Wiesel Nobel Lecture Wiesel's Nobel

Wiesel Nobel Lecture Wiesel's Nobel Prize Lecture Given the horrifying events that have occurred around the world since the beginning of the twenty-first century, it is inconceivable that the twenty-first century be marked by forgetfulness rather than remembrance. If the world at large were to forget the events marking the beginning of the twenty-first century, there would be no lesson learned from the events, and the likely result would be a worldwide escalation in violence and hatred.

The truth of such a statement becomes that much clearer when one realizes that so much of the world has tried to forget the horrors of the twentieth century, minimizing them to such an extent that the victims of those horrors have been perverted by modern revisionists into liars or even perpetrators of such horrors. This minimization has not only led to a disrespectful attitude regarding some of the horrors of the twentieth century, has also increased the risk that similar events will occur in the twenty-first century.

One of the problems that have consistently plagued historians who are seeking to teach history in a manner aimed at solving social problems is the concept of revisionist history. There are a myriad of definitions of revisionist history, many of them tailored to address specific issues that arise as a result of specific historical events. For example, for many years history textbooks in the American south continued to teach about slavery from a context of benevolent paternalism.

One problem with historical revisionism is that by minimizing the horrors of the past, one renders oneself powerless to address the very real problems that exist in the present-day as a result of those horrors. An even more substantial problem with historical revisionism is that it is very tempting for people to engage in it. In fact, not all people who believe in revisionist history do so because of an overt desire to hurt anyone.

Instead, many people who believe in revisionist versions of history do so in order to escape guilt and other bad feelings about the role that their particular groups may have played in past problems. By examining some of the problems facing the world today, and the role that possible revisionism would play in exacerbating those problems, one can only come to the conclusion that the twenty-first century must be marked by accurate remembrance if mankind is to have any chance of survival into the twenty-second century.

One of the major problems facing the American public today is the ongoing war in Iraq. Several years into the war, it has become clear that victory is no longer certain, and may not even be possible. Not only have American troops failed to secure Iraq, but the removal of dictator Saddam Hussein from power actually seems to have threatened the limited amount of peace and security that existed in Iraq prior to the war.

Therefore, it is not surprising to find out that some modern scholars are political leaders are already beginning to engage in revisionism regarding the war in Iraq. For example, although it is clear that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), as maintained by the executive branch of the American government, President George W. Bush continues to maintain that the invasion of Iraq was justified because of these WMDs.

Furthermore, millions of Americans continue to justify American presence in Iraq based on the concept that the United States government had a reasonable belief that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Al Qaeda. The problem with those beliefs is that they have simply been proven false. In fact, even at the beginning of the war in Iraq, the international community provided Americans with substantial information demonstrating that Iraq did not have WMD capability.

In 2002, Scott Ritter, a United Nations weapons inspector and former United States Marine gave an interview in which he explained that Iraq simply did not have capability of producing WMDs; its production facilities and weapons had been destroyed, and it lacked the financial and political infrastructure to rebuild those programs. (Tychostup). Today, the majority of American politicians and people acknowledge that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs was largely manipulated and misrepresented.

However, the revisionist aspect of this history is that many still maintain that it was reasonable for Americans to believe that these WMDs existed, which made the invasion of Iraq permissible. This belief makes it very likely that the U.S. will continue to rely on its own intelligence, without acknowledging input from the world community, when making decisions about wars and invasions in the future.

Such a position is extremely dangerous, not only to potential enemies of the United States, but also to citizens of the United States as well. In a world where many with anti-American beliefs do possess WMD capability, entering into a war on false pretenses could literally result in the destruction of the United States. Of course, revisionists exist on both sides of many issues. Currently, in Iraq there are people who regard Hussein as a martyr, rather than as a ruthless dictator.

Much like Holocaust revisionists, these people either deny Hussein's participation in the genocidal extermination of thousands of Iraqi citizens, or attempt to justify Hussein's participation in these programs by blaming the victims for engaging in anti-Iraqi uprisings. Furthermore, these revisionists have created a dangerous political climate for Americans, because they support anti-American violence and terrorism, based on a belief that America has engaged in its own terrorist campaign against Iraq. The problem with both perspectives is that they ignore tremendous parts of reality.

Memory is important, but that memory must be complete. To speak about Hussein without acknowledging the contributions he made to stability in Iraq is very dangerous, because it minimizes the destruction that the war in Iraq has brought to the country. Before Hussein came into power, Iraq was already a country divided because of ethnicity, religion, economic status, and social differences. In addition, Iraq faced a number of domestic problems, including a lack of financial infrastructure, lack of social programs, and poor educational opportunities.

Hussein did fix these problems for a majority of Iraqis, and also figured out how to exploit Iraq's tremendous oil resources to place Iraq in an important position in the world economy. However, these advances did not come without a cost. Hussein attempted to take over neighboring Kuwait in an effort to expand his control over Middle-Eastern oil supplies and went to war with neighboring Iran, where he did use WMDS against Iranian forces.

Domestically, he took drastic action against those who threatened his power base, including the extermination of hundreds of thousands of people in ethnic minorities. Understanding both sides of Hussein is essential, so that one can understand how someone as ruthless as Hussein can be hailed as a hero by some and regarded as a ruthless and evil dictator by others. It is impossible to look at modern revisionist attempts to explain Hussein and the war in Iraq without being reminded of the revisionism surrounding Hitler and his proposed final solution.

Like Hussein, it cannot be doubted that Hitler had a powerful and positive influence on the lives of many Germans. He helped restore Germany from the financial devastation that it faced as the result of World War I, which resulted in an improvement in the day-to-day lives of many German citizens, as well as propelling Germany into a position of tremendous international power.

To deny that Hitler did so is very dangerous, because forgetting that part of history makes it more likely that the international community will once again create the type of situation that makes a country so vulnerable to a leader like Hitler. Had Germany been treated with more respect at the conclusion of World War I, the country would not have faced the type of economic and social hardships that made it possible for a leader like Hitler to rise to prominence.

Perhaps even more importantly, had Germany not faced the tremendous devastation and financial and social isolation and depression that it faced after World War I, it may not have been searching for the type of scapegoat that Hitler provided it with his representations of the Jews. The problem is that world leaders continue to put the losers of international conflicts in positions similar to the one faced by Germany after World War I.

In fact, much of the modern conflict in the Middle East can be traced to a paternalistic position by Western world leaders, who have shown little regard for the rights and autonomy of non-Western people. Ironically enough, this attitude has led to an increase in Holocaust denial, one of the more insidious versions of intentional forgetfulness to plague the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: Revisionists" claim to believe certain minor aspects of the Holocaust, in the hope they will appear reasonable.

So, they will admit that some Jews suffered under the Nazis, and that there were some Nazi excesses, but deny an overall extermination plan. But once questioned, it becomes quickly apparent that their real position is as that they deny all of the major elements of the Holocaust: the plan to kill the Jews, mass shooting by the Einsatzgruppen, gassing at extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka, just to mention a few. (Holocaust-history.org).

Holocaust revisionism continues to be a major problem because of the ill-will between Arabs in Jews in the current Middle East. In fact, as recently as 2006, a major Arab power hosted a conference on the Holocaust. However, the purpose of the conference was not to address lingering effects of the Holocaust, like the pervasive anti-Semitism that plagues much of the world, but to provide support for the position that the Holocaust was a myth. This concept is central to Iran's political position regarding Israel.

Iran maintains that Israel is not a legitimate country, and that its political existence has been justified by the myth of the Holocaust, which the Western world used to justify Israel's re-creation after World War II. (CNN). In fact, modern Holocaust deniers recast the issue as some type of Jewish conspiracy, and this conceptualization actually serves to increase worldwide anti-Semitism. Of course, the lessons of history are not only relevant in the Middle East or in areas with extensive Western involvement.

Currently, the world is learning another lesson about the importance of history and remembrance with the crises in Darfur. Like many nations.