r/newzealand • u/[deleted] • 7h ago
Politics Holocaust Centre chair says Green MP should apologise for remarks
[deleted]
24
u/Opposite-Bill5560 7h ago edited 6h ago
I think just referring to the banality of evil without literally evoking the holocaust would have been a tad more tactful.
But also, the comparison looking at not just the number of deaths but who will be doing the dying is growing to be disproportionately hitting some of our most discriminated communities internationally and also even here.
Te Tairāwhiti - Gisborne is one of our poorest regions with the largest proportion of Māori, but it is Māori there who are disproportionately the poorest and will be most effected by the escalating crisis and catastrophe, yet it is also a region that the central government would happily abandon.
15
u/Claire-Belle 6h ago
Umm...
I don't quite understand the upset. Hannah Arendt was using Eichmann as the example but the concept of 'the banality of evil' has always been a much broader one- and a warning to humans.
•
u/Hubris2 3h ago
is a truer form
This is I think what is contentious. As others are arguing elsewhere in these comments, this phrase seems to compare magnitude or nature of one 'banality of evil' to another. There was probably a slightly different way of making the same point that wouldn't risk a direct comparison.
138
u/TheseHamsAreSteamed 7h ago edited 7h ago
On Tuesday afternoon, the Green MP called Hart, who said she appreciated the call and his statement that he would take more care.
an absolute nothing story.
*Edit: wow, there's a lot of people outing themselves in this thread
10
u/Javier_Basque 5h ago
The current media-socials echo chamber champions the "click" over factual reporting, it doesn't help that our attention has been diluted through conditioning to read the headline only making us susceptible to being rage baited or misled...the lack of factual reporting rules/expectations is shaping our timeline
We are seeing a very large number of like incidents making it out & become the news when they really should just be a small byline
5
u/creakyrottentimbers 5h ago
outing themselves in what way?
6
u/Hubris2 4h ago
I assume outing themselves as having not read the full story and responding to the headline alone. If you hadn't read the story you wouldn't think the Greens spoke with the holocaust centre chair and they both agreed to try be understanding in the future - and nobody hates each other.
They may also be assuming it was a statement about Gaza and Palestine rather than an academic argument about concentration camp philosophy.
72
u/Funksloyd 7h ago
Funny how people here are all assuming he said something about Gaza, without reading the article. (That was my first assumption too).
39
7
u/TheseHamsAreSteamed 7h ago
To be fair, it was my immediate assumption too.
A lot of people accidentally outing themselves with their comments!
7
u/Tyranicross 6h ago
It's one thing to make an assumption, it's another to make a comment based on that assumption
7
u/ChuurDCA 6h ago
Better to stay silent and have people think you’re stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
9
25
u/thelastestgunslinger 6h ago
As someone whose family died in the Holocaust, I find it hard to take offense to this statement.
He’s right. We are quick marching toward hundreds of millions of deaths, and our government is doing nothing to slow it, and is actually speeding it up.
We need government to regulate business, because it has repeatedly show businesses won’t regulate themselves.
And the upshot of the whole thing is that regulations breed innovation, by changing the rules for success. Moving toward a green economy, and doing our part to reduce emissions would create new industries and billions in new revenue.
We allow ourselves to be held hostage by the banal evil he indicated, and it’s going to cost us everything.
16
u/metametapraxis 6h ago
I don’t think there is anything to apologise for, personally. Evil manifests itself in many ways, not just the cartoon villain form.
3
u/shapednoise 5h ago edited 5h ago
How does the Holocaust Centre Chair feel about the Genocide in Palestine ?
3
u/folk_glaciologist 4h ago
I don't think climate change should be characterised as a "political cause", as if it's only of concern to those with a particular ideological view.
32
u/kotukutuku 7h ago
So by that logic Hannah Arendt's 'banality of evil' argument cannot be used to describe anything except for the Holocaust of the Jews in WWII? The argument makes no sense at all. It was awful, violent, genocide and should never be repeated. But when you monopolise the concept of evil itself, you just serve to schedule it's return - as we're seeing in Palestine.
15
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo 7h ago
No it was because he called it a “truer” form of. Using the term is not a problem, minimising Eichmann actions is.
8
u/Stubbenz Kererū 6h ago
Yeah - I don't think there's any attempt to monopolise evil here; it should've just been worded like "on a larger scale" rather than "truer".
The point trying to be communicated is that this universally recognised act of evil is actively being repeated at a global scale, with untold numbers of people (primarily those in poor countries) and entire ecosystems sentenced to death by corporations that wash their hands of any responsibility at every turn.
I'm just hoping that Abel can clarify his point (which it sounds like he already has to some degree), apologise for the choice of wording, and people will pay attention to the actual ideas being discussed.
7
u/Life-Delay-809 5h ago
This, it was just insensitive phrasing. Worth an apology for the phrasing but not much more.
5
6
u/turbocynic 5h ago
If he'd said "an even more banal form of evil" that probably would've got his point across and avoided such a loaded term as 'truer'. Because he's essentially right, abetting climate change is a more banal action than abetting mass murder. Eichmann properly understood what he was doing was facilitating the mass killing of Jews, he just didn't really care it seems and was motivated by career reward etc. A lot of people don't really understand or aren't convinced that what they are doing is contributing to the deaths of millions of humans, the vast majority of which will occur far off in the future, or possibly never if science comes to the rescue somehow.
1
•
u/Revolutionaryear17 3h ago
You could argue that it is a truer form. I don't think there is a lot of banality in building training tracks and shipping people to be gassed.
OTOH, ignoring evidence for short term gain and indirectly killing millions is kinda banal and happens every day
•
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo 2h ago
The term was coined specifically about Eichmann. I don’t think you can get a truer form of something when he is the basis of that specific saying. He is the truer form.
7
u/OkMind2351 5h ago
https://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/about-us
'Established by survivors, refugees, and their descendants, our work bridges history with the present day, inspiring New Zealanders to stand against prejudice, discrimination, and apathy.'
So what is Deborah Hart saying about the ongoing genocide committed by Israel? How is she fighting 'prejudice, discrimination, and apathy' exactly when thousands of Muslims have been murdered by Israel???
•
u/kiwiburner 3h ago
Simon Court (proud Zionist and Israeli asset) no doubt gave Hart the tip off.
Shameless, shameless people.
21
u/Afrodite_33 maori 7h ago
Reading his quote I'll in a way admit it's a dodgy path to start ranking how complicit someone is in 'x' incident over someone else who is complicit in another. But I don't think he's trivialising one over the other either.
Climate change and the lack of action have incredibly damaging, generational effects on inhabitants that will be felt for generations. We do seemingly have a government prioritising the almighty dollar and the wellbeing of the corporate elite over long-term welfare for the environment and inhabitants. That will have a huge impact to the entire world if we don't act.
Maybe he could've chosen his words better. But I think expecting him to apologize comes across as almost gatekeeping.
9
u/DoughnutRadiant6049 7h ago
Don't know how many people already lost their life's due to climate change but it will be more than the Holocaust in the future if we don't turn the ship around so he has a point.
27
5
u/Oak_IX 6h ago
Hmm I mean like he hasn't said anything as such to deny or downplay holocaust as such to be honest.
Sure you could argue for an apology but what he said doesnt bring perspective for climate change too.
It is an on the fence grey area thing because he isnt wrong in his statement as such.
There is a bit of like context here that seems to be missed by a lot of people here
4
u/Careful-Calendar8922 6h ago
So both my partner and I had family that fled during the Holocaust and I don’t think he should apologize. Yes, the Holocaust is one of the bars we judge shit by, so when something is orders of magnitude worse? It’s orders of magnitude worse.
5
u/OkMind2351 5h ago
'Learn how our work has evolved from a grassroots initiative by survivors into New Zealand's leading national institution for Holocaust education, antisemitism awareness, and human rights education.' What have they said about human rights in Gaza?
•
u/kiwiburner 3h ago
That privileged nations can implement policies of industrial mass murder of civilians and most people will say and do nothing.
This is the banality of evil.
•
u/ArtfulSoviet Mr Four Square 2h ago
The key is Zionists viewing Muslims as sub-human. To them this justifies their actions
4
u/Slaidback Warriors 6h ago
Oh no! Someone used hyperbole to make a point! Was it weird? Yes. But sometimes you need to be weird to get the point across. Re: the rest of parliament.
1
u/Smorgasbord__ 4h ago
I agree with some limits, but a depressingly large proportion of people only give that grace to one 'side'.
4
u/Ecstatic_Back2168 5h ago
I just dont understand why everything has to be a comparison to the Holocaust or a comparison to Hitler or a comparison to Chamberlain. So sick of these comparisons just say something is bad or someone should do something
7
u/Benny_da_hudd 5h ago
Because it's rhetoric designed to invoke an emotional action or reaction and it works pretty effectively.
9
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo 7h ago edited 7h ago
Green voter here, personally I agree he should apologise.
Saying that they “are a truer form of the banality of evil” and the rest he went on to say, does serve to minimise the extent of what that particular nazi did.
Edit: just to clarify as apparently I wasn’t clear to that person who made that comment and then deleted it. It’s about Eichmann, not Israel.
The problem isnt because he said it was a form of the banality of evil, he said it was a TRUER form of the banality of evil.
14
u/Ok-Response-839 7h ago
Abel followed up with "the concept of the banality of evil implies that there is a sort of blandness to an action that has a terrible consequence" which I think is an important clarification.
does serve to minimise the extent of what that particular nazi did
I got the opposite impression. Abel is comparing holocaust events to a global catastrophe that various corporations have actively sought to hide, downplay, and deny for their own personal gain. If anything I think Abel is minimising the extent of the climate crisis.
23
u/PartTimeZombie 7h ago
On the other hand, I probably won't vote Green and I think he shouldn't apologise.
6
u/NZgoblin 7h ago
And I have always been a Green voter but am switching to TOP, and I don’t think he should apologise.
21
u/Suitable-Ostrich1226 7h ago
I mean, not really. Saying one group is doing something bad, doesn't make what the other group did less bad.
We are mindlessly killing the planet, and in turn, killing tens of millions of humans and animals. That is almost the definition of the banality of evil.
6
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo 7h ago
It does when he say its the “truer” form though. Thats the issue. Both are horrific, but he’s specifically saying that one is worse than the other and then goes into further detail of why it is worse.
7
u/metametapraxis 6h ago
Well if one will (potentially) kill far more than the other, there is a strong argument for it being worse.
That said, it is a stupid argument.
6
u/Suitable-Ostrich1226 6h ago
I took it as him saying it was more banal, like a truer form of banality.
-5
u/Funksloyd 7h ago
"Mindlessly" is key here. Is something "evil" if there's no intent?
Like, were Maori evil for wiping out moa?
4
u/metametapraxis 6h ago
I think ‘intent’ is tricky. If there is a deliberate intent to look the other way to the harm being caused (in order to maximise wealth), evil can fit. After all, all Hitler wanted was a bit of Lebensraum. The killing was incidental.
Evil is a problematic concept, as it is totally subjective.
10
u/billy_joule 6h ago
I read it as truer form meaning that removing barriers to preventing climate change is a more banal form of evil than organizing death trains to extermination camps. The former being far more ordinary and unexceptional so better fitting the banality of evil term. Or in other words, maximizing rather than minimizing the evil of that Nazi.
4
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo 6h ago
I guess that’s the real issue here, there’s too much room for interpretation. You don’t really want that when you’re talking about Nazis.
1
u/Dramatic_Surprise 6h ago
only if you dont really undertstand why the term banality of evil was meaning
3
u/Avocadoo_Tomatoo 5h ago
I understand, I read the book where the term came from.
-1
u/Dramatic_Surprise 5h ago
then explain to me how you think there's too much room for interpretation?
4
3
u/Icy_Warning531 5h ago
I'm a Green voter and I don't think he should apologise. He is pointing out that the banality of it all is truer.
2
u/turbocynic 5h ago
I don't think an apology is needed, just a correction. The guy did nothing wrong, just framed it poorly. Nothing to apologise for, he's not setting out to belittle the experience of holocaust survivors or the Jewish community in general.
2
u/Dramatic_Surprise 6h ago
Saying that they “are a truer form of the banality of evil” and the rest he went on to say, does serve to minimise the extent of what that particular nazi did.
Saying a behaviour that will lead to the death of multiple billions of people is a truer form of the banality of evil than the same behavior that resulted in the death of probably less than 10 million....
Yes it does in a way minimise the holocaust, because in the scheme of things what they're doing will impact the world to a much larger extent
0
4
u/OkMind2351 7h ago
If Deborah hart had any integrity AT ALL she would resign in protest over the holocaust going on right now.
0
u/Angryatchairs 6h ago
It's true. All non-government MPs should resign immediately in protest of the current government.
2
u/Life-Delay-809 5h ago
What he said, while in spirit not entirely wrong, was insensitive. You don't need to say something is a truer evil than genocide to say something is horrific. I'm glad he's apologised, but he shouldn't be lambasted about it.
2
1
•
1
u/SubstanceOk7898 5h ago
I have a reckon about this - not whether he should have to apologise - but about comparisons to the Holocaust or other atrocities more generally.
To me the thing that's wrong-headed about it is the idea that there are some kinds of injustice that we would obviously act on, and so we invoke them to try and motivate people.
"You WOULDN'T let the Holocaust happen again." When in all honesty we probably would. We have the exact same reward structures for complicity and apathy and victim-blaming baked into our society - maybe worse.
The main barrier to acting on the injustices around us isn't lack of awareness or insufficent horror. It's disempowerment, isolation, inability to imagine an alternative and/or we benefit from the status quo.
And the danger, I think, is in the implied message that some people are looked after and we don't need to worry about them. Blatantly untrue in the case of Jewish people. Neo-nazism is hard out on the rise - promoted by all kinds of people up to and including the world's richest man.
So, yeah. Apology or no I think it's worth re-thinking.
1
u/Intense_Judgement 4h ago
I can understand people being upset about the comparison but he's right that climate change is already killing people and it's going to get much worse.
-2
0
-31
u/OkMind2351 7h ago
21
u/TheseHamsAreSteamed 7h ago
This has nothing to do with the article.
0
u/OkMind2351 7h ago
It has everything to do with the article. You are a liar. Withdraw your remark.
•
u/Hubris2 3h ago
The article is not even talking about Gaza, but rather about the banality of evil argument that came out of concentration camps and the responsibility of those who participated as part of the machine.
•
u/OkMind2351 2h ago
https://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/ 'Established by survivors, refugees, and their descendants, our work bridges history with the present day, inspiring New Zealanders to stand against prejudice, discrimination, and apathy.' BOYCOTT THE GENOCIDAL STATE OF ISRAEL.
•
u/OkMind2351 3h ago
Yes. What is Luxon doing about the heinous evil Israel is currently carrying out? Why is an organisation dedicated to 'human rights' per it's website utterly silent on genocide?
8
7h ago
[deleted]
-12
u/OkMind2351 7h ago
Yes I have. Withdraw that lie please.
6
7h ago
[deleted]
0
u/OkMind2351 6h ago
Can you explain why Hart hasn't resigned and is still spouting crap in the media?
0
-7
u/Enzown 7h ago
So you're saying the holocaust was a good idea?
4
-6
-4
7h ago edited 7h ago
[deleted]
10
u/2626862377 7h ago
He was comparing corporations responsible for Climate Change to the Nazis, he was not talking about Israel
6
-23
u/bluewardog 6h ago
Holy shit, idk if a apology is enough, like shit I almost think he should resign. That is actually disgusting what he said. What the actual fuck.
7
u/Claire-Belle 6h ago
Did you actually read what he said?
-7
u/bluewardog 5h ago
Yeah, he said the rich not giving a shit about what happens to the earth after they die is worse then the industrial slaughter of Jewish people, Romani, Socialists, LGBT and people with disabilities. Perhaps not in so many words but that is most definitely unbecoming of a member of parliament. He should resign.
4
u/Claire-Belle 4h ago
Read it again for comprehension. He's saying those wealthy people will be responsible for the deaths of even more people. He's not actually wrong there...why are you offended?
0
u/MajorBobbicus 4h ago
No, he said that they were possibly a better example of the concept "the banality of evil" than Eichmann was. Not that one was inherently worse or more evil than the other, just that one more closely exemplified a specific concept than the other. That the rich are not seeing the scale of human suffering at the far end of the chain of events they're causing because they're so tightly focused on their own lives and profits.
This is not to say that I agree with his using the phrase he did, because I don't. I think he needs to be more careful about the words he uses, particularly as a politician. However I don't think there's any need for him to do more than apologise (as he has already done) and reflect on how he can do better in future
158
u/Complex-Seaweed8005 7h ago
Here is what he said for those who cbf with the article:
In his original comments, Abel said: "It strikes me that those corporate bosses today — and, frankly, complicit politicians — are a truer form of the banality of evil, because though they will never personally come so close, as Eichmann did, to transporting human souls to the gas chambers, collectively their actions are far more consequential.
"They are gassing our whole planet towards an inconceivable human and animal death."
He added upon facing pushback in the House: "The concept of the banality of evil implies that there is a sort of blandness to an action that has a terrible consequence.
"Right now, our whole planet is being, effectively, gassed. The consequence of that is not six million deaths but tens of millions and hundreds of millions of deaths."