Roger Garaudy: a revisionist historian or a holocaust denier! (tradition, beliefs)

[TashaN]

Many people have accused Roger Garaudy of being a holocaust denier but is he really as they claim so, or he is just another revisionist historian who is looking for the truth?

How do you distinguish between a revisionist historian and a holocaust denier?

Who will decide who is whom? And why people have a double standard when it comes to this issue, in comparison with many similar incidents in history?

Is there a prophecy behind all that or this is yet another conspiracy theory?

There is alot of questions in my mind but i'll leave the rest for you to think about it in order to understand this issue in depth.


About Roger Garaudy:

Roger Garaudy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (there is no references in this article!)

Note: Talk:Roger Garaudy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also please read:

Radio Islam: Roger Garaudy - The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics (his book)

Radio Islam: R. Garaudy - The Myths of the 20th Century

Radio Islam: R. Garaudy - Right to Reply (Right to Reply)

What is Holocaust denial?
Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is Historical revisionism?
Historical revisionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm more interested in this part of the article in particular.

Many great discoveries have come as a result of the research of men and women who have been curious enough to revisit certain historical events and explore them again in depth from a new perspective.

Revisionist historians contest the mainstream or traditional view of historical events, they raise views at odds with traditionalists, which must be freshly judged.

Revisionist history is often practiced by those who are in the minority, such as feminist historians, ethnic minority historians, those working outside of mainstream academia in smaller and less known universities, or the youngest scholars, essentially historians who have the most to gain and the least to lose in challenging the status quo. In the friction between the mainstream of accepted beliefs and the new perspectives of historical revisionism, received historical ideas are either changed, solidified, or clarified. If over a period of time the revisionist ideas become the new establishment status quo a paradigm shift is said to have occurred.

From: Historical revisionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A very important reminder: Accusations of holocaust denial to each other won't be tolerated in this thread, and if someone can't respect that please don't participate. This is just an honest attempt to unlock this taboo about this sensetive issue.

Thanks in advance.

[Jaiket]

I've never heard of the guy, but in reading "Myths of the 20th Century" I notice that he uses dictionary definitions for genocide. That strikes me as curious. Further more, the definition seems wrong. Any historian of genocide would know that the word is tied into a range of actions and is not limited to the entire destruction of a "race" of people. Infact, he seems to be playing the definition game in order to make his point.

The Jews aren't a race, therefore are suspect to genocide. They weren't all killed so it wasn't genocide. He offers:

"Genocide: The systematic destruction of an ethnic group by the extermination of its individuals."

And yet, from the first paragraph of the wiki article on Genocide.

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I haven't had a chance to read all you've linked, these are kind of first impressions. I imagine Jay will have a field day however.

[Tigress]

Originally Posted by EiNsTeiN

My God, thats stupid!....Ok we feel sorry for the jews....so what now?....does denying or accepting the holocause change any of it?....does it make them look better?

Denial of the Holocaust is a slap in the face to the Jews, just as the denial of a rape is to the rape victim, and the denial of the Crusades, or the early persecution of Muslims in Mecca may be for Muslims. That said, denying history cannot change the events therein, but it can influence the events of the future. Recognizing the Holocaust is recognizing the pain and the suffering of those affected by it, and it's showing them that you care, and that you're interested in making sure it doesn't happen a second time.

Sorry about that, but I couldn't just leave that comment unaddressed.

[Fluffy]

If you are going to revise history then you need to tackle the strongest possible case for the viewpoint you wish to revise, not the weakest.

I have not read Roger Garaudy and I do not intend to either. However, I would strongly advise utilising the above rule of thumb in evaluating his claims.

[EiNsTeiN]

My point of view in this case is clear:

Originally Posted by EiNsTeiN

It's not that we are defending him or not...

We just think his denial of the holocaust means he is weak in history!...and that means he gets C in history instead of letting him pay 40,000 $ and calling him guilty!!

And thats logical as I think!

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by EiNsTeiN

And that’s logical as I think!

In that sense, I agree, if the comments were made solely in private conversations, however, when a person makes their ludicrous claims in public in order to further a distinct agenda, then they must be held accountable.

In order to bring the point home to you, young Einstein, think of those who call for the silencing, imprisonment or beheading of any person who draws naughty cartoons about your illustrious prophet. Are you saying that those people have a poor understanding of their religion? Is this a case of any sanctions being ok for impugning the alleged integrity of said prophet?

[Peace]

Originally Posted by not4me

1- I don't think it's about defending or not defending. If he thought there were some lies about it, this doesn't make him a criminal.
2- Maro made an analogy between a Holocaust denier and a God and the prophets denier (the guilt of the latter is much greater than the former from a Muslim point of view). And this doesn't mean denying the Holocaust but if some one did, isn't this also a form of freedom of thinking and expression?
3- As long as we are Muslims who follow the teachings of the Qur'an (not the western values and standards) then we will always be looked bad and the more we stick to the Qur'an, the more we will be looked as bad.

Your point of view dear sis is the same as mine, so this post just reflects my thoughts.
We don't deny the holocaust, and the ones who accuse us of doing so just want to make a scandal out it. However; the analogy that sister maro made is a great one and I applaud her for coming up with that analogy.
We Muslims don't hate the Jews as far as they don't show enmity towards us and fight us.

Peace

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Peace

We Muslims don't hate the Jews as far as they don't show enmity towards us and fight us.

Hmmm. That leaves a gaping hole large enough to drive a Jihad through, you realize, o' Peaceful one.

So, what you are saying is that as long as they lie down, shut up and don't do anything that seems remotely like a provocation, you tolerate their existence?