-
COBURN: There was a fringe meeting yesterday that we talked about at the beginning of the show where there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn’t it… would you say that was unacceptable?
LOACH: I think history is for us all to discuss, wouldn’t you?
COBURN: Say that again, sorry, I missed that.
LOACH: History is for all of us to discuss. All history is our common heritage to discuss and analyze. The founding of the state of Israel, for example, based on ethnic cleansing is there for us all to discuss. The role of Israel now is there for us to discuss. So don’t try to subvert that by false stories of anti-Semitism.
Straight up, do you honestly believe the summary of the above is;
"it is healthy to debate everything in history"?If you do try imagining your reaction if someone asked Trump his views on slavery, following some sort of group asserting that it was exaggerated, wasn't that bad, they enjoyed it, etc.
... and his response was; "history is up for discussion" and immediately followed by a load of references to the negative aspects of African American society.
hugo7-
My interpretation of the story is that it was an intellectual debate. The sort that goes on in the Cambridge Union rather than the Nag’s Head, the sort that is designed to be controversial, so as to be worth debating.
Loach sensed the interviewer was spoiling for a fight and was going to paint it as Labour denying the Holocaust and bit first.
Don’t get me wrong, by bringing up Israel he made himself look a bigot.
I guess it comes down to whether you think the discussion was some Labour Party members actually denying the Holocaust or whether it was a staged debate.
It can’t be the former can it?
Am I naive?
Hefty
That’s not what Loach said though. He said it is healthy to debate everything in history.
There are people who deny the Holocaust. They need to be engaged with to debate the point to try to make them change their mind.
Else what? Ignore them?