or raised in an unhealthy way, but never on the scale of what I saw in this documentary. Honestly it scares me. It scares me that people are so cruel, and it scares me that I might die if I keep eating what I'm eating. The truth is completely masked. Behind the pretty mask of these enormous food corporations hides a vicious yet sneaky beast. This beast hides the disgusting things it does, just as Hitler hid his actions from many and was not exposed until later, and just as most Americans are still not aware of the plight of the American Indians. Again allow me to emphasize that I realize that these two stories are completely different, but the similarities that they do hold terrify me. The highly mechanized way in which everything is done is the same in all three cases.These animals are not raised anymore, they are "grown." They are produced. They are born simply to be slaughtered in an inhumane way. They are grown as fast and as fat as they can be, pumped full of hormones, and then they are killed. We eat them. The thought of eating those little squawking animals inhabiting the dark houses, or the cows on those enormous cattle farms disgusts me.

Paper Proposal

Claim: 

The treatment of the Native Americans by the White Man mirrors the infamous Holocaust of the Jews in innumerable, terrifying ways. This did not happen by accident however. Few people know that Hitler actually designed much of his final solution around the treatment of the Native Americans, and that his success was dwarfed by the United States horrifying conquest.

                                Support:

I will draw connections between each extermination, showing the surreal similarities between the two. I will compare and contrast each step of both stories, and I will research Hitler's writings, as well as the writings of our own countries, and I hope (actually for the sake of humanity I hope I don't, but for the sake of my paper I hope) to find even more similarities. I will also look into the fact that Hitler actually said that he was panning to mirror the extermination of the Native Americans.

                     Warrant: 

It seems to me that this topic has either not been researched enough, or that research has not been publicized enough. It is absolutely essential that everyone know the truth of thee matters, both because history has a habit of repeating itself, and because it is their history. If my hypothesis proves true, our entire country is built on a foundation of the bones from a holocaust even more devastating than the Shoah.

Dear Mr. President

Dear President Obama,

I realize that you are quite a busy man, especially at this point in your campaign, and I sincerely thank you for your time spent reading this letter. I do not want to take to much of that time however, so I will get right to the point. I am sure that you are fully aware that the United States of America is in somewhat of an economical crisis. This crisis, as I am sure you well know, was caused by the burst of the banking bubble in 2008. Well, that is the apparent cause, but I watched this documentary for my class a few days ago, and it showed how in actuality a long series of events dating back all the way to the seventies has led to this point. The film is called Inside Job, you should check it out. But I am sure you are already quite aware of everything it has to say.

To be quite honest with you, the film infuriated me, and almost made me ashamed to be an American. To hear these awful stories of rich bankers and politicians making terrible decisions for the country in order to make the next quick buck so that they can enjoy another yacht, rent a Lamborghini, and entertain a $1,000 prostitute makes me sick to the stomach. And to see that these men walked out of it, there own personal fortune bulging at the seams while the rest of the country struggles to make ends meet, makes me want to break things.The systematic corruption of the United States has gotten so bad. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. And so I ask you Mr. President, what do you plan to do about it?

Why should I vote for you, Mr. Obama? What have you done to fix this issue? I do not see much. What do you plan to do? Why do you deserve another for years? And I do not want to hear why I should not vote for Romney, I do not want to hear how he will just irritate the problem. I do not want to hear any more about Bain Capitol. I want to hear about you Mr. President. I am done with this smear campaign. Not to say that you are the only one guilty of this, all politicians are. But with all due respect sir, where is the Change you campaigned under four years ago? Was that just the catchy campaign slogan that all of the conservatives at my school said it was? Or is there something more to you? Can we still Hope? Can we still chant 'Yes we can?' Show me that you are different, Mr. Obama. Get rid of the smear campaign, stop telling me why Romney would make a terrible president, and tell me exactly what you intend to do to fix the economy that I am about to be born into as a fledgeling adult. Only then will you earn my vote.

Thank you again for your time. With Hope,

-Joshua Huetter

P.S. This song was originally directed at President Bush. Please explain to me how it does not apply to you as well.

I Think I Just Got Sick

The most recent documentary I watched for class, Charles Ferguson's Inside Job, quite simply infuriated me. Although I could spot the bias, although I was distracted by Matt Damon's voice, and although I understand absolutely nothing about the economy or banking, I was simply appalled by the fact that the economic crisis of 2008 was caused by people who profited from it. Allow me to expand.

Cocaine stimulates the same part of the brain that certain games do. The prize in these games is money. Scary, huh?

 I did spot the bias in this film. The music was obviously quite intentional, sometime formidable and sometimes sarcastic. The voice of the narrater, although it obviously tried to sound neutral, was quite loaded. Damon used loaded words and word phrases that subconsciously swayed the viewer to agree with him. This was actually funny for me in particular though, because I could not get past the fact that Matt Damon was narrating. The whole time I was watching, the Bourne series kept popping into my head, and I was just waiting for Jason Bourne to start running around and killing these bankers. I even started hoping he would.

These wealthy bankers were said to rent Lamborghinis simply to impress the prostitutes they had for they night. No one should have that kind of money, especially if it is earned a the loss of others.

Although I could spot the bias, and although I saw from the beginning that this was a strongly liberal leaning film, it made me angry. It made me angry, but not at one particular political party, but rather these bankers. It simply disgusts me that people could sit around and get rich on the backs of the average man. No, not get rich, rather become obscenely, disgustingly loaded by tearing down the population and putting the entire economy of the United States at risk, and thus putting the economy of the world at risk. The corruption, the selfishness, the shortsightedness required to do something like this simply makes me sick. End of story. 

Throughout the whole film, I could not get the above song out of my head. It should have been used as the constant background song for the whole film.

Obstructed by the Screen

This film intrigued my sense of fascination with nature, it drew me in with its chanting sound track. I was almost enchanted, hypnotized. I loved the way time montages of lapses and slow motion reel followed each other, showing the similarities between very dissimilar physical objects. The clouds followed by waves, for example, simply blew my mind. The two things looked so similar when moving at the same rate. The country view, the nature shots, and the filming technique, all drew me in at first. As the movie progressed however, I must admit that I became bored. If I had been in these places in real life I could have stayed there for all of eternity and never wanted anything else, but the fact that it was all on a screen began to bother me. I wanted to be there. I wanted to see it for myself, unobstructed by the computer screen. This thought dug itself deeper and deeper and eventually I am sorry to say that I lost interest. It was a beautiful film, don't misunderstand me. It just was not my type. I'm quite the nature guy in real life, but I like it exactly like that, namely in real life. Even though I could clearly see the story and the meaning behind this film, as it travelled gradually from nature to man, displaying our life out of balance, it just was not a documentary, if you can call it that, for me. I was quite disappointed, not with the quality of the film, but rather with my interest in it. I wish I was the kind of person who could sit there in fascination through the whole film, but sadly I am not.

In Class Writing

Although Boote seemed to be biased, in fact he created such an overwhelming argument that it almost seemed one sided. If one looks closely however, one begins to realize that perhaps he is less manipulative than he appears. He tries to convince plastic corporations to speak with him, he attempts to show both sides of the story. The plastic producers however, were not to be persuaded. They keep their secrets under tight lock and key, choosing to show nothing to the world. Still Boote directs many interviews with people around the globe, it seems he is just unable to find anyone willing to take the side of plastic. He displays the issue as it is, and does not use slimy narration or loaded cuts to waive the viewer's mind. He simply shows the audience the truth behind cheap goods, he displays the vastness of the toxic pollution that is poisoning our world. This point is important to show because if Boote were truly biased, it would almost truncate his argument. But when one sees that he shows his side of the story, and attempts to show the other, it in fact builds his argument up. Because the plastic companies refused to make a statement, one can assume that they have something to hide. But why hide it? The very fact that this argument seemed to be beginning at the beginning shows that the argument is simply lopsided. One side is right, and the other side is scared to argue, or even make a statement in retaliation.

Ruined Nature

Werner Boote's documentary Plastic Planet is a very visually charged film. The bias of the director comes through in many ways, from who he interviews to what he says about plastic, but I think the strongest way it shows itself it through a visual tug on the viewer's emotion. He begins his film with a wide spanning view of the mountains, a beautiful shot of nature at its purest. As this shot pans out, Boote's voice plays in the background, saying that no nature is left raw, no nature is left untouched by plastic. Throughout the film this is his strategy. He shoots long shots of what would be gorgeous deserts or beaches, but appear more to be rubbish dumps. They are covered in plastic garbage. There is nobody that does not like to look at a beautiful nature shot, and when it is covered in plastic bags and bottles, just about anyone will become angry or sad. 

 Another way in which Boote plays the viewer's emotions is with visually caused fear. He shows plastic molecules as little, angry faces. People drink from plastic bottles, and these mean little faces invade the drinker's body and invade the cell system. Now if there is anything that people don't like to think about, it is a parasite invading their body. Boote displays the plastic as an evil little parasite just waiting to hop into someone's mouth and take a ride in their bloodstream.

Although this film is biased in many ways, and the director influences the viewer using more than just this one strategy, I found this one particularly interesting. I am a very visually centered person, so this technique was very effective on me. I realized that it didn't matter what was being said in the film, there could have been constant voice overs stating dramatic statistics about how plastic is going to save the world, about how it is humanity's salvation, and still I would have come out of the film hating it. As a lover of nature, this was a very powerful film for me, and I am now truly quite frightened when I actually look around with an opened pair of eyes and really see how much plastic there is everywhere.

To Be or Not to Be? The Rumsprina's Ultimate Question

Amish parents toss their children into the raging ocean of the twentieth century with no preparation. They throw their naive kids into the wind, and use their lack of direction and shock to pull them back into their church. The Devil's Playground, the documentary by Lucy Walker about Rumspringa, seemed to me to be the most neutral video that we have watched so far. Walker gave an account of what happens, and did not seem to twist the opinions of the viewer. Of course every documentary has some bias. It is probably not a coincidence that in nearly every interview the amish boys are smoking. There is no interview with a Rumspringa kid that did not go crazy and party. This is probably not a coincidence.

This not not however, what I'm going to be talking about today. I want to discuss the period of the amish life called Rumspringa. I think it is wrong. The amish parents do not give their children a fair chance, they toss their innocent children into an angry, unforgiving world with no preparation. Not only this, but they leave them no where to go. Due to a belief that education leads to pride, parents pull their children out of school after the eighth grade. This leaves them at a dead end nearly everywhere except within the amish community. Technically yes, it is possible to go to college and get a job in the outside world with an education of a fourteen year old. But how likely is that to actually happen? To become something big, to make a difference in this world, to go to a prestigious college and get a high paying job, one usually needs a education past the middle school. Bot only this, but the parents allow their children to go out into the world and do whatever they want. Of course these sixteen year olds who have never watched TV, never dated, and never drank go insane trying to take advantage of everything at once. They throw enormous parties with hundreds of people and get trashed for days. They experiment with terrible drugs. They get themselves into trouble. They get scared. The adults say that they are giving their kids a choice between the amish way of life and the "english" way, but I do not think that they actually are. What these amish kids experience and get scared off by is not the average person's way of life, it is the rush of a bunch of kids who have been caged up there whole lives trying to experience everything they never have. Of course most come running back. They were not prepared. This Rumspringa tradition is simply wrong in the twentieth century. The two ways of life are two different for an unprepared adolescent to cope with. Perhaps it worked back when the cultures were more similar, but today it is simply wrong to throw innocent and unprepared children into a world of drugs, alcohol, and freedom.

Crazy Christians by Josh

When I first watched Grizzly Man I was not ready for the bias, for the heavy dose of the director's opinion. I was immediately swayed by Herzog's view, and it took me quite some time before I realized how much his opinion had actually affected mine. This time however, I came prepared. I was on my guard for sneaky opinionated comments. I prepared myself for the director's argument. I put my shield up and my spy glasses on, and what i saw was quite interesting indeed. I realize that there is only so much that Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing could influence in their documentary Jesus Camp due to the fact that it is much more of a raw film. There is only one voice over and very little back round music. But the influence is there. The film begins with a radio host discussing how crazy these people are. Immediately, the viewer's first idea is that these evangelicals are wacko. Very soon after are shot of the kids crying and praising God in tongues. Placed strategically after this statistics appear on the screen that display how many evangelicals there are in the United States. What the directors do not do however, is draw the line between regular evangelicals, and this small sect. It appears to the viewer who doesn't know better that all evangelicals are this way. All the while these statistics are on the screen tragically sad music plays in the background.

The only voice over I could find in the whole film is also strategically placed. It happens when Rachel is bowling. I included the scene above. Her voice plays in the background, praying for a good shot. As she walks away after her turn, the camera is strategically placed so that one can see the ball going into the lane over her shoulder as she walks away. She was shown praying, a prayer which was intentionally edited into that specific scene, and her prayer is not answered. However crazy these people are, there is no denying that the directors of this film had an agenda. These biased scenes continue throughout the film. A dog is shown rolling it eyes during their special pledge. Becky Fischer is displayed intentionally as a crazy lady. She may be, but the scenes that are chosen throughout the film are no coincidence. Rachel Grady and Heidi Ewing try to discredit christianity by using these extremist evangelicals. By not drawing the line between this small sect and the average christian they create a hazy boundary that gradually seeps into all of christianity.

Timothy Treadwell by Josh

Psycho?

Timothy Treadwell deceived himself into believing that he had a purpose in life. He lived within his convoluted mind, pretending that he belonged with man eating grizzly bears. He was a delusional man because he thought that he was doing good, he truly believed that he was helping to protect the bears and the country simply by living around them. Throughout the film, Timothy constantly talks about how he keeps the bears safe, and how he protects them. How does he do so though? Is

there any evidence of this shown in this film whatsoever? The answer is no. In fact, the only time that poachers do indeed show up, Timothy hides away in a bush and talk trash. He intentionally stays completely hidden. He does nothing to "protect" his animals like he always boasts he does. So why is he there? What is the purpose of Timothy's constant trips into the wilderness to live with these ferocious animals? He travels there to give himself meaning. He hates the world of humans, he hates civilization, he does not fit in, and he wants to give himself a purpose in life. Treadwell wants to belong somewhere. He constantly complains about people and his lack of luck with women. He must not have felt very loved in his life, so he needed to create for himself a world in which his existence was absolutely critical. What he does not realize however, is that in actuality he is doing more harm than good. He is numbing the bears to human presence, which could in the future cause much more danger to both humans and bears. Bears could become so used to his presence that they would not avoid other people, thus putting either them or the people in possibly fatal situations. I believe Treadwell's self delusion and goodwill were actually more harmful than they were helpful, and he should have listened to what many people were saying and forgotten his adventure, thereby saving both himself and his girlfriend from becoming a bear snack.

After class I thought it may be a good idea to look for some more neutral points of view on Treadwell in order to escape the confines of Herzog's opinions. Here is what I found to be quite a fair article: Night of the Grizzly

Reform Education by Josh

The life and future of our children should not rely on a number written on a ball, they should not rely on the drawing of a name, and they should not be determined by adults who are only thinking for themselves. Changes to our education system must be made, not on the small private scale, but nationally. We live in a nation which was on the top of the world in education a mere forty years ago, and has now dropped to the bottom of the scale in every category except students' false confidence. We live in a nation that has over two thousand schools with a dropout rate of at least forty percent. We live in a nation where teachers have been videotaped reading the newspaper, and kids have been videotaped doing lines of crack, in class. And the solution is known. But for some reason, we choose not to use it. Kipp schools, as well as Jeffrey Canada's schools, have discovered ways of skyrocketing the performance of poor kids in the worst scoring parts of the country. They simply apply accountability and expected high standards to their kids, and they hire and fire the teachers that they want. I know from personal experience that these two tricks are indeed effective. Coming from a school in which every single graduating student has been accepted into a four year college, I know that these strategies work. We were expected to do our homework, we were expected to perform above average, and we did. But when we fell behind there was always help. We were never left behind, never pushed aside, and never forgotten by a teacher. And our teacher's' jobs were in jeopardy should we not perform well, or in other words, should they not teach well. Now if this system works, why is it not practiced in every part of our nation? Why has the system not been changed? If everyone knows that our schools are failing, and that our nation is on a steepening downward slope, where is the reform? This system is not being practiced in every part of our nation because it is illegal in public schools. Nothing is being changed because those who have the power to change something are not doing so. The reform is not here because we are doing nothing to call for it. We must push for change if we want it. We must force the reform. We must call for better education at the top of our lungs, because as it says in Davis Guggenheim's Waiting for Superman, "Great schools come from great people."

An interesting mini documentary about public schools: John Stossel ABC 20/20 - STUPID IN AMERICA 1/3, John Stossel ABC 20/20 - STUPID IN AMERICA 2/3, John Stossel ABC 20/20 - STUPID IN AMERICA 3/3