Hacker News Reader

Comment by InitialLastName | Hacker News Reader

[Disclaimer: I've only listened to the first chunk of the episode. It's 6 hours long, and I have other things to do with my brain]

As far as I can tell, you've hit on exactly the distinction he's trying to make in the episode. There's a running theme of highlighting the difference in attitude towards war/death from the Romans to the modern era, especially with respect to things like civilian extermination.

The name might be unfortunate, but he's pretty open about acknowledging that it's an intentional juxtaposition.

View on HN

I have never heard of Dan Carlin and it might be an intentional juxtaposition, but the title feels like clickbait.

Dan Carlin produces the Hardcore History Podcast, and it is outstanding. Do yourself a favor and check it out.

I wouldn't call it clickbait when the guy gives away dozens of hours of podcasts that are professionally produced and researched and has been doing so for years.

Dramatic? Yes, but legitimately so based on the narrative and the presentation.

His style and interests won't match everyone's taste, but he is providing a high quality product.

I feel that the term "Holocaust" is being used here to sensationalize something that used to be a relatively common occurrence back in those days (infact also used to happen in medieval and post medieval - e.g. Trail of tears - times).

You should not compare ancient post-war extermination events with a modern, civilized state exterminating a section of the population in an organized manner. It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.

The goal is, I think, to draw exactly that conclusion by highlighting the difference in how modern western civilization thinks about the role of civilians in war and the value of civilian life to the way ancient civilizations thought about it.

> It just dilutes the extremity of what the Nazi's did.

conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

it also seems such a bizarre point of view that something was "relatively common" (and i'm not sure this phrasing is helpful) therefore it's /less/ of a tragedy for that fact.

> conversely, does the (sometimes aggressive) privileging of ww2 wrongs not "dilute" what others have faced? even in modern or near-modern times?

Yes. I guess it was special. I think that it touches something we fear deeply - that seemingly rational/intelligent/scientific people can do evil things.

I think there have been plenty of things since then which have similar levels of horrificness (albeit usually on a smaller scale). I just don't think they proc the "there but for the grace of god go I" reaction

What term would you use the more hip genocide. Do you feel that the Jewish genocide of 1940s is special in some way. Is using that term to describe the annihilation of a people in a systematic way somehow diminishing to those that lived thought the holocaust.

I'm just wondering there have been genocides of peoples throughout history right up to today. See Rwanda east timore/ south Sudan. I think in each case it was a holocaust for the targeted group.

In my view a genocide is a description of an event. The Jewish Holocaust articulates the target and effectively re-frames the conversation to group who was targeted. It also conveys that the genocide was general enough to affect the overall survival of the people. There are many conquests in history Rome defeated Carthage 3 times but only the third Punic war resulted in the cartagenian holocaust.

>Do you feel that the Jewish genocide of 1940s is special in some way

Yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com