Sunday, March 18, 2007

People who make ridiculous comparisons to Hitler are worse than Stalin

Last week, members of the Seneca tribe gathered at Buffalo's Niagara Square (which is actually a circle - haha). They were protesting Governor Spitzer's plan to collect taxes on tobacco sales to non-Indians. As you can see, it didn't take long for the protesters to make comparisons between Spitzer's tax plan and Hitler's plan to rid the world of the Jews.

It seems that almost anytime a group of people are agitated enough to protest about something, they have to trot out Hitler (and also the "Free Mumia" signs). Conjuring up Hitler is also seemingly pretty useful in political diatribes directed against conservatives. In response to all this, I would propose that Godwin's Law be enforced in all political discussions.
Godwin's Law (loosely) stands for the proposition that any party in a discussion that resorts to Hitler/Nazi comparisons automatically loses. The rule started in internet discussion forums, and I think it should be applied to the public square generally. Comparing a tax plan or the Patriot Act or the decision of the local Zoning Board of Appeals to Hitler and his goons trivializes what was a dark day for Western Civilization and for mankind as a whole.
Now I know the conservatives out there are complaining that abortion and embryonic stem cell research could justifiably be compared to actions of Hitler and the Nazis. Although such a comparison could be made, I have found that calling someone a Nazi has little persuasive power (just this week, I called a cashier "Hitler" for refusing to honor my expired coupon - in response, she squished my bread and put a bunch of heavy crap on top of my eggs).
And by the way, this new plan proposed by Spitzer is to simply enforce the tax law as it is written. Some might argue that he should have done this when he was Attorney General. In his defense, it is much easier and politically expedient to pick on abortion protesters, since they don't get violent and shut down the thruway when they get ticked off. But that's a topic for another day.

1 comments:

Rich Gardner said...

Let me advance the notion - unpopular with my officemates, family and myself (right up until I read "Treaty of Canandaigua 1794," co-edited by R. Peter Jemison) - that the Iroquois collective of Mohawk, Cayuga, Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida and Tuscarora were awarded the autonomy - rather allowed to continue to maintain the autonomy of an independent sovereign nation, per this 1794 document.

Signed by representatives of Washington, as well as Corn Planter, Half Town, Great Tree, Heap of Dogs, and many other at-the-time "local residents," the 1794 treaty clearly overruled previous treaties and precludes all that follow. Its contents and definitive place in history are all explained in the book. This doesn't actually answer any questions for me (and it doesn't sit well with my friends who own a B&B in Seneca County), but it appears to be the truth - however inconvenient. It needs to be included in discussions about 21st-century Indian activity in Upstate New York.