Elie Wiesel attacked

Great plan.

you'd think a real anti-semite would revel in the history and industrial precision of wiping out the eastern european jewry.

On the other hand, Elie Wiesel consistently opposed Roma (gypsy) representation on the US Holocaust museum. He acted to successfully blocked even a single Rom member from the 65-member council of the USHM. (One was finally appointed after he stepped down.) He's never adequately addressed this issue; when asked about it on a French documentary, he shrugged and smiled. It's worth pointing out that there's quite a lot of anti-Roma references in his books, including "Night."

More recently, he's admitted the existence of anti-Gypsy Nazi policies, but maintains that Jews are the "supreme" victims of the Holocaust and deserving of 'special' remembrance.
All this despite the fact that the Roma people were actually *earlier* victims of Nazi genocide and although they were killed in equal proportion to Jews. I don't like to play favorites when it comes to acknowledging genocide - I've been through something pretty close to it myself. To me, Wiesel's unwillingness to readily acknowledge the Nazi genocide of the Roma people - and to outwardly *block* the public acknowledgement of same - makes him a Holocaust denier of sorts as well.

Again, not to play favourites with genocide (although I am admittedly biased here), but I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from because they are simply wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos

Roma victims are usually cited to be a few 100K, as opposed to the 2/3 of Jewish Europe that was killed. I also have no idea what you mean when you say they were "earlier victims of genocide" ... it's not like the Nazis put some kind of priority on settling the Roma question ahead of all their other demented eugenics programs. They were killing and/or sterilizing the mentally+physically disabled, homosexuals, their political opponents, etc. etc. long before they started building death camps and organizing mass murder. It's also quite clear that the Jewish question was of a different importance to the Nazis -- it's not like the Roma were getting blamed for Communism, World War I, and so on.

If we're being technical, the worst genocide of the 20th century (in terms of numbers, although death estimates widely vary) happened when Stalin tried to starve the Ukraine in the 1930's, but this has never received proper world recognition either. Basically, I don't have a big problem with the Holocaust remaining a Jewish issue, with other genocides being recognized separately instead of being organized under one umbrella term.

"it's not like the Roma were getting blamed for Communism, World War I, and so on."

Yeah the Roma just started getting persecuted in 1936. It's not like they've been blamed for shit before that (and after.)

According to Porajmos historian Ian Hancock, proportionately, the Roma death toll equaled "and almost certainly exceed[ed], that of Jewish victims."

Every Holocaust denier loses all credibility at square one when they assert that the holocaust didn't happen, but IT SHOULD HAVE!

As far as "genocide," I'm using the strict dictionary definition of the term, "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group." Of course, the Nazis persecuted homosexuals, handicapped and political opponents, but these particular cases either were not "deliberate and systematic extermination" as such (the punishment of political opponents was not absolute, nor entirely geared towards extermination, for example) or the victims were not collectively a "national, racial, political, or cultural group," such as the handicapped. Mass murder is as bad as genocide, but there is a difference in the two, which is why I deliberately used the term "genocide."

I also have no idea what you mean when you say they were "earlier victims of genocide" ... it's not like the Nazis put some kind of priority on settling the Roma question ahead of all their other demented eugenics programs.

What I mean is what I said. The Nazis did prioritize the elimination of the Roma over other groups. First, because of pre-existing anti-Roma laws which were actively embraced prior to the existence of any anti-Jewish laws. As early as 1933, Roma were being forcibly sterilized as part of a genocidal campaign (this was prior to the same action against Jews), and Roma were sent to camps such as Dachau on the basis of their 'race' that same year, again, this was before the same action against Jews. The basis for being 'undesirable' was twice as strict against Roma than Jews (two half-Roma great-grandparents versus one Jewish grandparent.) I hate to make these comparisons, since it seems as if the two groups are being pitted against one another. But the fact of the matter is that the denial of the Roma aspect of the Holocaust by people like Elie Wiesel (and even some folks here, who (despite evidence) feel that the Holocaust should be the special preserve of the Jews) is probably one of the reasons that the persecution of Roma continues . . . specifically anti-Roma laws still exist (and are employed) in much of Europe and in many American states, in the past few years, Roma have been forcibly sterilized in Slovakia, Hungary and other nations, and so on.

True, the Roma were not blamed for Communism, World War I, etc. But that doesn't make their plight any *better*, does it? The fact is that the Roma were already so heavily discriminated against and persecuted that there was no need at all to "scapegoat" them. On the other hand, in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland (etc), Jews had risen to top positions in government, professional occupations and the arts. Many were well-respected, successful and popular. Quite a large number of them did not even see themselves as "Jewish" per se (a good recent book which displays this is Kati Marton's "The Great Escape: Nine Jews Fled Hitler And CHanged The World.") In order for their genocide against Jews to begin, it was necessary for the Nazis to demonize them - hence, the blame for all sorts of things. No need to do that for the Roma, though! They were already hated.
So the assertion that the Jewish question was of different importance is not really demonstrable; they simply needed to exert more effort to have the same results as they did with the Roma. The relevant fact here should be solely in the results, and in those the Roma lost every bit as much the Jews.

True, the Roma were not blamed for Communism, World War I, etc. But that doesn't make their plight any *better*, does it?

No it doesn't, but it does show the extent to which the Jews were singled out, which was my point.

On the other hand, in Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland (etc), Jews had risen to top positions in government, professional occupations and the arts.

I don't get this -- at some point, there had always been some Jews in these positions in virtually every European country. The pattern of accepting, demonizing, and driving Jews away was centuries old, and had been perfected long before the Nazis came along. Just because they held some positions of importance doesn't mean the Nazis had to create something out of nothing. Also, virtually all Jewish holocaust victims were poor rural people in Eastern Europe.

Alex, I have read estimates of Roma WWII deaths from other souces and simply linked to Wikipedia because I don't have them on hand and it was convenient to do so. Using the upper estimate of deaths (2M), then there would have had to be only 3M Roma in Europe before WWII for them to have been killed in equal proportions to Jews, and those numbers don't make sense to me (for instance, there are about 10 million Roma today).

Genocide is pretty much the worst thing that can happen in the world, so separately recognizing persecutions of different ethnic groups (which happened for different reasons) feels more just than conveniently lumping everyone under one umbrella.

i.e. I would like this to be explained to me, if true -- this is not to say that I concertedly don't believe the numbers

Wiesel has acted to deny commemoration of Roma victims of the Holocaust, and mark it as an event which *primarily* affected Jews. But that's not true! It affected the Roma every bit as much, despite Wiesel's claim that it was the Jews who were the "supreme victims." In the more Westernized nations (at least), anti-Jewish laws were repealed, reparations were provided (slowly and not anything like in terms of what was lost, but still . . .), nations acted to recognize a Jewish state. None of which will replace the seven million killed . . . but the Roma were killed in equal proportion, anti-Roma laws are still on the books (and often enforced), there is no Roma homeland per se, and even Roma born in certain nations (like Germany) are still not automatically assumed to have citizenship. Nor have the Roma received reparations of any kind. And ask someone what people experienced genocide at the hands of the Nazis, and you will rarely ever hear the words "Roma" or "gypsies." In this sense, the Holocaust of Roma has effectively been "denied." And Wiesel played a part in this.

I wrote: True, the Roma were not blamed for Communism, World War I, etc. But that doesn't make their plight any *better*, does it?

No it doesn't, but it does show the extent to which the Jews were singled out, which was my point.

Your argument essentially begs the question, was it worse that the Jews *had* to be singled out because they had 'recently' been members of 'proper' society than the fact the the Roma had *always* been singled out and thus were already demonized? In many cities, it was forbidden to live "in town" if you were of Roma blood (read Ilona Lackova's "False Dawn: My Life As A Gypsy Woman In Slovakia" for an excellent context for this.) Roma were hugely segregated; many people wouldn't have been aware of what they suffered. Anti-Roma laws were on the books and enforced earlier. The Roma were every bit as likely to die in a concentration camp. Much of the race legislation was pro-Aryan / anti-non-Aryan . . . it's perceived as anti-Jewish, but it almost always included anti-Roma wording too. And as I mentioned earlier, laws against Roma blood were more strict that those against Jewish blood. And of course, it was rare (if not unknown) for Roma to be in positions of power, hold a professional professions, have an education or even be literate and so on. In a sense, the Jews had means to have their stories told (as many were of the educated classes, lived in big cities and so on.) But "singled out?" The laws were just as strict *or more so* against the Roma. And a Roma person living in Nazi-territory was just as likely to be killed because of their blood. And in honesty, many non-Jewish Germans were probably horrified at anti-Semetic legislation but not at all bothered by anti-Rom legislation. (People did protest anti-Jewish language, but there was never an outcry over anti-Rom legislation.) The Roma had the worst of it before the Nazis and after the Nazis. And just as bad during the Nazis! Put another way, at no point would it have been an advantage for a Jew to be suddenly transformed into a Rom! So the singled-out business is, at best, entirely beside the point.

I don't get this -- at some point, there had always been some Jews in these positions in virtually every European country. The pattern of accepting, demonizing, and driving Jews away was centuries old, and had been perfected long before the Nazis came along. Just because they held some positions of importance doesn't mean the Nazis had to create something out of nothing. Also, virtually all Jewish holocaust victims were poor rural people in Eastern Europe.

Obviously, there is a long history of anti-Semitism throughout Europe, and much of the language and many of the policies were not technically "new." But in Germany and other countries, Jews were afforded all rights of citizenship by law. (The Roma obviously weren't.) And in big cities like Berlin, which was quite anti-Nazi by German standards (early on at least), the common presumption was that a return to anti-Semitism was patently absurd. (Read any book about the pre-War history of the Jews or of the Weimar Republic and this becomes quite obvious.) And of course, it was in cities like Berlin where the media, intelligentsia, (etc) lived, so a culture shift *was* necessary - in terms of the Jews at any rate. (It's also worth noting that at no place on Earth in the previous many centuries had Jews been so successfully integrated into 'society' as they did in Germany and the vestiges of the Austro-Hungarian empire. So while a pattern of acceptance and rejection did exist, never was the acceptance as magnificent as it was just prior to the Nazis. Again, any book which tackles the subject will make this quite clear. The Nazis, in essense, did have to create something from nothing. Can't say the same for the Roma, though!

Alex, I have read estimates of Roma WWII deaths from other souces and simply linked to Wikipedia because I don't have them on hand and it was convenient to do so. Using the upper estimate of deaths (2M), then there would have had to be only 3M Roma in Europe before WWII for them to have been killed in equal proportions to Jews, and those numbers don't make sense to me (for instance, there are about 10 million Roma today).

Yes, but the birthrate of Roma is (and has been, since the war) generally double (but ins ome places, as much as three times!) the birthrate for non-Roma. They also tend to have children very young, so this speeds up the process.

This is a huge social problem and widely discussed today - to the point where Roma are forcibly sterilized even NOW - check recent news from Slovakia and Hungary. (And Google "roma" or "gypsies" and "birth rate" and start digging!) In any case, it doesn't take a statistics genius to do the math on this. For the record, I'd take it on faith that there are actually many more Roma in Europe than 10 million. For the record, no one of any credibility actually debates the numbers of Roma killed much; it's been pretty well-supported with hard evidence . . . they just ignore the issue.

Genocide is pretty much the worst thing that can happen in the world, so separately recognizing persecutions of different ethnic groups (which happened for different reasons) feels more just than conveniently lumping everyone under one umbrella.

Except the Nazi genocide of Roma and Jews happened in tandem, by the same people, for the same reasons, with the same general effect. And the Holocaust Museum has made a big show of including non-genocidal victims of the Holocaust on their board. So the exclusion of Roma victims and representation is just another chapter in their sad story.

Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com both said Tuesday that they were making changes to certify Elie Wiesel's "Night" as nonfiction.

and a blog post where a similar discussion to this thread is happening:

http://mondoweiss.observer.com/2007/01/forgiving-elie-wiesel-somewhat-on-his-opposition-to-gypsies-.html

Nomenclature ... which is exactly what we're discussing here ... it's a matter of "holocaust = Nazi genocide against Jews" vs "holocaust = Nazi genocide against various ethnic groups". If the Holocaust and the Parajmos are viewed as two separate entities then there's no problem here.

There are also issues of cause vs effect ... yes, the end results for Jews vs Roma were similar. Demonization/descrimination against Jews was a major political weapon (i.e. exploited by major political movements in Europe) for decades before WWII. Jewish issues were hot-button, "fire up the masses" questions -- not too dissimilar from the way politicians exploit something like the abortion issue today -- and this is *distinct* from the problems that the Roma faced during the same time period. The fact that the Roma plight was ignored at the time (and continues to be) is obviously sad, but is equally obviously a different political and cultural issue from that of the Jews (or of any other ethnic group). These are matters (in particular, the terrible status of Roma in Europe today) that will require totally unique strategies and solutions from those that deal with (very different) Jewish issues. Also, let's play realpolitik for a moment -- piggybacking Roma issues onto the Jewish holocaust will simply cast them as yet another Jewish issue ... note, for example, the complete non-reaction to Jewish organizations speaking out against the Sudanese genocide in the name of preventing future programs of mass murder.

I'd take it on faith that there are actually many more Roma in Europe than 10 million.

Perhaps so, but it doesn't address my earlier enquiry -- what was the Roma population before/after WWII (or at any point during the early 20th century)? Googling is turning up nothing for me.

It's also worth noting that at no place on Earth in the previous many centuries had Jews been so successfully integrated into 'society' as they did in Germany and the vestiges of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

A bit off-topic, but this is also wrong -- among many examples: Moorish and Christian Spain for centuries before the Inquisition, Italy at the end of the 19th century and up to the rise of fascism, various times in the history of the Netherlands, European lands under Napoleon (albeit briefly), etc.

Seriously you could not be more wrong. They are VERY VERY similar.

So the complete non-reaction to the world to the Sudanese genocide is because Jewish organizations spoke out against it.

No, I'm saying that nobody paid attention when, i.e., survivors of the HOLOCAUST said, "hey there, let's try to avoid having ANOTHER HOLOCAUST". The world isn't magically going to change just because a few Jews let some other ethnic groups fall under the holocaust blanket.

No immediate RIP revive, but RIP. A lot of interesting debate around him in my FB feed. I thought this was a good attempt to mediate the positions:

https://jewishphilosophyplace.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/elie-wiesel-his-critics-israel-palestine/

i've been feeling pretty grossed out by how fast some ppl were to post "contrarian" takes on wiesel, many of which struck me as subtly (or not so subtly) anti-semitic in tone

like every time i see someone post a link to that lengthy counterpunch takedown of wiesel about how he supposedly invented a lot of the things he writes about in "night" i feel like responding that i don't really feel comfortable accepting this argument coming from a magazine that has posted holocaust deniers and pol pot apologists in the past

He's had his critics for decades. (scroll to last graf + bulletpoints)

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/n/night/critical-essays/wiesel-and-the-critics

Yeah, basically. Corey Robin has had some good posts that I at least partly agree with, but I'm always uncomfortable with how quickly those critiques get turned into ugly quasi-conspiracy-theories. When the argument gets thrown around too easily that the holocaust "is used to justify Israel," I think the question ought to be asked why said advocates want there to be an Israel in the first place. As I think the piece I linked suggests, Wiesel did not pretend to be a universalist in his support for Israel -- scarred by the Holocaust, he singlemindedly pursued what he thought was the best solution for the protection of Jews. It's wrong to make this into the exclusive acceptable response to the Holocaust, or to suggest that it is beyond reproach, particularly as survivors and their descendants have responded in diverse ways, but I don't think he had some ulterior motive for his politics.

(xp to JD)

Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic, considers Wiesel a public joke and a misapplication of the dignified Nobel Peace Prize.

would like to see a source for that one

there's a bunch of sites that quote Peretz as saying re Wiesel "there's no business like Shoah business."

having Peretz as a critic is usually a good sign, but mabe he found EW insufficiently anti-Arab... though this brief excerpt is a headscratcher:

https://books.google.com/books?id=7ICFN4iJpgwC&pg=PA359&lpg=PA359&dq=peretz+wiesel&source=bl&ots=G6eroRFB8B&sig=N5A0BcoOZlFSUxvdOoQwL-8O7h0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQt7Spp93NAhWFlB4KHVprA704ChDoAQg_MAk#v=onepage&q=peretz%20wiesel&f=false