In May 2021, the renowned Australian historian and comparative genocide scholar A. Dirk Moses published a widely read article, ‘The German Catechism’, in the Swiss online history journal Geschichte der Gegenwart. His article fed into a broader debate triggered by the publication of the German edition of Michael Rothberg’s Multidirectional Memory (2009 / German edition: 2021) and centred on ‘blindspots’ in German collective memory: the centrality of the Holocaust to current-day national identity and politics, and the relative absence of colonial violence from public discourse in Germany. Moses’ key provocation lay in the argument that it was still considered ‘heresy’ by the political and intellectual establishment to compare the Holocaust, in many ways the moral foundation of the Federal Republic, to other genocides. His article further escalated the already heated discussion on the subject on both sides of the Atlantic, with influential historians and public intellectuals, from Saul Friedländer to Jürgen Habermas, weighing in on the debate that has since been called ‘the Historikerstreit 2.0’. Indeed, it returned, albeit from a very different angle, to the questions that had prompted the original Historikerstreit of the 1980s in the first place: How comparable is the Holocaust to other cases of systematic mass violence and are we – implicitly or explicitly for political reasons – relativizing the Shoah by doing so? In the US, a whole series of scholarly responses to Moses text were published on the The New Fascism Syllabus website, and the debate shows no sign of abating. Experts in the field will have been unsurprised by the position articulated by Moses. Both as an award-winning scholar and as the long-standing editor of the Journal of Genocide Research,Moses has been a very influential voice on the subject of genocide for over two decades. He has published on the connections between settler colonialism and violence and was prominently involved in academic debates of the early 2000s around the question of how colonial violence might relate to, and differ from, the Holocaust. Thus far, the public debate of more recent times has largely focused on Moses’ ‘Catechism’ article, which has unduly overshadowed the publication of his much more substantial book, The Problems of Genocide (Cambridge University Press), earlier this year. While the former is primarily focused on memory and identity politics, the latter is a detailed investigation and critique of the very Forum: The Problems of Genocide

中文翻译：

---

种族灭绝的问题——关于 A. Dirk Moses 关于永久安全和“越界语言”的书的辩论

2021 年 5 月，澳大利亚著名历史学家和比较种族灭绝学者 A. Dirk Moses 在瑞士在线历史期刊 Geschichte der Gegenwart 上发表了一篇广为阅读的文章《德国教理问答》。他的文章引发了由迈克尔·罗斯伯格的多向记忆（2009 年 / 德文版：2021 年）德语版的出版引发的更广泛的辩论，并以德国集体记忆中的“盲点”为中心：大屠杀对当今国家认同的中心地位和政治，以及德国公共话语中相对没有殖民暴力。摩西的主要挑衅在于，将大屠杀（在许多方面是联邦共和国的道德基础）与其他种族灭绝进行比较仍然被政治和知识界认为是“异端”。他的文章进一步升级了大西洋两岸关于这一主题的激烈讨论，从索尔·弗里德兰德到于尔根·哈贝马斯，有影响力的历史学家和公共知识分子都参与了这场后来被称为“Historikerstreit 2.0”的辩论。事实上，尽管从一个非常不同的角度，它回到了最初引发 1980 年代最初的 Historikerstreit 的问题：大屠杀与其他系统性大规模暴力案件有多大的可比性，我们是否 - 含蓄或明确地支持政治原因——通过这样做将大屠杀相对化？在美国，新法西斯主义教学大纲网站上发表了一系列对摩西文本的学术回应，争论没有减弱的迹象。该领域的专家不会对摩西所阐明的立场感到惊讶。作为屡获殊荣的学者和《种族灭绝研究杂志》的长期编辑，摩西在过去的二十多年中一直是种族灭绝问题上极具影响力的声音。他发表了关于定居者殖民主义与暴力之间的联系的文章，并突出参与了 2000 年代初期围绕殖民暴力如何与大屠杀相关和不同的问题的学术辩论。到目前为止，最近的公开辩论主要集中在摩西的“教理问答”文章上，这已经过度掩盖了他今年早些时候出版的内容更丰富的著作《种族灭绝问题》（剑桥大学出版社）。虽然前者主要关注记忆和身份政治，但后者是对论坛的详细调查和批评：种族灭绝问题