Of course, after reading about the Irving v. Lipstadt trial, I am curious about the Holocaust-denier-as-victim mentality. For those of you unfamiliar with the trial, David Irving, a "historian," sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel for remarks about Irving published in her 1994 book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. Under English libel laws, burden or proof fell on Lipstadt to prove the validity her statements. Upon presentation of evidence, the court ruled in Lipstadt's favor.
Of course, this is not the end of the story (no pun intended!). Irving has expressed that he sees himself as a victim of an international conspiracy to silence him. I'm wondering if an investigation of his rhetoric could help shed light on the Holocaust denier mentality and the broader field of genocide studies.
I think this is an extension of the societal discourse which views power relationships as particularized - which, of course, it is appropriate to do in a situation where, say, a member of a minority group physically attacks a member of a majority group. Where it becomes problematic, as in Irving's case, is when someone is advocating for a wider societal structure of oppression and points out situational power relationships that make them a minority *in this particular context*. I wonder if we might be able to understand this as a broader pattern of dialogue between change and an illusionary notion of stability in society.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I am hoping to understand how power dynamics operate within victim narrative construction.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any reading suggestions for me?