Anyone who is interested in what happened in Germany should read the memoirs of Sebastian Haffner, who came of age in that country between the wars. My review:
Another attack on art in a museum by 'activists', this time soup thrown on the Mona Lisa. Reminds me of what Haffner said about people who needed political activism and chaos to give meaning to their lives.
I'm very moved by this essay. It makes the point about how important story-telling is and touches on many relevant and useful points.
I was particularly struck by several points, 2 of which follow.
1. [Q] " . . .Anne Frank was real, the Holocaust happened, the camps, the gas chambers, the starvation, the lampshades made of human skin, all of it was real." [/Q]
Yes. And as you note, 60% of our young people either deny the event altogether or don't know whether or not the Holocaust was a myth.
This ignorance or willful blindness bookends those who excuse or downplay the atrocities of Oct. 7.
Within hours of Hamas' atrocities, I was able to view many (30 - 40) short videos of what Hamas had done. But as if by magic, the videos were disappeared from YouTube and other sites, and thus did the media cleansing begin.
The removal of the videos-of-proof opened the door further for stories that have blunted the reality of what actually happened and which have been seized upon to create an alternative story of events that justifies the atrocities committed against Israel and Jews, viz., to .
(A side point. As the German Army swept east into the USSR, their formations were followed by Einsatzgruppen ("task forces") of elite SS commandos who killed, burned alive, tortured and raped disfavored villagers (men, women and children), just as Hamas did to kibbutzes.
But the Nazis suppressed stories of the Einsatzgruppen's activities and the existence of their death camps, while Hamas proudly promoted their atrocities by posting videos and photographs of their atrocities on-line. Hamas was proud of their 13th C barbarity in a way the Nazis were not proud of theirs.)
2. [Q] ". . . I wondered: If I had not left academia, if I had stayed and worked my way up the bureaucracy, as one does, would this have been me? Would I have had as much trouble with the truth as these women were having? Would I, like them, have lost my reason? Would I have become an apologist for hate? These women were not born this way, after all." [/quote]
I don't think you would have. You knew of an actual historical example of barbarity and it had touched you personally, and you developed a deep-seated (and fact-based) belief that the Holocaust happened.
As persuasion expert Anthony Pratkanis pointed out in his brief article "How to sell a pseudoscience" (1995): "Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right."
Pratkanis's point is a double edged sword: it works as well to sell film-flam as it does to sell factual, objective history.
One final point: If you haven't seen it, Niall Ferguson's Dec 2023 essay: "The Treason of the Intellectuals" documents how 100 years ago German intellectuals transitioned into Nazis. He sees the same process at work now.
Good post. "The Economist blames social media for this"...while I do think social media is a contributing factor, it's important not to over-emphasize its role. Narratives stirring up fear and anger have existed long before there was any such thing, medieval pogroms being only one of thousands of examples
Thank you for this, David. Your post is very powerful. Totally agree that narrative has been used to stir up fear, anger, intergroup hatred forever. This is a constant. What changes, as you note, is the technology of story and the engine of delivery. I loved the point that in growing up online, young people have in many ways lost contact not only with print culture, but with the history and the modes of thought recorded there.
What an excellent and timely post! Another element that contributes to the "success" of hate is our survival instinct—we have to simplify. We are so overwhelmed with input that we can't easily make sense of the world. We can't absorb and process all the complexity so we distill it to simple memes in order to cope. What if we could reduce the complexity to better memes and default behaviors for how to manage a messy world? Better stories is a good start. We can handle inconsistencies and ambiguity better in a story than we can in our lives. Thoughtful analysis of story is a way to show us how to separate the important elements in a story and we can do it with nothing on the line. Exactly your point. Stories can be analyzed in an infinite number of ways. Interpretation, understanding and feelings don't have to be bi-modal! They aren't! Stories are safe experiments for figuring out what is important to us. Story is a safe model for life's, What if?"
Anyone who is interested in what happened in Germany should read the memoirs of Sebastian Haffner, who came of age in that country between the wars. My review:
https://ricochet.com/875108/how-a-country-abandoned-law-and-liberty-and-became-a-threat-to-humanity/
Thank you David. I am very interested in "what happened in Germany" and appreciate the link. I'll read it closely.
I skimmed, but will read in depth, your Chicagoboyz piece. It seems to be another jewell.
Another attack on art in a museum by 'activists', this time soup thrown on the Mona Lisa. Reminds me of what Haffner said about people who needed political activism and chaos to give meaning to their lives.
I'm very moved by this essay. It makes the point about how important story-telling is and touches on many relevant and useful points.
I was particularly struck by several points, 2 of which follow.
1. [Q] " . . .Anne Frank was real, the Holocaust happened, the camps, the gas chambers, the starvation, the lampshades made of human skin, all of it was real." [/Q]
Yes. And as you note, 60% of our young people either deny the event altogether or don't know whether or not the Holocaust was a myth.
This ignorance or willful blindness bookends those who excuse or downplay the atrocities of Oct. 7.
Within hours of Hamas' atrocities, I was able to view many (30 - 40) short videos of what Hamas had done. But as if by magic, the videos were disappeared from YouTube and other sites, and thus did the media cleansing begin.
The removal of the videos-of-proof opened the door further for stories that have blunted the reality of what actually happened and which have been seized upon to create an alternative story of events that justifies the atrocities committed against Israel and Jews, viz., to .
(A side point. As the German Army swept east into the USSR, their formations were followed by Einsatzgruppen ("task forces") of elite SS commandos who killed, burned alive, tortured and raped disfavored villagers (men, women and children), just as Hamas did to kibbutzes.
But the Nazis suppressed stories of the Einsatzgruppen's activities and the existence of their death camps, while Hamas proudly promoted their atrocities by posting videos and photographs of their atrocities on-line. Hamas was proud of their 13th C barbarity in a way the Nazis were not proud of theirs.)
2. [Q] ". . . I wondered: If I had not left academia, if I had stayed and worked my way up the bureaucracy, as one does, would this have been me? Would I have had as much trouble with the truth as these women were having? Would I, like them, have lost my reason? Would I have become an apologist for hate? These women were not born this way, after all." [/quote]
I don't think you would have. You knew of an actual historical example of barbarity and it had touched you personally, and you developed a deep-seated (and fact-based) belief that the Holocaust happened.
As persuasion expert Anthony Pratkanis pointed out in his brief article "How to sell a pseudoscience" (1995): "Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right."
https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/1995/07/22165104/p21.pdf
Pratkanis's point is a double edged sword: it works as well to sell film-flam as it does to sell factual, objective history.
One final point: If you haven't seen it, Niall Ferguson's Dec 2023 essay: "The Treason of the Intellectuals" documents how 100 years ago German intellectuals transitioned into Nazis. He sees the same process at work now.
https://www.thefp.com/p/niall-ferguson-treason-intellectuals-third-reich
Thank you for this. Lots to chew on, historically and philosophically. I am off to read the Ferguson article right now. Thanks again.
Good post. "The Economist blames social media for this"...while I do think social media is a contributing factor, it's important not to over-emphasize its role. Narratives stirring up fear and anger have existed long before there was any such thing, medieval pogroms being only one of thousands of examples
See my related post Sympathy for the Devil:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/70291.html
Thank you for this, David. Your post is very powerful. Totally agree that narrative has been used to stir up fear, anger, intergroup hatred forever. This is a constant. What changes, as you note, is the technology of story and the engine of delivery. I loved the point that in growing up online, young people have in many ways lost contact not only with print culture, but with the history and the modes of thought recorded there.
What an excellent and timely post! Another element that contributes to the "success" of hate is our survival instinct—we have to simplify. We are so overwhelmed with input that we can't easily make sense of the world. We can't absorb and process all the complexity so we distill it to simple memes in order to cope. What if we could reduce the complexity to better memes and default behaviors for how to manage a messy world? Better stories is a good start. We can handle inconsistencies and ambiguity better in a story than we can in our lives. Thoughtful analysis of story is a way to show us how to separate the important elements in a story and we can do it with nothing on the line. Exactly your point. Stories can be analyzed in an infinite number of ways. Interpretation, understanding and feelings don't have to be bi-modal! They aren't! Stories are safe experiments for figuring out what is important to us. Story is a safe model for life's, What if?"