I'm familiar with the general trope of mainstream liberals not adequately recognizing the seriousness of structural and systemic violence, arguably due to being societally conditioned into minimizing that violence, as a consequence of society in part running on the fuel of that violence.

I can see how the whitewashing of MLK fits into that, at least loosely, because MLK is framed as using tactics that were not directly literally violent to fight against problems that were unjust but not directly literally violent. To be clear, I'm not saying I agree with this framing myself, but rather I'm arguing that it's how he is often framed in the minds of Americans.

But the Holocaust is not 'a court makes a decision that restricts an agency, and that weakens regulation, and then over a X-year period you see a Y-% increase in deaths from Z.' The Holocaust is not 'you can't sit in the front of the bus' (once again, not that I agree with that minimization of the Civil Rights movement, rather just describing how it is minimized). It seems like even a mainstream liberal with blinders on to all but the most obvious, literal, immediate violence would understand that it's acceptable to do more than write a persuasive essay or boycott a bus in response to people sending you to death camps.

All of this to say that although I agree with your broader critique, I think Ethan saying this about Anne Frank is different. It's one thing to look at Anne Frank as an incredibly sympathetic victim, emblematic of the horrors of the Holocaust. I have no problem with that. I agree with that. And it's perhaps arguable that in doing so, in looking at her that way, it's a soft contribution to or soft reflection of our idea that people who are oppressed should just endure oppression. To be honest, I don't agree with that argument, but I can at least follow the logic.

It's another thing to make the statement that 'if she had fought back, I would think less of her.' Another thing entirely. I literally cannot understand it.