suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

ANOTHER GIBSON ARTICLE WITH A NONSENSICAL HEADLINE

283wde_Gibson-2.jpg

Just when I was beginning to offer appreciation to the DRUDGE REPORT for (finally) concluding the “Mel Gibson Saga” headlines, I reapproach the site at 4:00 A.M., PST and find more Gibson headlines and links.

This morning’s include:

Dot-Blue-SML.gif This from Reader’s Digest: ” Mel Gibson: Has He Gone Too Far?

I don’t follow the context of that headline there because I read the article — what portion RD offers on the internet — and the man, Mel Gibson, is reasonable and intelligently stated in an interview with Peggy Noonan. He’s not making “denials” that “the Holocaust didn’t happen” (which is what many who are Jewish and in “Hollywood” especially continue to allege he “thinks” and yet that’s not, not at all, represented in what he’s quoted as saying.

And, as to that headline (“Has Gibson Gone Too Far?”), there’s no issue in that article by RD as to what they allude to in that set-up headline ‘direction’ there. The reader is influenced at the very headline portion, even before they’ve read the article that follows, influenced in predetermination by an editorial perspective that establishes an unfounded, unsubstantiated context.

So there’s no where for the reader to go with that context in the headline except to then apply that context while they read the article — and they don’t even know what the negative is, just that they’re in a critical frame of mind, keeping an eye out for…what? What’s the problem here? Headline says he may have a problem, but…maybe if I read this I’ll see what the problem is…but the article never defines any range of evaluation, no starting point nor “bad” extreme, just that there’s this atmosphere of unacceptability about the subject of the article: “has Gibson gone too far?”

Too far? Evaluate this interviewee for a possible negative, is what the headline is actually communicating. What’s his negative,” the headline suggests, because there’s that question right there…

The article will be read, then, with the undefined premise in mind because we first read the headline: “what’s wrong with this man,” the headline suggests, before they even present any information by way of what the inerview reveals.

And, the interview reveals that there’s nothing wrong there. He hasn’t gone “too far” – he’s been lucid, well stated and succinct. And hardly harmful nor damaging.

No, the headline represents bad writing in the sense that it’s sneaky. It’s covert messaging like a secret-code effort, if not is one, the use of headlines such as that.

Gibson says this:

NOONAN: You’re going to have to go on the record. The Holocaust happened, right?

MEL GIBSON: I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. And my dad also knows that there were internment camps where many people died. Now, his whole thing was about the numbers. I mean atrocities happened. The thing with him [my father] was that he was talking about numbers. I mean when the war was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it’s four. I mean it’s that kind of numbers game. I mean war is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million people starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union. Okay? It’s horrible.

Dot-Blue-SML.gif What about those statements and questions represents “Holocaust denial”?

Answer is, nothing about them does.

What’s obvious from those statements by Gibson, to my view, is that Gibson is aware of contradictory reports as to history about the Holocaust (and related years) but he does not indicate that he supports information that might DENY the Holocaust. This is an important distinction.

Dot-Blue-SML.gif There was a great deal of population loss during the Second World War (and in the years leading up to U.S. participation in WWII) from among non-Jewish ethnicities and religions and many of those remain nameless and “uncounted” in history past and present, while the “numbers” as per Jewish accounts fluctuate, which could be due to a lot of reasons, among which I don’t automatically assume are nefarious motives as to why. But the important thing is, there’s the possibility that our current rendition of recent history is not accurate and some people would like to learn more about what may have been omitted from our history or perhaps overlooked or misreported. This does not include, however, “doubting” or “questioning” that the Holocaust occured nor any attempts to “minimize” the ugliness of what occured; it is, rather, accepting that the Holocaust occured, that it was truly horrible, and raises the question as to current reports which just may emphasize colloquialisms over facts.

Dot-Blue-SML.gif The Holocaust was so horrible, to state the obvious, and such a hideous experience to learn of during and at the end of WWII, that I tend to think that the world overreacted into silence and assumptions about it. At least as to some areas, such as who perished there and why.

Millions of people who were not Jewish, nor Semite, perished and perhaps as many Catholics died at the hands of Nazi Germany as did Jews. Some claim the numbers of Catholics who died exceeds that by the Jews but for a long time, perhaps people were simply too horror-struck to ask for many details beyond what was immediately stated. And so history remains a gloss-over in these areas — at least there’s room to question what our current understandings are, how realistic and fully reporting they may have been accepted, or not — and the questions for further investigation are more than reasonable, given the proportions of suffering involved, along with the significance to our human, global civilization of further discovery.

This is an exceedingly difficult issue to explore and discuss, to state the obvious, but it’s something that many people wonder about and would like to see further clarified. Not to DENY the Jewish people their loss and suffering, but to value and commemorate the loss and suffering of those who may remain unnamed, if not as yet forgotten.

Dot-Blue-SML.gif In these terms, to attempt to suppress any investigation about the loss of life at the hands of Nazi Germany (and in Russia at the hands of communist Bolsheviks, which is nearly overlooked in contemporary history, to a tragic loss for us all), to attempt to suppress further exploration about the populations who perished during the Second World War is evil. It reduces precious lives lost — who may or may not have been Jewish but who suffered and perished. And who deserve to be known to us today and commemorated. They lost their lives to nothingness and so there is no excuse to allow them to remain nameless by way of no discovery throughout time after.

Dot-Blue-SML.gif I believe these statements in this interview with Gibson prove that those who malign him with the term, “Holocaust denier,” are wrong. It proves the accusers are not accurate. Gibson recognizes that the Holocaust occurred. He’s also recognizing that there is more investigation that needs to be and should be done to determine who perished during WWII at the hands of a fascist German Socialist Party dictatorship.

And, about these other lives lost who may as yet be unrecognized in collective history, the millions of persons who were killed in Russia during WWII is important to be investigated further and results of discovery allowed into history. People who attempt to manage historical information in an effort to avoid including certain problematic information are unsupportable.

Thus, I think there’s academic room here to explore what possible information may or may not have been withheld or “edited out” of history. Why deny THAT? And who would deny such and why would they, how were they motivated if so? These are important questions for our collective human history; and, the day that academic inquiry is considered inherently wrong is the day we no longer live in or respect a democracy.

Dot-Blue-SML.gif The second disturbing article that DRUDGE hosts a link to this morning is another harsh and brutish one by Army Arched — harsh and brutish because it is harsh to read such brutality — recklessness, even — in a public venue by people assumed to be ethically minded to an honorable standard of behavior. Arched, instead, publishes a “Message to Mel from Larry” (Larry Gelbart), which was sent to Arched by Gelbart to and about Gibson, in which accusations and malignments (more of them) are made to and about Gibson.

Does not Mr. Gelbart have a stamp? Can Mr. Gelbart not call an agent/publicist/representative and get an address to which to mail a letter to Mr. Gibson? Or just send the “message” to an agent to forward? All these are certainly the professional options; so, instead, these elaborations by Gelbart and Arched (who writes, “Congrats, Larry” at the closing of Larry’s nonsense “to Mel”) are an attempt at theatrical performance. And they did a very poor job of that. The “message,” the message-writer (“Larry”) and the columnist publisher (Arched) communicate in deed and content a wanton destructiveness, an intention to do harm. I’d say this also represents ethical violations but in this issue, these times, I think certain interests in Hollywood have discarded the concept of ethics. Arched worries me. That he offends me is too reasonable a thing to write in this context but offends me he and his work do as of this collective point. I had higher expectations.

9 C O M M E N T S

  1. Thank you for having the courage and the tenacity to “out” Harvey Levin has an arrogant, self-promoting, and hypocrite human being. He has caused great pain to others since starting his website. He doesn’t undertand remorse or acknowledgement of his own guilt, which ever good Jew or Catholic traditionalist knows is the only way to begin the road to forgiveness in this life and on the way to a better life in the next. Once again, thank you.

    Julie Ann Brown, Professor of Marketing Studies
    Santa Barbara City College, California

  2. asd says:

    This argument is weak. You implicitly define “holocaust denial” as “believing no Jews died in Nazi Germany.” By that measure, no such person exists. With your introduction, I fully expected a Gibson quote that acknowledged a conventional account and historical placement of the event. Instead he says 1. the conventional numbers are probably inflated and 2. many other things happened at the time which were worse. There is no reason to mention these points unless one’s desire is to reassign the Jewish Holocaust as something deserving of a far less special status. With those claims, Gibson in effect denies that the Jewish holocaust was in fact a holocaust at all. That is all holocaust deniers are usually accused of — not that the entire event was a hoax or fraud. You might argue that it is still unfair to call him anti-semitic even given his reluctance to accept the conventional place in history that the Jewish holocaust is accorded. That’s fine but the interview you point to only reinforce that reluctance.

  3. -S- says:

    I agree that “holocaust denial” is denying that “Jews died in the Holocaust”…

    Why should a reconsideration or a finer examination of the tragic loss of life that resulted from the Holocaust threaten anyone, and/or upset anyone to such an extent that they (most Jews) attack anyone who suggests that occur?

    The mere fact that millions of people who were not Jewish were also murdered during the Holocaust is significant and really should be more carefully examined (and discussed, made a part of our collective human awareness). The Holocaust refers to people of Jewish ethnicity who lost their lives but there were millions more people of other ethnicities and beliefs who were hunted down and/or targeted to perish (and who did perish) at the same time — they’re all but overlooked in many discussions and publicity and therein lies the concern of many others: to not forget many more millions of persons, too.

    Instead, many Jews are incredibly aggressive in a damaging way as to any suggestion that it was not only Jews who were slaughtered by the National Socialist Party and Nazis in and surrounding the WWII years. Many of the rest of us don’t understand why.

    I do not comprehend your criticism, otherwise.

    HOWEVER, this site requires the use of an actual email address inorder to comment here (email addresses are verified by this site).

    And, the email address you (“asd”) left here of “*****@h*******.com” was checked in that version — which you left (oddly spelled popular public email domain, may be a typo) — and a typo-corrected version as to “@h******.com” and both return as non functional addresses. Thus, unless you provide an accurate email address with your comments, as with anyone else’s (same rule applies), comments will not be published.

    I’m leaving your initial one up for now for the sake of argument. You illustrate in your comments many misunderstandings that I believe motivate a lot more misunderstandings (and antagonism that is inappropriate to this issue) and which suppress a thorough resolution to many academic and historic questions.

  4. -S- says:

    To be clear here, however, I do not believe that “no Jews died (in the Holocaust),” I’ve never said any such thing, thought any such thing, heard anyone else say any such thing nor otherwise know anyone who has ever said any such thing. I don’t read in this quote from this interview that Gibson said any such thing, either.

    I believe the premise of issue is as to those persons who discuss or attempt to discuss the consideration of persons having died and suffered during the Holocaust, as a part of the Holocaust (and by that, our current understanding of history) who are/were “other than Jewish.” In Gibson’s experience, from what I have read both past and present, and for him as a filmmaker to have made a film about the crucifixion of Christ (PASSION OF THE CHRIST), and for Gibson to be the child of a man who has suggested information — or perhaps whose very thoughts are being speculated about — that is rejected by (many) Jews, that these therefore assign to him the defintiion of “anti-semitism” and is suggestive, if not defining of, “a Holocaust denier” is an ugly exaggeration, if not delusion, based in the hysteria — distorted perceptions — of others.

    Asked to “deny” the “denier,” who is Gibson’s father, inorder to satiate critics, Gibson declined to deny and/or speak out disrespectively about his father. I think the suggestion if not request that Gibson deny his very father for his father’s thoughts and opinions is indecent on an interpersonal and familial (and ethical) basis. We are not – none of us — our parents and as a Christian, even as an Orthodox Jew, all are asked by God to “honor our fathers and our mothers.” To not honor them would be a substantial offense to God. I respect Gibson for not dishonoring his father and for maintaining a standard of decency in their relationship that includes remaining respectful to his father.

    However, that does not mean that a person is a “cookie cutter” mind or spirit or some sort of clone (as in duplication of) a parent. To honor a parent, to decline, refuse to dishonor parents does not (even remotely) define someone AS their parent, but rather as a respectful, honoring child of another human being.

    As to opinions and especially about thoughts, no individual’s opinions — and especially thoughts — are “against the ‘law'” in the U.S. We can’t be prosecuted — nor should be — for our thoughts and opinions and particularly due to the projections or fears of others as to WHAT our THOUGHTS MIGHT BE. The only thing anyone ever knows about anyone else is what someone tells them. To hold a person in blame for imagined or assumed THOUGHTS in relationship with a “type” is the essence of discrimination.

    People accept that Jews were killed in the Holocaust and suffered terribly. To what degree the lives lost by others who were not Jewish who also suffered and died during the Holocaust is the line of inquiry that I agree merits far more consideration and research than has occured up to now.

    Why that line of inquiry has not been pursued and worse, been suppressed due to the imagined fears and negative-assumptions of others is the issue here. It seem that any suggestion or mention of OTHERS who were killed during the Holocaust brings down the wrath of some Jews along with the dreaded slur of someone posing that inquiry as being “anti-semetic” (which not only denigrates the seriousness of what actualy anti-semetism or anti-religious/ethnicity sentiment is, but it is terribly nasty and cruel to attempt to use the term just because of difference of opinion as to degrees of acceptability). And inexplicably so, because the inquiry isn’t about Jews specificically but about others (non-Jewish persons) who died during the Holocaust (who were not Jewish) and suffered as much as Jews did by and because of the same conditions (lost property, families, residential and citizenship rights, their very lives and/or the lives of their families before fleeing to elsewhere).

    And, the issue as to the many millions in Russia who were killed is significant (and by whom before and during the Second World War) and yet is hardly known — if not prevented from being made known — in our modern world outside a few. This information is excluded from public education, is not written about in most instructional books and the Holocaust is encouraged by formal educational (and historical) process to be assumed to represent a loss of Jewish life and only Jewish life, to suggest that it was Jews and only Jews who suffered so horribly in the Holocaust, that the word, “Holocaust” historically refers to, exclusively, Jewish suffering and a targeting of Jews for such. The Jews — yes — DID lose lives and suffer but so did others of other religious and ethnic types. Another aspect of the Holocaust is to what extent the Jews may be responsible for the death and suffering of other Jews and even, perhaps, other ethnicities.

    These are questions, inquiries. They are not intended to threaten anyone nor violate anyone but to seek an accurate historical record of what actually occured before and during WWII and afterward as to our contemporary, recorded history. And yet inquiries, mere suggestions as to additional information or exclusion of information in our collective historical record meets with a substantial threat level, a harassment that seeks to silence (and by that, prevent) further inquiry. Negatively labelling anyone and doing so publicly, politically and especially throughout the media will render substantial harms upon another and when this process is used to silence or prevent inquiry, it’s not reasonable, if worse.

    I don’t know why this is so. Nor who has the greater need (nor why they do) to maintain a possible inaccurate recording of a terrible time in our world’s history. But that, too, is part of the issue that needs to be studied. If our contemporary historical record is accurate, however, further inquiry about the conditions in Europe and Russia and also worldwide from before WWII and during WWII and afterward as to what we have recorded about it will only serve to reinforce the truth, not harm it.

  5. BIRD says:

    MEL GIBSON CAPTION CONTEST

    Friday, Aug. 4, 2006 1:22 p.m. EDT Brent Bozell on Mel: Who Are the Bigots? It’s open season on Mel Gibson. Critics far and wide are vigorously pillorying the producer of “The Passion of the Christ” for his recent drunken, anti-Semitic rantings. The c…

  6. About Mel

    It’s been a week and enough time has passed that much of the media frenzy has now died down. Much has already been written about Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Jewish* comments, much of it in the nature of outright condemnation. As

  7. BIRD says:

    FINALLY, SOMEONE MAKES SENSE: JACKIE MASON and GAVIN DE BECKER

    Jackie Mason on FOX today — where’s he been for the past few days, is my only complaint here — comes forward with good sense about Mel Gibson’s situation. I hope to get a transcript for reprint (or quote) tomorrow (Mason’s on YOUR WORLD with NEIL CAV…

  8. BIRD says:

    KIRK DOUGLAS WAS NEVER SPARTACUS, HE WAS JUST CAST THAT WAY

    The Mel-Gibson-as-Focus-Hollywood/Atheist-Angst just won’t stop. Last weekend, I’d hoped that the boombah had had it’s day (and night, all seven of both of them) since Mel Gibson’s DUI arrest in Malibu, CA in the wee hours of Friday, July 28, 2006, but…

  9. BIRD says:

    WHAT ARE ROB REINER’S VIEWS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST?

    Tolerance is universal in it’s appeal and requirements. What does Rob Reiner think about the crucifixion of and human life lived by Jesus Christ? s not about Mel Gibson at this point nor about the film made by Gibson — THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST — but…