Post by: Stand_watie on August 03, 2006, 04:57:05 AM
Drudge is reporting an old interview with Mel Gibson (see exerpt below). I have heard six million my entire life. I have always thought in the emotional sense that holocaust reductionists were very likely to be motivated by anti-semitism, but in the logical sense that if a guy that I thought had the right educational background and scholarship, and I didn't have reasons to think that he were pro or anti-semitic presented to me that the real number were 14 million or 4 million, I'd be willing to give the argument a listen, with the caveat being that what ocurred isn't really any more or less morally repugnant to me whether it was 100 or one billion, and the fact that mentally retarded people, gypsies, gays etc also had the same thing done to them or that Stalin or Mao did worse in terms of total numbers.
So simply put, the question to readers of Nazi era history, is the six million figure that I'm familiar with the closest thing to truth that we can know - an exaggeration -or a diminishment of the actual size of the European Jewish holocaust of the 1930's/40's?
Again, I will repeat that I'm just as morally outraged if Hitler targeted and murded 100 thousand Jews as if he'd murdered 100 million (and I feel the same about Pol Pot's murder of wrong thinkers and the Hutsi murder of the Tutsi's), I'm just trying to get a feel for whether or not there is any kernel of truth in the numbers in the Holocaust revisionists, or if they are wholly made up.
http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=28713
Quote
MEL GIBSON: I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. And my dad also knows that there were internment camps where many people died. Now, his whole thing was about the numbers. I mean atrocities happened. The thing with him [my father] was that he was talking about numbers. I mean when the war was over they said it was 12 million. Then it was six. Now it's four. I mean it's that kind of numbers game. I mean war is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million people starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century 20 million people died in the Soviet Union. Okay? It's horrible.
Post by: Twycross on August 03, 2006, 06:18:38 AM
Wiki
Quote
The exact number of people killed by the Nazi regime may never be known, but scholars, using a variety of methods of determining the death toll, have generally agreed upon common range of the number of victims. Recently declassified British and Soviet documents have indicated the total may be somewhat higher than previously believed. However, the following estimates are considered to be highly reliable. The estimates:
5.16.0 million Jews, including 3.03.5 million Polish Jews
1.8 1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)
500,0001.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
200,000800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000300,000 people with disabilities
80,000200,000 Freemasons
100,000 communists
10,00025,000 homosexual men
2,500-5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
5.16.0 million Jews, including 3.03.5 million Polish Jews
1.8 1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)
500,0001.2 million Serbs killed by Croat Nazis
200,000800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000300,000 people with disabilities
80,000200,000 Freemasons
100,000 communists
10,00025,000 homosexual men
2,500-5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses
Post by: K Frame on August 03, 2006, 06:39:34 AM
The Soviet Union is a bit of a wildcard, though, given the nature of the Soviet government and the nature of the war there.
Pre- and post-war census figures in Europe, compared to Nazi-kept records, so a pretty good job of verifying the numbers.
Post by: Guest on August 03, 2006, 10:19:05 AM
How much more evil is it to murder 6 million people in the interest of ethnic "cleansing" than it is to kill 4 million? There comes a point (i dont know where it is) where you get to a sort of maximum level of evil and after that its just a matter of nitpicking the right numbers. The holocaust killed *enough* people, and thats pretty much were the debate ends as far as I am concerned.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 03, 2006, 11:08:53 AM
Post by: Mannlicher on August 03, 2006, 12:36:45 PM
Post by: gunsmith on August 03, 2006, 01:04:14 PM
;-)
Post by: Guest on August 03, 2006, 04:31:26 PM
Past that, it sometimes gets difficult to sort out which are "war deaths" and which are murders. I suspect the number of Nazi murders is very difficult to track along the "Eastern front" as it would require sorting out who were "murdered civilians" and who were "partisan combatants out of uniform" (which I for one regard as legitimate when in defense of one's homeland). I rather doubt even Stalin's people had much of a clue as things turned into a meatgrinder in the Ukraine.
For that matter...it's not impossible that killings by Stalin were blamed on Hitler. Stalin was killing people by the millions in the Ukraine long before the Nazis blew through. Wouldn't surprise me if this continued under "cover" of the war. There may even be a bit of this confusion in Poland; by late in the war, Stalin eyed ownership of Poland and set about eliminating possible "resistence" there. Some of that is documented; it doesn't seem to have been directed at Jews much if at all though so you can't use that to try and recast Nazi murders of Jews.
It's hard to say whether the Soviet Union or Red China has committed more murders overall. It's unquestioned who managed to geek the greatest percentage of their own nation's population: the Kmer Rouge(sp?) under Pol Pot. At least 1/4 of the country of Cambodia was murdered, possibly 1/3rd. Unbelievable but sadly true.
Post by: jefnvk on August 03, 2006, 04:43:55 PM
Post by: Preacherman on August 03, 2006, 05:04:57 PM
The best estimate I've seen (and this is admittedly an estimate - we will never know the exact number for sure) is that between 12,000,000 and 15,000,000 people were killed by the Nazis, either directly or indirectly. The Russians lost at least 15,000,000 to 20,000,000 dead, and the total might be as high as 30,000,000 - although a reasonable proportion of these deaths were caused by Stalin, through mass wartime deportations, the use of penal battalions where pre-war Siberian gulag detainees were treated as human minefield clearance devices, assault troops to absorb the initial defensive fire of the Germans before more conventional units broke through when the defenders ran out of ammunition, etc.
The accepted minimum figure for total WW2 fatalities, on all fronts and from all causes, is 55,000,000. The actual figure may be as high as 80,000,, particularly given the lack of records for the Eastern Front and the Chinese campaign, where Japan slaughtered Chinese by the millions. (Just as one example, after the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in 1942, during their search for the US airmen who had landed in China, the Japanese forces killed approximately 250,000 Chinese as punishment.) This total figure also includes those killed prior to the war, in the Chinese campaign, and also those millions who died after the war, including German and Japanese POW's held by the Soviet Union (19 out of 20 never came home), the millions who died of starvation and displacement in the Eastern Front and China, etc. It's a pretty horrifying total . . .
An excellent overview of the human cost of the war is found in the final episode of that definitive series, The World At War. The episode is simply titled "Remember" - and if it doesn't bring tears to your eyes, you don't have any understanding of mass human suffering. They were the first to put the total as high as 55,000,, back in the 1970's, and this is now regarded as conservative, following the opening of Soviet archives after the fall of Communism, and the unsealing of government records during the 1990's.
Post by: grampster on August 03, 2006, 05:16:37 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 03, 2006, 06:53:26 PM
Post by: Guest on August 03, 2006, 09:33:31 PM
Quote from: jefnvk
My biggest problem with the numbers: ask someone how many peopdied in the Holocaust. the most widely given answer? 6 million Jews. Sure, a valid number, but not the whole truth. It has gotten to the point where people don't even realize that anyone else was killed. While the Jews were the group with the highest death numbers, it still shldn't mean that the other millions of people should just be overlooked because they were all different groups of people.
This is something that I like to point out as well. A lot of people were killed in the holocaust beyond the jews. Many of them simply for their political or social views. The most tragic were probably all the mentally handicapped children who didnt even understand what the hell was happening to them. I have pointed this out to anti-semites as well when they claim that the 6million figure is vastly inflated, I ask them what about the other 6 or so million of non-jews that were killed, why did the "Jewish Consipiracy" include all of them?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 04, 2006, 03:17:15 AM
I would point out that while the Nazis certainly killed many "undesirables" their primary target was Jews. The whole concentration camp and extermination program was directed first and foremost at Jews. They used it for others, too, but that was not the primary focus. And these Jews were, at the outset, German citizens who had done nothing illegal, had made no choices at all. In fact, unlike other genocides, this one did nothing to improve Germany or the policital standing of its leaders. Stalin killed peasants in the Ukraine and Pol Pot killed anyone with an education out of a calculated political or economic advantage. Hitler killed Jews because he hated them. This is so even though they were among the most productive in the society, and had been among the most loyal citizens. Many Jews died fighting for Germany in WW1 (my wife had more than one great uncle killed that way). This was the uniqueness of the Holocaust: a modern industrial society at the pinnacle of artistic and scientific achievement turning against its own citizens. When we compare Stalin, Pol Pot, etc etc to the Holocaust we lose the meaning of that event and dishonor those who so died.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 04, 2006, 06:33:38 AM
In the tiny county in NE Oklahoma that I am from, there are eight different Indian Tribes. Slightly further south is all Cherokee land.
Yes, it is true that a removal policy enforced during the 1830s caused the significant portion of Cherokee-types to walk from Tennessee or northern Alabama to just inside the Oklahoma border under armed guard. (Trail of Tears, etc.)
It is also true that members of the previously removed eight tribes consortium in NE Oklahoma include the Ottawa (my tribe) and the Modoc. The Modoc are from California. The Ottawa are from the Great Lakes area. (You know, like Ottawa, CANADA.)
They didnt send U-Hauls for us.
Yet we, too, are in Oklahoma: with no trace of social hand-wringing.
Moral? The Cherokee have better press agents.
Apply as required to the Holocaust. 50 Million other folks need better publicity.
Post by: Waitone on August 04, 2006, 10:56:42 AM
More information than a rational human can fathom.
Lesson I learn is governments kill and they do it with varying degrees of efficiency. I think it a mistake to focus on one group. As horrible as what Hitler did, I have a hard time giving Stalin a pass when he deliberately on his personal orders starved Ukranian peasants. I've seen figures as high as 10 million died at Stalin's signature. Are we to value those lives less than the ones who died over Hitler's signature. I think the reason why we use Hilter's misdeeds as the standard of evil is that his regime is the one that left detailed records which the rest of the world has been able to review. Other killer societies weren't nearly as detailed in record keeping or the victors have not investigated those records.
Post by: Iain on August 04, 2006, 11:21:20 AM
The discussion that bothers me as much as the haggling over the exact figure is the conversation about which is worse. Both 'sides', in this instance the left and right, feel the need to claim that the bogeyman that they childishly equate the others views to is actually worse on some objective scale that can be measured in human skulls.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 04, 2006, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Hitler killed Jews because he hated them. This is so even though they were among the most productive in the society, and had been among the most loyal citizens.
I don't know a lot about the NAZI ideology, but I am told their rationalle for killing Jews was not alleged racial inferiority, but racial competition. That is, the NAZIs believed the Jews had evolved to a point that they were too good at competing for resources, and thus must be eliminated for the good of the German people. There are at least two sad flaws in such thinking. One, that one race is more fit for the struggle than another. The second is the notion of loyalty to one's race, as if the races are, or should be competing with one another, or that one owes some loyalty to others of the same color.
Post by: Mannlicher on August 04, 2006, 01:27:34 PM
The Armenian genocide was as horrible. I am not sure that any one group has more of a claim on victimhood. Mankind has been slaughtering its own since the cave men days. It is not going to stop in our lifetime.
All we can do, as individuals, is to watch what is happening, and try to do the right thing. I wish I could advise one and all what 'the right thing' is, but I can't. The answer to that resides in each of us. Frankly, I have little hope.
Post by: publius on August 05, 2006, 06:22:36 AM
Quote from: fistful
Is there some time when evil ain't stalkin' the earth?
Yeah, sometimes I sleep. 
Post by: Sindawe on August 05, 2006, 08:19:15 AM
Quote
I don't know a lot about the NAZI ideology, but I am told their rationalle for killing Jews was not alleged racial inferiority, but racial competition. That is, the NAZIs believed the Jews had evolved to a point that they were too good at competing for resources, and thus must be eliminated for the good of the German people.
Interesting. I'd not heart THAT particular rational cited as a reason for the Holocaust. All the post-mortem analysis I've read of Nazi Germany, and the propaganda from that regime points to their belief that the Jews were an inferior race and corrupting influence on the Aryan race.
Post by: Preacherman on August 05, 2006, 12:06:51 PM
See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805003487/qid=1154811645/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/103-2141276-4213431?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 for further information.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 05, 2006, 11:38:22 PM
Quote from: Iain
A determined and organised attempt to eliminate one race of people does deserve a special notoriety.
Yet so many "self-righteous" Americans fail to care/realize/cope with or understand the idea that more people were killed, over time, HERE then the Holocaust (easily): to create what many support as the greatest government ever.The Nazi Holocaust is finished.
The "American" model is ongoing, if more subtle.
Sure, "I'm an American and think our model is best."
Such is far, far from the Utopia advertised.
"The World hates us for a reason."
It is self-righteousness, more than policy, in many cases.
"We're hypocrites."
Post by: The Rabbi on August 06, 2006, 05:00:17 AM
Quote from: Preacherman
For the best possible overview of the Nazi attitude toward and dealings with the Jews, see Martin Gilbert's "The Holocaust". It's a ghastly book to read, and one I definitely don't enjoy - but it's the single best account of the horrors of the 1933-1945 slaughter. It fully details the attitude of Hitler and the Nazi Party, including excerpts from all the laws and regulations of the period, the statements of officials, etc. It also completely dispels the myth that the Wehrmacht was actually apart from the slaughter of the Jews, which was done by the SS and other organizations: it cites actual field orders, etc. compelling the Wehrmacht to support (and in some cases participate in) the murder of the Jews. A terrible book - but an indispensable one.
See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805003487/qid=1154811645/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/103-2141276-4213431?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 for further information.
I remember reading the book at one time but cannot recall it fully. In the book Hitlers Willing Executioners the author (Goldhagen) demonstrates (conclusively to my thinking) that most Germans tacitly agreed that there was a "Jewish problem" that needed a solution, and that the problem was that Jews were a pernicious influence on society in general, representing an alien "Asian" strain that was corrupting. Virtually no one disputed this basic belief and differed merely on how to solve the "problem" either through assimilation or some other way.
See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805003487/qid=1154811645/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/103-2141276-4213431?s=books&v=glance&n=283155 for further information.
Post by: Mannlicher on August 06, 2006, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote from: Iain
A determined and organised attempt to eliminate one race of people does deserve a special notoriety.
Yet so many "self-righteous" Americans fail to care/realize/cope with or understand the idea that more people were killed, over time, HERE then the Holocaust (easily): to create what many support as the greatest government ever.The Nazi Holocaust is finished.
The "American" model is ongoing, if more subtle.
Sure, "I'm an American and think our model is best."
Such is far, far from the Utopia advertised.
"The World hates us for a reason."
It is self-righteousness, more than policy, in many cases.
"We're hypocrites."
Post by: K Frame on August 06, 2006, 08:42:32 PM
Hardly a world view.
Absolute BS is more like it.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 07, 2006, 12:48:27 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote from: Iain
A determined and organised attempt to eliminate one race of people does deserve a special notoriety.
Yet so many "self-righteous" Americans fail to care/realize/cope with or understand the idea that more people were killed, over time, HERE then the Holocaust (easily): to create what many support as the greatest government ever.The Nazi Holocaust is finished.
The "American" model is ongoing, if more subtle.
Sure, "I'm an American and think our model is best."
Such is far, far from the Utopia advertised.
"The World hates us for a reason."
It is self-righteousness, more than policy, in many cases.
"We're hypocrites."
p.s. The use if quotation marks in your posts around what I believe are your own words make for difficult/confusing reading.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 07, 2006, 06:17:18 AM
"It happened."
The Holocaust happened, too, but not "here."
Thus, we can support its (Holocaust) villainy on a National level.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 07, 2006, 08:36:37 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Merely that -- and simply that -- the generations long genocide of this continent's indigenous people, over time, amounted to more death and suffering (if you can measure such) than the Holocaust but has been consistently downplayed for reasons of National sanctimony.
"It happened."
The Holocaust happened, too, but not "here."
Thus, we can support its (Holocaust) villainy on a National level.
Sorry. Murder and displacement of indigenous people is nothing new. Look at the Ainu in Japan. The fact that Indians are still here to talk about it suggests it was better than most similar incidents. I agree it was unfortunate and a lot of suffering occurred. I would also point out that the tribes were hardly blameless, inflicting suffering and death on other tribes, occasionally partnering with the Whites."It happened."
The Holocaust happened, too, but not "here."
Thus, we can support its (Holocaust) villainy on a National level.
Again, the Holocaust was unique in that it was perpetrated primarily at citizens of their own country for no economic or political gain.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 07, 2006, 11:50:00 AM
Genocide is the elimination of a genotype, of a race. Hitler was successful, pretty much, insofar as Europe was concerned, but he did not succeed as to Jews as a race.
Intent enters in: Whenever the AmerInd quit fighting, for all that there was abuse thereafter, there was no further deliberate and wilful killing by the government.
The history of homo sap is of one ethnic group or a religious group leaning on another, occupying the land, raping the women, etc, etc. Pick one: The Persians in Biblical times, or Alexander; Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, and of course the various Europeaans in the "New World".
In what's now the U.S., as the whites moved west, Indian tribes closest to them adapted to the new weaponry and pushed existing neighbors westward in turn. At one time, the Comanches were to the northeast part of Texas; Apaches were in north-central and western Texas. The westward push of the Comanches forced the Apaches into New Mexico and Arizona.
Spaniards intermarried with the Indians of Mexico; this new group achieved governmental power and instituted the practice of buying Indian scalps and other highly-civilized methods of pacification of indigenes.
And on and on.
None of it is worth a teaspoon of warm spit except as a historical curiosity and an object lesson for those of us who don't want to see "man's inhumanity towards man" continued.
In the 21st Century, it's fairly obvious that we're now into the worst of all inhumanities, a religion-based warfare.
Art
Post by: BayouBlogger on August 07, 2006, 04:20:48 PM
Quote
Well thats because Stalin did it, it's ok to kill millions if you have a liberal agenda.
Stalin was a communist, not a liberal.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 07, 2006, 05:35:06 PM
Quote from: BayouBlogger
gunsmith posted:
There's a difference??
Quote
Well thats because Stalin did it, it's ok to kill millions if you have a liberal agenda.
Stalin was a communist, not a liberal.Post by: Perd Hapley on August 07, 2006, 08:05:50 PM
Post by: BayouBlogger on August 08, 2006, 09:26:50 AM
Quote
There's a difference??
See Liberalism and Communism.Referring to Stalin as a liberal makes about as much sense as referring to Hitler as a conservative (or Bush as a Nazi). Go ahead if it makes you feel better, but it is grossly inaccurate. People who know better will discount you.
Post by: BayouBlogger on August 08, 2006, 09:55:23 AM
Quote
Stalin killed probably 20 million Russians though, and there is no memorial for them.
Byelorussia Plans to Build Memorial to Stalin's Victims And all I did was run a google search on memorial+stalin+victims. c_yeager wrote:
Quote
The thing that I find most interesting about this debate is that some people think it actually matters. How much more evil is it to murder 6 million people in the interest of ethnic "cleansing" than it is to kill 4 million?
Historical accuracy matters. Mike Irwin wrote:
Quote
The 6 million figure is widely regarded by most serious historians to be the most accurate number there is.
The collapse of the Soviet Union allowed scholars greater access to heretofore closed archives. Recent scholarship suggests that the number of Jews murdered by the Third Reich is closer to seven million. As I write this, I cannot put my hands on the source, but I think I saw it at Nizkor.
Post by: richyoung on August 08, 2006, 12:36:04 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Conversations like this always make me uncomfortable.
I would point out that while the Nazis certainly killed many "undesirables" their primary target was Jews. The whole concentration camp and extermination program was directed first and foremost at Jews. They used it for others, too, but that was not the primary focus. And these Jews were, at the outset, German citizens who had done nothing illegal, had made no choices at all.
I missed it - what did the Cambodians do that was "illegal" Go to school - BEFORE the Khamer Rouge came to power? Wear glasses? Same question about the Ukranians, Armenians, Kurds, ethnic Chinese citizens of Vietnam, the victims of the "Cultural Revolution", etc.I would point out that while the Nazis certainly killed many "undesirables" their primary target was Jews. The whole concentration camp and extermination program was directed first and foremost at Jews. They used it for others, too, but that was not the primary focus. And these Jews were, at the outset, German citizens who had done nothing illegal, had made no choices at all.
Quote
In fact, unlike other genocides, this one did nothing to improve Germany or the policital standing of its leaders.
Again, you are assuming a uniqueness that isn't so. How did Pol Pot's standing end up? The "Gange of Four" - or for that matter, Stalin?Quote
Stalin killed peasants in the Ukraine and Pol Pot killed anyone with an education out of a calculated political or economic advantage. Hitler killed Jews because he hated them.
I was taught that Jews were used as scapegoats for Germany's economic problems in the Great Depression, and partially blamed for "undermining" Germany in WWI, and blamed for spreading "communism" - and those things sound like attempts at political advantage. It was also my understanding that Jewish money, land, businesses, and belongs were confiscated without compensation - and that sounds like "economic advantage" to me.Quote
This is so even though they were among the most productive in the society, and had been among the most loyal citizens. Many Jews died fighting for Germany in WW1 (my wife had more than one great uncle killed that way). This was the uniqueness of the Holocaust: a modern industrial society at the pinnacle of artistic and scientific achievement turning against its own citizens.
What country were the Ukranians, Chinese, Cambodians, Kurds, Armenians, etc citizens of, if not the one exterminating them?Quote
When we compare Stalin, Pol Pot, etc etc to the Holocaust we lose the meaning of that event and dishonor those who so died.
I must respectfully disagree. When the term "holocaust" is thrown around to describe things like the American incarceration rate of minorities or some such other political posturing, then certainly we demean the word to the point that its meaning is diminished, if not lost. However, to acknowledge that there have indeed been many holocausts, with many different motivations and victims, in no way diminishes the tragedy of the Jewish Holocaust, or dishonors the victims thereof. In the end, dead is dead - what difference the reason? Unless one subscribes to a philosphy that some classes of innocent lives are "worth more" than others, or that one reason for mass murder in the millions can somehow be "more evil" than another, then the blood shed from ALL the innocents implores we the living to remember their loss, and to take action to prevent any similar reoccurence.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2006, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
Conversations like this always make me uncomfortable.
I would point out that while the Nazis certainly killed many "undesirables" their primary target was Jews. The whole concentration camp and extermination program was directed first and foremost at Jews. They used it for others, too, but that was not the primary focus. And these Jews were, at the outset, German citizens who had done nothing illegal, had made no choices at all.
I missed it -I would point out that while the Nazis certainly killed many "undesirables" their primary target was Jews. The whole concentration camp and extermination program was directed first and foremost at Jews. They used it for others, too, but that was not the primary focus. And these Jews were, at the outset, German citizens who had done nothing illegal, had made no choices at all.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 08, 2006, 02:13:21 PM
Quote
The fact that Indians are still here to talk about it suggests it was better than most similar incidents.
Give Jews 500 more years to multiply, then check the numbers. We exist due to rather prolific reproduction on Federal Reserve land.Quote
Genocide is the elimination of a genotype, of a race.
Exactly what was attempted regarding indigenous "Americans."Quote
Whenever the AmerInd quit fighting, for all that there was abuse thereafter, there was no further deliberate and wilful killing by the government.
"Right." Such continued WELL into the 1970s, at least.Quote
Again, the Holocaust was unique
I'm forced to vehemently disagree, "Jews just have the best press agents" regarding their issues: which are NOT ongoing.Quote
The history of homo sap is of one ethnic group or a religious group leaning on another, occupying the land, raping the women, etc, etc. Pick one: The Persians in Biblical times, or Alexander; Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, and of course the various Europeaans in the "New World".
Which, of course, disproves the "Holocaust (Jewish) is unique" theory. History repeats...Quote
When we compare Stalin, Pol Pot, etc etc to the Holocaust we lose the meaning of that event and dishonor those who so died.
Man, that is COMPLETELY bogus. That's "press agent" speak.Quote
None of it is worth a teaspoon of warm spit except as a historical curiosity and an object lesson for those of us who don't want to see "man's inhumanity towards man" continued.
"Likely true."Quote
In the 21st Century, it's fairly obvious that we're now into the worst of all inhumanities, a religion-based warfare.
Heck, that's happened in the past, MANY times. We just have more effecient methods to kill now... 
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2006, 04:08:50 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 08, 2006, 04:13:44 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 08, 2006, 05:32:21 PM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi, are you saying that the uniqueness of the Holocaust lay in the fact that its victims were neither a super-wealthy aristocracy nor an underclass? This would be different than killing Gypsies (transients living on the edges of society) or a hypothetical genocide against whites in South Africa.
I am saying its uniqueness rests on a number of things:1) It was carried out by the most advanced culture of its time. Cambodians regularly ate their prisoners of war. Germans prided themselves (rightly) on achievements in virtually every area: arts, literature, science, medicine, etc.
2) It was carried out regardless of belief or political affiliation.
3) It was carried out against its own citizens, regardless of any actual threat they posed to the regime.
4) It was carried out even when doing so was deleterious to other programs. The Nazis used cars that were needed for troop transport to carry Jews to the camps.
It is all these things together that make it unique.
The wars of conquest against the Indians by the U.S. were typical rather than an exception. How many Hivvites have you spoken with recently? Stalin's treatment of the Ukrainians was calculated to pacify a region prone to independent strains, as they are today. The genocide of the Serbs against the Croats and Bosnians was done purely for economic gain.
Post by: richyoung on August 09, 2006, 04:46:51 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi, are you saying that the uniqueness of the Holocaust lay in the fact that its victims were neither a super-wealthy aristocracy nor an underclass? This would be different than killing Gypsies (transients living on the edges of society) or a hypothetical genocide against whites in South Africa.
I am saying its uniqueness rests on a number of things:1) It was carried out by the most advanced culture of its time. Cambodians regularly ate their prisoners of war. Germans prided themselves (rightly) on achievements in virtually every area: arts, literature, science, medicine, etc.
Quote
2) It was carried out regardless of belief or political affiliation.
true - but hardly unique. It was based on race - ever heard of "ethnic cleansing"? Race or tribal affiliation os a CLASSIC justification for wholesale slaughter. Nor where the Jews the only race so treated by the Third Reich.Quote
3) It was carried out against its own citizens, regardless of any actual threat they posed to the regime.
...and how much threat were those 2 million Cambodians to Pol Pot?Quote
4) It was carried out even when doing so was deleterious to other programs. The Nazis used cars that were needed for troop transport to carry Jews to the camps.
...and how did Stalin's purges of his officer corps affect the performance of the Red Army - especially when the German hordes turned on them?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 09, 2006, 06:32:40 AM
Post by: richyoung on August 09, 2006, 07:29:53 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
End of discussion, RichYoung. Thanks for playing. Come back when you have something reasonable to add.
Have you been promoted to moderator? If not, I hardly think that its your call....
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2006, 07:50:29 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
End of discussion, RichYoung. Thanks for playing. Come back when you have something reasonable to add.
That's ridiculous, Rabbi. If you don't want to refute his perfectly reasonable points, then just don't respond. I'm not saying you're wrong about the Holocaust, but it doesn't have to be unique to be a horrible thing with a lot of meaning for you personally.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 09, 2006, 08:17:55 AM
Quote
but it doesn't have to be unique to be a horrible thing with a lot of meaning for you personally.
Haven't I been trying to make that point?The Holocaust was "bad," but it was for from unique and gets WAY too much publicity on a global scale for death, decimation of culture, and/or impact.
Folks just knee-jerk about it WAY too much.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2006, 12:05:51 PM
The Holocaust was awful.
A lot of other atrocities have been awful to varying degrees of awfulness.
If Rabbi thinks the Holocaust was different from other terrible things, let him; it doesn't in the least take away from any other atrocity. If you think it was not so unique, then at least refrain from talking about how "the Jews had better press agents." That's just calculated to outrage and offend. There's no point in that.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 09, 2006, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: fistful
Why do I get the feeling this thread would have been a lot friendlier if someone had just answered, "Not enough." This is a dumb conversation.
The Holocaust was awful.
A lot of other atrocities have been awful to varying degrees of awfulness.
If Rabbi thinks the Holocaust was different from other terrible things, let him; it doesn't in the least take away from any other atrocity. If you think it was not so unique, then at least refrain from talking about how "the Jews had better press agents." That's just calculated to outrage and offend. There's no point in that.
Fistful,The Holocaust was awful.
A lot of other atrocities have been awful to varying degrees of awfulness.
If Rabbi thinks the Holocaust was different from other terrible things, let him; it doesn't in the least take away from any other atrocity. If you think it was not so unique, then at least refrain from talking about how "the Jews had better press agents." That's just calculated to outrage and offend. There's no point in that.
I think at least some people would have been perfectly OK with that answer. But instead of saying that, they would rather downplay the whole incident and make it blend in with every slaughter ever committed by one group against another, regardless of circumstances. Doing so means the incident can be written off as just one more episode in history without much significance. To do that is to miss the point entirely, to dishonor the memory of those who perished in it, and to reveal oneself as a shallow thoughtless person.
Maybe the thread needs to be closed.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 09, 2006, 01:16:07 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 09, 2006, 03:42:44 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on August 10, 2006, 06:00:07 AM
Quote
Maybe the thread needs to be closed.
Why?
Post by: Ezekiel on August 10, 2006, 06:12:39 AM
Quote
I think at least some people would have been perfectly OK with that answer. But instead of saying that, they would rather downplay the whole incident and make it blend in with every slaughter ever committed by one group against another, regardless of circumstances.
That is quite the erroneous "either/or" statement, don't you think? Not only do the two not necessarily follow, it reports a sort of paranoia...Quote
Doing so means the incident can be written off as just one more episode in history without much significance.
"Wrong again." Sure, it was significant, but it is no more -- and likely less -- significant then other atrocities, historically, during the time of man. I do not percieve a destruction of overall culture, and Israel is a significantly larger Reservation then that offered to indigenous tribes in the United States. (There are other examples, aptly brought up by others.)Quote
To do that is to miss the point entirely, to dishonor the memory of those who perished in it, and to reveal oneself as a shallow thoughtless person.
"Additional wrongness." To believe that the "Jewish issue" is any more special, significant or unjust -- beyond the scope of all other evil -- is to brand oneself as self-serving and devoid of context.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 10, 2006, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote
Maybe the thread needs to be closed.
Why?Stop me before I post again!
Post by: Ezekiel on August 10, 2006, 07:00:47 AM
Quote
If I continue posting I will no doubt get banned for pointing out what to me is an obvious truth.
I doubt that. While we may disagree on certian levels of historical import, you are always rational and intelligent.I sincerely invite you to PM me if you prefer to make your point(s) in private. "I am very open."
Quote
Because the thread has deteriorated into some people pushing an obvious agenda, obvious to those of us who have been around it long enough.
That is a very interesting statement. I would like to hear/know more.
Post by: richyoung on August 11, 2006, 04:27:16 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote
Because the thread has deteriorated into some people pushing an obvious agenda, obvious to those of us who have been around it long enough.
That is a very interesting statement. I would like to hear/know more.Post by: Art Eatman on August 11, 2006, 10:09:40 AM
Yeah, Stalin starved a bunch of people, and Mao's folks killed a bunch and Pol Pot's gang did in a high percentage of his people. But: The motivations were different. Stalin wasn't blaming the Kulaks for the economic illls of Russia, seeking a scapegoat. Mao's deal was to kill any potential anti-communist resistance. Pol Pot's guys were after "intellectuals", as in "anybody who can read and write".
But pardon the admitted over-simplification; I ain't gonna write a book.
Art
Post by: richyoung on August 11, 2006, 12:26:56 PM
Quote from: Art Eatman
RichYoung, I imagine what makes the Jewish portion of the Holocaust "more unique" is that it's one of the very few mass murders in all history that was done to . They were purely scapegoats, and picked out only because of ethnicity/religion.
I would submit that EXACT same thing applies to the ethnic Chinese in Vietnam, (AKA "boat people"), the Armenian "Great Calamity", (based on race and religion, (Christian), 21 countries officially describe it as genocide), etc.Quote
.... Pol Pot's gang did in a high percentage of his people. But: The motivations were different. ... Pol Pot's guys were after "intellectuals", as in "anybody who can read and write".
...who happened to be "productive citizens of a country who were in no way enemies of the country or of the people in power" (your words). Considering the Communists are dogmatically atheist, relgion probably played a role there as well
Post by: The Rabbi on August 11, 2006, 02:12:01 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 11, 2006, 04:54:24 PM
Post by: richyoung on August 11, 2006, 07:39:59 PM
Quote from: fistful
For those insisting the Holocaust was overblown, what are the numbers of Jews killed/imprisoned, versus Gypsies, Poles, Russians, homos, etc.?
Generating numbers is an inexact task - how do you "score" a half Jewish, half Gypsy communist homosexual, to pick an extreme example. How do we determine how many "partisan" body counts were really Jews or others massacred by the military or SS? Roughly - VERY roughly - 6 million Jews and 5 million "others" died in the Holocaust, give or take a million in the two categories. With respect to the Russians, the picture of counting bodies is even more clouded - what with Katyn massacres, Stalin purges, "Prisoner battalions", etc an "accurate" number verses battlefield casualties verses killed by their own state may be impossible to determine.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 12, 2006, 02:51:33 AM
Post by: BayouBlogger on August 12, 2006, 05:15:08 PM
Quote
Yes, those damn Jews ought to stop whining and get on with it.
That's what I also hear sometimes, Rabbi. "Just another series of atrocities, nothing to dwell on, move along, folks, besides it wasn't any worse than the crime of _______________ (fill in the blank)." There's something quite revolting about the attempts by Ernest Nolte and like-minded people to minimize the significance of the Holocaust. Deborah Lipstadt has argued that in her view the nature of Nolte's work is a more insidious and dangerous form of Holocaust denial then the work of David Irving. I'm inclined to agree with her.
Post by: richyoung on August 12, 2006, 07:33:04 PM
Quote from: fistful
The Russian situation I think we can set aside, as we are interested in which of its civilian population the Nazi machine was killing/jailing and why. By your numbers, there were at least as many Jews as other "undesirables" or "enemies of the Reich and the German people," put together.
Almost certainly, the marjority of victims were Jewish. Does that somehow simish the loss and suffering of the millions of other victims, or the victims of other historic atrocities? In recent history, Christians are being killed or sold into slavery for the crime of...being Christians. The point I'm trying to get across is that to buy into the attiutde that ONLY the German crimes in WWII against ONLY the JEWS is a "Big H" Holocaust, possesing some great degree of "uniqueness", (and that all other such incidents, including the other victims of the SAME Nazi death machine, were mere "little h" holocausts) is to engage in the idea that some people are more human, and their deaths more signifigant, than others - and thats EXACTLY the kind of thinking that CAUSED the whole thing in the first place.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 12, 2006, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: fistful
The Russian situation I think we can set aside, as we are interested in which of its civilian population the Nazi machine was killing/jailing and why. By your numbers, there were at least as many Jews as other "undesirables" or "enemies of the Reich and the German people," put together.
Almost certainly, the marjority of victims were Jewish. Does that somehow simish the loss and suffering of the millions of other victims, or the victims of other historic atrocities? In recent history, Christians are being killed or sold into slavery for the crime of...being Christians. The point I'm trying to get across is that to buy into the attiutde that ONLY the German crimes in WWII against ONLY the JEWS is a "Big H" Holocaust, possesing some great degree of "uniqueness", (and that all other such incidents, including the other victims of the SAME Nazi death machine, were mere "little h" holocausts) is to engage in the idea that some people are more human, and their deaths more signifigant, than others - and thats EXACTLY the kind of thinking that CAUSED the whole thing in the first place.What a great way to deny the Holocaust: allow the factual part but deny any larger significance.
I marvel.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 13, 2006, 05:33:17 AM
Opinion: The Jews were the largest single group. All the others, sub-group by sub-group, were smaller. One thing to remember is that even good Aryan Germans of very-low IQ went away as well--as untermenschen.
richyoung, the key to my comment was that the Holocaust was the FIRST PUBLICLY KNOWN such relatively-mopdern genocidal effort of a particular group. Certainly the results were the first to be captured on film, with a paper trail of the structure of the system.
For perspective and context: This is before TV, okay? This is before world travel by Joe Sixpack or his kids. Think of the American attitude of favoring the underdog. Consider the reaction when you go to a movie with the wife and kids and there in the MovieTone Newsreel is footage of our GIs helping walking skeletons to ambulances. Footage of the mass graves, some not yet covered at the time of our Army's arrival. Then the word starts getting around that we turned down efforts of many German Jews to get visas to come into the US before the War. Add in the Jewish population in the U.S. and their reaction to this new knowledge of what specifically happened to their relatives and friends. And then what came out at the Nuremburg trials.
Is it any wonder that "The Holocaust" became a big deal, and focussed on the Jews? How or why could it be otherwise?
Art
Post by: richyoung on August 14, 2006, 03:49:57 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
What a remarkably disingenuous argument. It suggests that any death anywhere for any reason is equal to any other....
If you are going to put words in my mouth, you need to be better at it. But even in your attempted slanting of my words, a grain of truth remains - any unjust death at the hands of an inhuman, murderous regime IS equal to any other - unless you buy into the same "untermenchen" philosophy that spawned the death camps. Pray tell, who's exterminations are "worth more" or "worth less" in YOUR sight, Rabbi? Who is Man that you are mindful of him, to you?Quote
...and therefore, since there are so many, ultimately insignificant.
I know you will NEVER find me claiming ANY part of the Holocaust is "insignifigant", whereas by implication, YOU assert the Gentile victims are "insignifigant".Quote
What a great way to deny the Holocaust: allow the factual part but deny any larger significance.
I deny that its UNIQUE - its not even the only Jewish tragedy and extermination, nor was it exclusively Jewish. Further there have been EQUALLY HORRIFIC crimes against humanity before and since.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 14, 2006, 04:48:16 AM
In fact, you make the case yourself.
The Holocaust was unique from previous persecutions in any number of ways. Previous persecutions were carried out by governments and entities that had no idea of the rule of law or citizens' rights. The Jews of Germany theoretically were protected by the Weimar Constitution, a system of parliamentary laws and courts of justice. Prior persecutions were conducted by essentially barbarians without the ideas and outlooks of the Enlightenment. The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who saw themselves, rightly, as the most advanced civilization that had ever existed, advanced technologically, legally, artistically, and morally. Previous persecutions were the result of religious agitation. In Germany many "Jews" died who were in fact practicing Catholics or Protestants but had a Jewish ancestor.
In previous persecutions, Jews could save their lives by converting to Islam (c'v) or, worse, Christianity. In Germany there was no such out. In previous persecutions, the Jewish community could sometimes stave off violence by offering big bribes. In Germany there was, with one small exception, no such out. In previous persecutions Jews could leave the country and escape persecution. After a certain point Germany would not let them escape. Previous persecutions were local events, the Holocaust was part of a grand plan to wipe out the entire Jewish people.
So when you lump the Holocaust in with Cambodia or Darfur or Bosnia or any number of other tragic slaughters you gain no insight into the event. It simply blurs together with so many others that no lesson or insight is possible.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on August 14, 2006, 05:53:40 AM
Think about it.
Post by: richyoung on August 14, 2006, 06:26:36 AM
Quote from: Art Eatman
richyoung, the key to my comment was that the Holocaust was the FIRST PUBLICLY KNOWN such relatively-mopdern genocidal effort of a particular group. Certainly the results were the first to be captured on film, with a paper trail of the structure of the system.
That is certainly an arguable position. I would counter that the Armenian tragedy was well known - over a million died, and peace treaties ending WWI called for tribunals to punish those responsible. Photographic evidene also abounded - some pictures are posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide. Likewise, the Ukrainian "famine" was well known to the international community - 26 countries officialy recognize it as genocide. Even the famine of the early 20's was manipulated for politcal advantage: The American Relief Administration, which Herbert Hoover had formed to help the starvation of WWI, had offered assistance to Lenin in 1919, on condition that they have full say over the Russian railway network and hand out food impartially to all; Lenin refused this as "interference in Russian internal affairs". While foreign aid agencies, who's workers sometimes died of cholera, were struggling to feed starving children in 1923, Lenin's regime was selling grain for export, for profit. Japanese wholesale rape and slaughtering of non-combatants, as well as the testing of biological weapons on them, and the forced prostitution of the "comfort women" was known at high levels of government as well as the Nazi cromesQuote
For perspective and context: This is before TV, okay? This is before world travel by Joe Sixpack or his kids. Think of the American attitude of favoring the underdog. Consider the reaction when you go to a movie with the wife and kids and there in the MovieTone Newsreel is footage of our GIs helping walking skeletons to ambulances. Footage of the mass graves, some not yet covered at the time of our Army's arrival. Then the word starts getting around that we turned down efforts of many German Jews to get visas to come into the US before the War. Add in the Jewish population in the U.S. and their reaction to this new knowledge of what specifically happened to their relatives and friends. And then what came out at the Nuremburg trials.
Is it any wonder that "The Holocaust" became a big deal, and focussed on the Jews? How or why could it be otherwise?
Art
I can't answer for "how" it could be otherwise. but I'll take a stab at "why" - because ALL human life is precious. Just because someone is from a different race, or worships differently than me, or comes from a different part of the world and speaks a different language, has a different culture - doesn't make HIS life any less valuable in the grand scheme of things than mine. Just because race "A" has suffered a tragedy that claimed 6 million lives DOESN'T it make it ANY LESS of a tragedy when race "B" looses 2 million lives, or race "C" looses 250,000 in one incident (Japanese reprisals for the Doolittle raid) or 400,000 in another (rape of Nanking).
Is it any wonder that "The Holocaust" became a big deal, and focussed on the Jews? How or why could it be otherwise?
Art
Post by: richyoung on August 14, 2006, 07:12:13 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Clever. So you focus on the deaths of people. In that sense, one death is the same as any other, whether it is from war, disease, natural disaster, etc. Since death is death there is nothing more to be said about it, except lament and forget.
We are talking about deaths intentionally caused for no legitimate reason by murderous regimes,....and I think you know that.Quote
The Holocaust was unique from previous persecutions in any number of ways. Previous persecutions were carried out by governments and entities that had no idea of the rule of law or citizens' rights.
Armenian genocide, 1914 - 1918 by the Ottoman Turks. Manipulated famine to cause deaths 1919 - 1923 by Lenin's Communist government. Ukraine genocide 1932 - 1933: 7 million dead by Stalin's Russain government. Japanese war crimes in the China/Burma theater, 1933 - 1945: millions dead. Do you SERIOUSLY contend that the governments responsible "had no idea of the rule of law or citizen's rights"?Quote
The Jews of Germany theoretically were protected by the Weimar Constitution, a system of parliamentary laws and courts of justice.
The Ukranians were "theoretically" protected by the Soviet Constitution - the Armenians by the Ottoman constituion. It didn't help any more than Germany's did.Quote
Prior persecutions were conducted by essentially barbarians without the ideas and outlooks of the Enlightenment.
...so your position is the Enlightenment "skipped" Turkey, Russia, and Japan?Quote
The Holocaust was perpetrated by people who saw themselves, rightly, as the most advanced civilization that had ever existed,...
I've dealt with that canard in this thread already. One of the most advanced, perhaps. I seem to recall the airplane, motion picture, electric power, electric light bulb, telephone, vacuum tube, radio, television, phonograph, radar, proximity fuse, semi-automatic and automatic weapons, liquid fueled rocket, tank, aircraft carrier, synthetic rubber, synthetic silk, the atomic bomb, air conditioning, digital computer, etc. being invented in other countries...Quote
advanced technologically,...
They were certainly nothing to sneeze at in that regard - but they were hardly in a league of their own.Quote
legally,....
I would submit their very LACK of advencement "legally" is what lead to their doom. Great Britain and the United States had FAR more effective legal and political institutions in place.Quote
artistically,...
Again, nothing to sneeze at, but nothing that the French, Italians, and (on a good day) the Russians couldn't match.Quote
and morally.
...got some evidence for that assertion?Quote
Previous persecutions were the result of religious agitation. In Germany many "Jews" died who were in fact practicing Catholics or Protestants but had a Jewish ancestor.
Its fairly well established that RACE, not religion, was the basis for the Nazi genocide. A twisted example of where the dark trail of eugenics can lead.Quote
In previous persecutions, Jews could save their lives by converting to Islam (c'v) or, worse, Christianity.
Again, the Nazi theories were RACE, rather than RELIGION, based.Why do you consider forced conversion to Islam to be preferable to forced conversion to Christianity?
Quote
In Germany there was no such out. In previous persecutions, the Jewish community could sometimes stave off violence by offering big bribes. In Germany there was, with one small exception, no such out. In previous persecutions Jews could leave the country and escape persecution. After a certain point Germany would not let them escape. Previous persecutions were local events, the Holocaust was part of a grand plan to wipe out the entire Jewish people.
What you say is true. What you leave out is it was also a "grand plan" to wipe out Slavs, Gypsies, Armenians, Poles, eventualy anyone who got in the way of "Greater Germany".Quote
So when you lump the Holocaust in with Cambodia or Darfur or Bosnia or any number of other tragic slaughters you gain no insight into the event. It simply blurs together with so many others that no lesson or insight is possible.
That is one way of regarding the matter, and I can't fault you for holding to it. My counter postion is that by looking at the Jweish Holocaust ALONG WITH the manifold other tragedies, some common elements are manifest, and that by doing so, one might actually PREVENT a re-occurance. The common factors to almost all of these incidents are as follows:A aggressive, violent, young government born out of warfare or revolution, and configured as a socialist oligarchy with a (paranoid) "strong man" leader.
A national belief that the "rest of the world is against us".
Economic turmoil with either natural or man-made (agriculteral reform...land reform) (or both) crop disruption, and runaway inflation or currency reform.
Racial, tribal, or religious strife, with one group singled out as "causing" or "profiting" from the current situation.
Blaming that minority group for "conspiring with enemies of the State".
Strong security apparatus, to not only carry out the extermination, but prevent leaking of the news to the outside.
A military unwilling or unable to function as a check on the government.
Corrupt or ineffective courts and legislatures.
A distracted international community and/or weak, corrupt, and ineffective organs of international governance (League of Nations, U.N.).
Its my hope that by looking at what the Jewish Holocaust has in common with other such recent examples of man's inhumanity to man that we can be alert to the conditions that spawn it, and take early action if need be to prevent it. Perhaps I am just a dreamer. I would like the term "Never again" to apply not only to the Jewish people, but to all people.
Post by: Guest on August 14, 2006, 07:26:31 AM
Quote
Why do you consider forced conversion to Islam to be preferable to forced conversion to Christianity?
Because Islam is monotheistic and makes no claims about the divinity of its prophets?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 14, 2006, 08:37:09 AM
Quote from: Barbara
Quote
Why do you consider forced conversion to Islam to be preferable to forced conversion to Christianity?
Because Islam is monotheistic and makes no claims about the divinity of its prophets?Post by: richyoung on August 14, 2006, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: Barbara
Quote
Why do you consider forced conversion to Islam to be preferable to forced conversion to Christianity?
Because Islam is monotheistic and makes no claims about the divinity of its prophets?Post by: Guest on August 14, 2006, 09:11:41 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 14, 2006, 09:49:11 AM
Post by: Guest on August 14, 2006, 09:58:18 AM
Post by: richyoung on August 14, 2006, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: Barbara
That is the common Christian position, but most Jews, Muslims and some Christians view it differently.
I should think that the "common Christian position" would be the authoritative one. If I had a question about Judeaism, I would:1. Want the "common Jewish position", from a:
2. Jew who knew and prefereably held, that position.
Why would one expect those not in a religion, and presumably with less experience with it, to have a more authoratative viewpoint?
Post by: Guest on August 14, 2006, 11:42:27 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 14, 2006, 12:07:48 PM
Quote from: Barbara
a creed established by a vote several centuries ago.
Barbara, do you enjoying opening cans of worms? The creed was not "established" by a vote - it was established by Christ and those who knew him in the flesh.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 14, 2006, 12:11:37 PM
Quote from: Barbara
I made a statement about Islam and why a Jew may view it as less offensive. I never mentioned Christianity at all in it. If you find that statement offensive, then I apologize.
Barbara, I would have expected better from you. You can't deny you made certain implications about Christianity, or at least about the Jewish view thereof.
Post by: Iain on August 14, 2006, 12:24:04 PM
Quote from: fistful
You can't deny you made certain implications about Christianity, or at least about the Jewish view thereof.
Quote from: richyoung
Why would one expect those not in a religion, and presumably with less experience with it, to have a more authoratative viewpoint?
Someone really pushed some buttons here. How many footnotes and subclauses in Barbara's post would have avoided that?
Post by: Guest on August 14, 2006, 12:41:49 PM
Post by: Guest on August 14, 2006, 12:55:19 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 14, 2006, 01:59:48 PM
Quote from: Barbara
I'm not sure what "better" you expected of me, though. I stated facts. Jews are monotheistic. Muslims are monotheistic. Islam claims an inspired prophet (several) but doesn't claim he was devine. No one of any religion argues any of those points. Most Christians consider themselves monotheistic, but not all of them, and Jews and Muslims don't consider them to be. So, when the question, "Why would a Jew prefer to be forced to convert to Islam" the answer is because it is a monotheistic religion. From a Jewish (and Islamic and some Christian') perspective, Catholic/Mainstream Christians are polytheistic and claim divinity for someone other religions don't accept. Whether you consider yourself monotheistic or polytheistic doesn't have any bearing on why a Jew would rather be forced to accept Islam over Christianity. In that case, it is his or her beliefs that matter, not yours.
I am relatively certain that for most Muslims, Christianity is not idol worship and Christians are included in the category of "People Of The Book." In the Wahhabi flavor of Islam, even some Muslims are not included in that category.A Jew is required to give up his life rather than convert to Christianity. He is not required to do so for Islam, although many did.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2006, 12:48:00 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
A Jew is required to give up his life rather than convert to Christianity. He is not required to do so for Islam, although many did.
Why is Islam preferrable to death?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 15, 2006, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
A Jew is required to give up his life rather than convert to Christianity. He is not required to do so for Islam, although many did.
Why is Islam preferrable to death?Post by: Perd Hapley on August 15, 2006, 06:19:24 PM
Your tendency to post in Hebrew is getting old. You know most of us don't understand it, so what's the point?
Post by: Ezekiel on August 16, 2006, 05:49:16 AM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi,
Your tendency to post in Hebrew is getting old. You know most of us don't understand it, so what's the point?
Elitism?
Your tendency to post in Hebrew is getting old. You know most of us don't understand it, so what's the point?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 16, 2006, 09:42:20 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 16, 2006, 01:52:18 PM
Quote from: fistful
More like an appeal to his own authority, I think.
Sorry to disappoint both of you.First the fact that you can argue about a book you've never read would be amazing, but this is the internet. But you've never read the Hebrew Bible, only translations of it, which is far from the same thing. For that matter you may never have read the Christian Bible either.
Second, terms in Hebrew have a very specific nexus of meanings. So when I write that Christianity is "a'z", meaning avodah zora, I mean just that. What is "avodah zora"? It is commonly translated as "idol worship". The christian will respond "but we dont worship idols." That is true. And irrelevant. Because avoda zora encompasses a complex concept in which pieces of wood or stone are largely irrelevant. So whether something is or is not avoda zora depends on definitions in Jewish Law and is the subject of debate. The debate occurs regardless of era or locale, but in the conversation known as halakha. So any discussion would include comments by Maimonides (Spain 1200), Rabbi Moses Isserles (Cracow 1600), Rabbi Moses Feinstein (d. NYC 1986), and Rabbis Ovadia Yosef and Eliezer Waldenberg (contemporary, Israel). That is just the short list.
Eventually there is a consensus reached. And here the consensus is that a Jew violates the prohibition of avoda zora by converting to Christianity and that this violation is in the stringent category of things one must sacrifice his life for. And the consensus generally is that it is prohibited to a Jew to convert to Islam but it is not in the category that he must sacrifice his life for.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 16, 2006, 04:11:06 PM
Quote
And here the consensus is that a Jew violates the prohibition of avoda zora by converting to Christianity and that this violation is in the stringent category of things one must sacrifice his life for. And the consensus generally is that it is prohibited to a Jew to convert to Islam but it is not in the category that he must sacrifice his life for.
And how, exactly, does this get back to the Jewish self-exultation of the Nazi Holocaust as being anything other than a historically typical example of genocide?I'm sorry, were you guys forced to walk across a continent back to the Nation created for you after WWII? (No?) Or, does this go back >2,000 years when nobody could determine that Egypt was a wilderness?
Damn, you actually got a Nation on specified/owned land, supported by the US government, after being treated poorly?
What's that like?
The Holocaust was not special.
You're self-righteousness -- as, likely, mine -- is terribly annoying.
Post by: grampster on August 16, 2006, 05:17:48 PM
Religion is an intensely personal thing. A conversation like this ought to be more geared to gaining insight and knowledge, not point-counterpoint. It is interesting to delve into other beliefs. None of you are going to change your minds about what you believe, other than to perhaps re-solidify those beliefs. (That might be the only redeeming feature I can see regarding the 4 pages so far.) That is patently obvious.
We've all gained a bit over the months, and I think most of us have established a bit of friendship; albiet an odd one because of the medium. Why don't ya'll start acting a bit more like (at least) aquaintances and let the offhanded snideness take a rest for awhile.
I have observed that all of you seem to be quite bright. I don't hold a candle to many of you in that regard. But, I'd rather be taught than lectured. Make me curious, don't insult my good temper and lose my interest by engaging in a slugfest rather than a pleasant discussion that reveals things that perhaps are not well understood.
Back on topic: The world is rife with the slaughter of one group by another for many reasons. For some reason, (I have an idea why) what happened at the hand of Hitler and his minions serves as a benchmark for brutality and murder. They elevated it to an industry!! They built factories and transportation systems, had bookkeeping, organized the collection of wealth down to gold teeth, slave labor, obscene medicine; all of it in their horror filled time. It was organized tightly and it was a business!! That is not to diminish the brutality and horror of other regimes. Pehaps the Communists came close with their Gulags. The Jews were part of that as well. The rest was indiscriminate, if not organized, slaughter; but not quite as intense, and organized.
The Jews have been the focus of history since the time of Abraham. Perhaps there is a reason. I'll leave it to you to ponder that.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 16, 2006, 09:03:20 PM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi,
Your tendency to post in Hebrew is getting old. You know most of us don't understand it, so what's the point?
If you wish to compare Hebrew Biblical texts to English translation (won't help in this specific instance), here is a resource I've found that will give you side by side Hebrew and English translations. Your tendency to post in Hebrew is getting old. You know most of us don't understand it, so what's the point?
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2006, 05:27:13 AM
But I was not asking you about Christianity, I was asking how converting to Islam could possibly be acceptable to a Jew. I would die first, I would have assumed you would, too.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 05:29:43 AM
Quote from: fistful
So, rather than say, "Christianity is considered idol worship," you pull out this a-z-watchamacalit. Neither charge makes much sense, but at least with the first you're still speaking the same language as your interlocuter, namely me. Answering in Hebrew is like not answering at all.
But I was not asking you about Christianity, I was asking how converting to Islam could possibly be acceptable to a Jew. I would die first, I would have assumed you would, too.
1) I think I explained all that.But I was not asking you about Christianity, I was asking how converting to Islam could possibly be acceptable to a Jew. I would die first, I would have assumed you would, too.
2) I explained that too. Your assumption is unwarranted.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2006, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
1) I think I explained all that.
2) I explained that too. Your assumption is unwarranted.
Wrong on both counts. 2) I explained that too. Your assumption is unwarranted.
The first you can't explain, because the position is simply wrong and no argument will suffice.
The second you have not even begun to explain.
What assumption?
Would you be so kind as to give me just a few major differences between the Hebrew bible and a good English translation? Something other than the order of the books; something with theological import.
Have you read the New Testament in the Greek?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: The Rabbi
1) I think I explained all that.
2) I explained that too. Your assumption is unwarranted.
Wrong on both counts. 2) I explained that too. Your assumption is unwarranted.
Would you be so kind as to give me just a few major differences between the Hebrew bible and a good English translation? Something other than the order of the books; something with theological import.
Have you read the New Testament in the Greek?
Quote
LEV 15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
I wont even ask you to explain this because I know you have no idea what this means. No one could without access to the original. But as English it is not only incomprehensible, it is also misleading.I was a grad student in Classics for about 5 years so ended up with about 8 years of Latin and 5 of Greek. And yes, Koine Greek (Christian Bible) was one of the courses.
Post by: Ezekiel on August 17, 2006, 11:28:07 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I wont even ask you to explain this because I know you have no idea what this means.
Definitely, Elitism.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 11:36:45 AM
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote from: The Rabbi
I wont even ask you to explain this because I know you have no idea what this means.
Definitely, Elitism.Try reading one sentence further in my post.
Post by: Iain on August 17, 2006, 11:39:15 AM
I'm think I know what that verse essentially means.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2006, 11:44:24 AM
Would you be so kind as to provide your translation of Lev. 15.24? When the verse is read in context, the meaning is clear. But for what it's worth, I asked for a "good English translation" and a discrepancy with "theological import." You failed to provide the latter, and the Old Elizabethan Version you chose arguably does not even meet the former stipulation, anymore. The newer versions I checked simply said "menstrual flow" instead of "flowers."
I'm still sincerely curious why converting to Islam would be an acceptable choice for a Jew. I'm not asking about Christianity or its alleged idolatry.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 11:48:18 AM
Quote from: fistful
Interesting. Is Koine a difficult language to learn to read?
Would you be so kind as to provide your translation of Lev. 15.24? When the verse is read in context, the meaning is clear. But for what it's worth, I asked for a "good English translation" and a discrepancy with "theological import." You failed to provide the latter, and the Old Elizabethan Version you chose arguably does not even meet the former stipulation, anymore. The newer versions I checked simply said "menstrual flow" instead of "flowers."
I'm still sincerely curious why converting to Islam would be an acceptable choice for a Jew. I'm not asking about Christianity or its alleged idolatry.
I honestly found Greek to be a bitch to learn. But I started with Latin. People who started with Greek tell me it's easy and Latin is hard. But the koine is not that difficult, and that was our 2nd year course. Some parts of Christian Bible are easier than others . Luke/Acts is pretty straightforward. Revelations is just bizarre, language-wise.Would you be so kind as to provide your translation of Lev. 15.24? When the verse is read in context, the meaning is clear. But for what it's worth, I asked for a "good English translation" and a discrepancy with "theological import." You failed to provide the latter, and the Old Elizabethan Version you chose arguably does not even meet the former stipulation, anymore. The newer versions I checked simply said "menstrual flow" instead of "flowers."
I'm still sincerely curious why converting to Islam would be an acceptable choice for a Jew. I'm not asking about Christianity or its alleged idolatry.
Converting to Islam is not an acceptable choice for a Jew. But if the choice is either convert or die, then he can convert. Not so with Christianity.
Post by: cosine on August 17, 2006, 11:48:42 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote
LEV 15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
I wont even ask you to explain this because I know you have no idea what this means. No one could without access to the original. But as English it is not only incomprehensible, it is also misleading.Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 11:54:56 AM
Quote from: cosine
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote
LEV 15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
I wont even ask you to explain this because I know you have no idea what this means. No one could without access to the original. But as English it is not only incomprehensible, it is also misleading.Post by: Perd Hapley on August 17, 2006, 12:17:56 PM
And can you explain why it is acceptable for a Jew to forsake the faith of his fathers for Islam, rather than die? I admit, I know nothing of such a way of thinking. I submit that your patriarchs and prophets didn't, either.
Post by: Guest on August 17, 2006, 12:44:20 PM
Because Jews and Muslims both worship the same God, although in different ways.
Because both reject the concept of trinity.
Because the dietary requirements of both are similar enough that one can choose to eat.
Because they both ban or severly limit the use of icons and neither allows representations of God.
They both promote the importances of works in faith.
Post by: Guest on August 17, 2006, 12:56:02 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: fistful
So, it's not the flowers you have a problem with, it's the clean/unclean? Again, where's the theological import for a Christian? Can you give me two examples where my lack of Hebrew makes me misunderstand the scriptures to any significant degree?
And can you explain why it is acceptable for a Jew to forsake the faith of his fathers for Islam, rather than die? I admit, I know nothing of such a way of thinking. I submit that your patriarchs and prophets didn't, either.
Here's a better explanation than any I could give:And can you explain why it is acceptable for a Jew to forsake the faith of his fathers for Islam, rather than die? I admit, I know nothing of such a way of thinking. I submit that your patriarchs and prophets didn't, either.
http://www.crivoice.org/isa7-14.html
Post by: Ezekiel on August 17, 2006, 01:58:27 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Ezekiel
Quote from: The Rabbi
I wont even ask you to explain this because I know you have no idea what this means.
Definitely, Elitism.Try reading one sentence further in my post.
Quote from: The Rabbi
No one could without access to the original.
My fault, asshat: I should have said "proprietary Elitism."Again, my fault. In addition, education and self-serving brainwashing seem similar in this case...
Post by: cosine on August 17, 2006, 02:19:50 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 17, 2006, 04:05:41 PM
Quote from: cosine
I've been pretty annoyed at something things lately posted in this thread, but that's no reason to abandon the high road...
Somehow I have a feeling we wont be hearing from him again.
Post by: Twycross on August 17, 2006, 05:56:19 PM
Come on. We all agree that what was done was monstrous. We all agree that genocide is part of living on this planet, and has happened in many times, and many places. Whether or not 'The Holocaust' is/was special is a rather minor point, regardless of who is right or wrong (assuming that it is that clear-cut).
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 18, 2006, 04:21:33 AM
Quote from: Barbara
Jews and Muslims both worship the same God, although in different ways.
That is your point of view, but how many Jews believe this? Rabbi, do you agree with Barbara's statement?
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 05:09:13 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: Barbara
Jews and Muslims both worship the same God, although in different ways.
That is your point of view, but how many Jews believe this? Rabbi, do you agree with Barbara's statement?
There was a question posed to a famous rabbi in some Moslem country. The Moslems decreed that before Jews would be allowed to slaughter animals they had to say a blessing to Allah. If this was forbidden, then they couldn't slaughter and the community would go without meat. The rabbi (I forget who this was) ruled that Allah was indeed the same G-d, referred to sometimes in the Bible as "El" and there was no problem.
Similarly while it is forbidden for a Jew to go into a church any time, it is not forbidden to go into a mosque when it isnt being used.
But yes, I agree with Barbara's statement.
Post by: Iain on August 18, 2006, 05:22:46 AM
The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if your example doesn't possibly stem from the need to survive in a relatively hostile environment, and if it is possible that some Rabbi in a christian country may have made similar rulings with regards to practices forced upon Jews by that country.
Ta.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 05:36:11 AM
Quote from: Iain
To demonstrate my ignorance - Rabbi, how extensive have past bans on Jewish practices in Christian countries been? Obviously I'm aware of expulsions and persecutions, but has any Christian country effectively banned kosher slaughter practices whilst allowing or requiring Jewish populations to remain, for instance?
The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if your example doesn't possibly stem from the need to survive in a relatively hostile environment, and if it is possible that some Rabbi in a christian country may have made similar rulings with regards to practices forced upon Jews by that country.
Ta.
Well, the Nazis effectively banned kosher slaughter. Actually I think they required electrical stunning. There was a huge debate among the rabbis as to whether that was allowed or not. The final ruling was that it was not allowed. Slaughter moved to Denmark with the meat re-imported to Germany. Currently several European countries outlaw kosher slaughter. Britain has been working on a ban for years.The reason I ask is that I'm wondering if your example doesn't possibly stem from the need to survive in a relatively hostile environment, and if it is possible that some Rabbi in a christian country may have made similar rulings with regards to practices forced upon Jews by that country.
Ta.
I am not aware of any analogous case in a Christian country but based on other knowledge I can say people would have been eating a lot of potatoes.
Post by: grampster on August 18, 2006, 06:05:57 AM
It seems many practices in Judaism come out of debate between Rabbi's over time. My questions, since it appears the former has been said by The Rabbi in previous posts, is that Judaism is fluid, depending on ongoing debate. If that is so, here are my questions:
1. Why hasn't the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah been debated with the vigor that other issues have been over the centuries? I have been told that great debates have gone on over nits. This claim is certainly not a nit. He claimed he was Messiah, so either he is a liar or was telling the truth. Or was insane or was telling the truth. Or he was truly a bad man, a demon, or was telling the truth. He cannot be a good prophet, a good man, a good teacher, a good anything if he is not who he says he is. Judaism, at the least, tolerates Christians and attempts to co-exist. If Jews think today that Jesus is a blashphemer, why not come out and say so and lay down the case for blasphemy. Why bother to get along with Christians at all? Or why not have a serious debate about the possibility that he is who he says rather than rejecting the possibility out of hand with no serious debate. Debate, it appears, is what the Rabbi's do. In the post modern world, I think that would be worthy of consideration. If Jesus is who he claims, it posts no threat to Judaism; it fulfills the promise. How could that be bad?
2. With respect to the fact that a Jew should die before becoming a Christian: It seems to me that is not mutually exclusive to what Jesus said about what must occur with respect to that decision by any person to believe that he is the Messiah. "You must be born again." The implication is that one must die to the flesh and be born again in the spirit. So the teaching that a Jew must die before being a Christian seems to raise the question that perhaps the conclusion drawn regarding death has been mininterpreted and is worthy of more debate?
My intent is not to rile anyone up. But these two questions have been ones that I have had for a long time and never had the chance to have anyone answer them.
As I have said before, a man's faith is intensely personal. It also seems to me that the question of faith has been mightily complicated by Men over the centuries to the point of making one wonder what is of man and what is of God. Perhaps the answer is much simpler and resides within each of us, regardless of all the argument. The smarter people get, the more they complicate things.
Post by: cordex on August 18, 2006, 06:51:15 AM
Quote
He claimed he was Messiah, so either he is a liar or was telling the truth. Or was insane or was telling the truth. Or he was truly a bad man, a demon, or was telling the truth. He cannot be a good prophet, a good man, a good teacher, a good anything if he is not who he says he is. Judaism, at the least, tolerates Christians and attempts to co-exist.
Did He really claim that, or did His followers make those claims after His death?How would you know?
(Answer: The same way you "know" that there is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet or that when God was giving health tips to his chosen people he really meant cloven hoof and not un-cloven hoof ... because you choose to trust a given set of ancient documents and group of people who tell you what those documents really mean.)
Quote
So the teaching that a Jew must die before being a Christian seems to raise the question that perhaps the conclusion drawn regarding death has been mininterpreted and is worthy of more debate?
I think these concepts are completely different. One is discussing which faith a Jew can convert to when the other choice is death. The other is discussing what is necessary either literally or symbolically to achieve salvation through Christ. No similarities, except for in times long past some Jews were threatened with death if they did not convert to Christianity and when they refused some professed Christians gleefully put them to death to "save" them.While I may not agree with Rabbi on everything, or even most things, he is arguing from a theologically sound position here, at least within the context of his own faith.
Post by: Guest on August 18, 2006, 06:58:35 AM
Quote
He claimed he was Messiah, so either he is a liar or was telling the truth. Or was insane or was telling the truth. Or he was truly a bad man, a demon, or was telling the truth. He cannot be a good prophet, a good man, a good teacher, a good anything if he is not who he says he is.
Not exactly the answer to your question, but Islam doesn't dispute he was the Messiah. It disputes that he was God incarnate. The two aren't necessarily the same thing.There are other options other than the ones you raised above but they'd open a whole 'nother can of worms and this thread is already somewhat contentious.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 07:32:26 AM
Quote from: grampster
Just out of curiosity...
It seems many practices in Judaism come out of debate between Rabbi's over time. My questions, since it appears the former has been said by The Rabbi in previous posts, is that Judaism is fluid, depending on ongoing debate. If that is so, here are my questions:
1. Why hasn't the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah been debated with the vigor that other issues have been over the centuries? I have been told that great debates have gone on over nits. This claim is certainly not a nit. He claimed he was Messiah, so either he is a liar or was telling the truth. Or was insane or was telling the truth. Or he was truly a bad man, a demon, or was telling the truth. He cannot be a good prophet, a good man, a good teacher, a good anything if he is not who he says he is. Judaism, at the least, tolerates Christians and attempts to co-exist. If Jews think today that Jesus is a blashphemer, why not come out and say so and lay down the case for blasphemy. Why bother to get along with Christians at all? Or why not have a serious debate about the possibility that he is who he says rather than rejecting the possibility out of hand with no serious debate. Debate, it appears, is what the Rabbi's do. In the post modern world, I think that would be worthy of consideration. If Jesus is who he claims, it posts no threat to Judaism; it fulfills the promise. How could that be bad?
It was treated with about as much thought as the idea that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon from an angel in mainstream Christian denominations.It seems many practices in Judaism come out of debate between Rabbi's over time. My questions, since it appears the former has been said by The Rabbi in previous posts, is that Judaism is fluid, depending on ongoing debate. If that is so, here are my questions:
1. Why hasn't the possibility of Jesus being the Messiah been debated with the vigor that other issues have been over the centuries? I have been told that great debates have gone on over nits. This claim is certainly not a nit. He claimed he was Messiah, so either he is a liar or was telling the truth. Or was insane or was telling the truth. Or he was truly a bad man, a demon, or was telling the truth. He cannot be a good prophet, a good man, a good teacher, a good anything if he is not who he says he is. Judaism, at the least, tolerates Christians and attempts to co-exist. If Jews think today that Jesus is a blashphemer, why not come out and say so and lay down the case for blasphemy. Why bother to get along with Christians at all? Or why not have a serious debate about the possibility that he is who he says rather than rejecting the possibility out of hand with no serious debate. Debate, it appears, is what the Rabbi's do. In the post modern world, I think that would be worthy of consideration. If Jesus is who he claims, it posts no threat to Judaism; it fulfills the promise. How could that be bad?
Really, we have a pretty good knowledge of what the messiah is supposed to do. And Jesus (again, assuming there was one historical person who matches what the Christian Bible says about him) didn't do any of those things.
As for claims, I read the book Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes, an Oxford scholar. I think he maintains there that claims for messiahship are a later invention.
The only debate among the rabbis was the point at which someone claiming to be a Christian could be excluded wholly from the Jewish people. For example, let's say you had Jewish couple who had a son and they were Christians. The father cannot be counted in a minyan at a synagogue, cannot be called for any honors, cannot testify in a court etc etc. But if the son disavows Christianity when he grows up then he is a regular Jew like anyone else. So the question is, at what point do you stop assuming a Jewish lineage and say that anyone claiming to be a Christian, absent other information, is prima facie a non-Jew.
The answer is that it happened fairly late, when Christianity was made up mostly of non-Jews.
But that was the only debate. As for depictions of Jesus, there is an interesting passage in the Talmud in Gittin on this that I am not going to post.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 18, 2006, 07:48:34 AM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
He claimed he was Messiah,
Did He really claim that, or did His followers make those claims after His death?How would you know?
(Answer: ... because you choose to trust a given set of ancient documents and group of people who tell you what those documents really mean.)
Post by: richyoung on August 18, 2006, 08:14:41 AM
Quote from: fistful
Yeah, that's right. The Apostles made up a religion so they could be martyrs to it.
...and reviled and alienated by the religion they had followed all their life. Forget all about that raising-the-dead, rising-from-the dead, water-into-wine, healing-the-sick stuff, that was all smoke and mirrors, despite hte eyewitness accounts to the contrary...
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 08:40:24 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: fistful
Yeah, that's right. The Apostles made up a religion so they could be martyrs to it.
...and reviled and alienated by the religion they had followed all their life. Forget all about that raising-the-dead, rising-from-the dead, water-into-wine, healing-the-sick stuff, that was all smoke and mirrors, despite hte eyewitness accounts to the contrary...What was the term for people taken in by carnival barkers hawking magic salves and all?
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 18, 2006, 09:57:33 AM
Luke 16.31
"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
Post by: Guest on August 18, 2006, 10:14:53 AM
This whole thread is disappointing, which in itself is disappointing because it would been a good opportunity to learn more about others faiths and/or religions and instead, its..just not.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 10:19:56 AM
Quote from: fistful
Rabbi, please. The man was as stone-dead as John Cleese's parrot. Three days ater he was alive. These are matters of fact, well-attested by history. And you equate that to snake oil?
Luke 16.31
"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
Big Furry Deal. Check 2 Kings 4:8-37 on the prophet Elisha reviving the child. A passage in the Talmud (I think Megilla) where one rabbi accidentally murders another one, prays, and the other one is revived. Again, we have a principle that we do not rely on miracles.Luke 16.31
"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
The magicians in Egypt were able to replicate almost all the "miracles" performed by Moses. We don't believe in them either. The prophet Bilaam was able to perform miracles and communicate with G-d. That doesn't make him worthy of anything, since he was wicked.
btw, what "history" attests to this? You only have the Gospel account. How many people actually saw him? I think more people have seen Elvis or Czar Nicholas II since they died. That doesn't make Elvis the messiah, just a hunka hunka burning love.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 18, 2006, 10:25:01 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 10:26:55 AM
Quote from: fistful
Why on earth does anyone need "independent verification" as if there were such a thing? The New Testament accounts are quite solid enough on their own. As I earlier implied, the people that had reason to know about this event were so convinced of His ressurection that they endured all manner of persecution and execution in order to preach it.
So did the Branch Davidians and the people in Jonestown. Just because someone is convinced of something doesn't make it true.
Post by: richyoung on August 18, 2006, 11:27:39 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Just because someone is convinced of something doesn't make it true.
Interesting. So then just because one is "convinced" that Jesus is NOT who he says he is, doesn't make it true. Also, just because someone is convinced of something, doesn't make it false, either. We seem to have reached an impass: if it hasn't been solved in 2000 years, it may remain a while longer. Still, it boggles my Gentile mind that a member of the Hebrew nation woulf "prefer" (to misuse a term) to convert to the same religion that is lobbing Katusha's full of ball-bearings and TNT into its cities than the dominant religion of the one major ally and supporter of Israel. Either way, it is a matter of no practical consequence: I can't imagine any modern situation where Christians would be trying to forcibly convert anybody: no man comes unto the Father but that the Spirit move him.
Post by: grampster on August 18, 2006, 11:43:25 AM
Whether the written record of those times or even of the times prior to Jesus being accurate? Well I have always thought that if there truly was a Supreme Being and He wanted a written and/or verbal record of His comings and goings, machinations and supernatural doings, then He certainly would be able to inspire those that He needed to do that chore to do it accurately. If that were not so, then ALL of the books about his comings and goings etc. are ALL suspect, including Jewish books. I've always held that God is not a trickster.
For someone to ascribe myth to Christian scripture and tradition, harms his own argument regarding books and tradition he holds to. Just what is correct? There was a guy Josh something or another that wrote a book called Evidence That Demands a Verdict which originally set out to disprove the merits of the bible by using every standard of accuracy available regarding books, documents and traditions. He was an atheist or an agnostic at best. When he finished his work, which took many years, he convinced himself of that accuracy.
Your comment regarding Joseph Smith really isn't germain as Christians were warned about new gospels. The Jews were looking for Messiah.
Again, faith is a matter of personal conviction. Each of us has a mind with which to consider things as well as other senses to sample the stew we call life. Then make a desision...or not.
Rabbi, I respect your faith and belief as well as your knowledge. I have long admired the Jews and Israel and its storied history and persistance. I can ask no more of you than to reciprocate. But that decision is up to you. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 18, 2006, 12:56:05 PM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: The Rabbi
Just because someone is convinced of something doesn't make it true.
Interesting. So then just because one is "convinced" that Jesus is NOT who he says he is, doesn't make it true. Also, just because someone is convinced of something, doesn't make it false, either. We seem to have reached an impass: if it hasn't been solved in 2000 years, it may remain a while longer. Still, it boggles my Gentile mind that a member of the Hebrew nation woulf "prefer" (to misuse a term) to convert to the same religion that is lobbing Katusha's full of ball-bearings and TNT into its cities than the dominant religion of the one major ally and supporter of Israel. Either way, it is a matter of no practical consequence: I can't imagine any modern situation where Christians would be trying to forcibly convert anybody: no man comes unto the Father but that the Spirit move him.I am sorry that your mind is boggled by the fact that Judaism reccognizes the monotheism of Islam and the pantheism of Christianity. WHatever some of the adherents of those religions are doing or not doing is irrelevant to how the system itself is viewed. Christians persecuted Jews far more throughout history than Muslims ever did. But even that is irrelevant.
This is not an attack on individuals and their beliefs. I get along with and have had better relations with devoted Christians than with atheists or non-practicing Jews. In my experience religious people tend to respect the lifestyles of other religious people and have similar concerns. That is a good basis for a working relationship. Arguing tenets of one's faith is not.
Post by: Guest on August 18, 2006, 01:02:11 PM
Not "getting" why Islam, as a religion, is less offensive to Jews than Christianity, is the best example. It's a flat out refusal to look at any viewpoint other than one's own as worthy of consideration. Constantly referring to the problems between Jews and Muslims isn't even part of the question. No one said Jews find Muslims less offensive than Christians..the statement was that the Jewish religion is less at odds with Islam than it is with Christianity. It has nothing to do with lobbing bombs, and everything to do with religious belief.
Post by: Guest on August 18, 2006, 01:03:44 PM
Post by: Stand_watie on August 18, 2006, 08:26:07 PM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
He claimed he was Messiah, so either he is a liar or was telling the truth. Or was insane or was telling the truth. Or he was truly a bad man, a demon, or was telling the truth. He cannot be a good prophet, a good man, a good teacher, a good anything if he is not who he says he is. Judaism, at the least, tolerates Christians and attempts to co-exist.
Did He really claim that, or did His followers make those claims after His death?How would you know?
(Answer: The same way you "know" that there is only one God and Mohammed is his prophet or that when God was giving health tips to his chosen people he really meant cloven hoof and not un-cloven hoof ... because you choose to trust a given set of ancient documents and group of people who tell you what those documents really mean.)...
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24Gd is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." 25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." 26Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."
Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living Gd." 17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven
b. Matthew 16:16 Or Messiah; also in verse 20
Luke 22
Jesus Before Pilate and Herod
66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. 67"If you are the Christ,[d]" they said, "tell us."
Jesus answered, "If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty Gd."70They all asked, "Are you then the Son of Gd?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." 71Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."
d. Luke 22:67 Or Messiah
Post by: Guest on August 19, 2006, 02:00:16 AM
Matthew 26:39 "And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' "
John 8:42 " Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."
Ezekiel 2:1 "And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee".
Act 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 19, 2006, 04:11:18 AM
Quote from: Barbara
Not "getting" why Islam, as a religion, is less offensive to Jews than Christianity, is the best example. It's a flat out refusal to look at any viewpoint other than one's own as worthy of consideration.
Hold on now, maybe some people just honestly don't understand it.Quote from: The Rabbi
I am sorry that your mind is boggled by the fact that Judaism reccognizes the monotheism of Islam and the pantheism of Christianity.
Pantheism? The charges of polytheism or idolatry I can understand, but pantheism is a horse of a different color. You misspoke, perhaps?Stand_watie,
I think cordex's point was that some of Jesus's claims in the Gospel may have been made up after his death and added to the Gospels. I don't agree with that, but pasting Bible verses isn't an argument, in this case.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 19, 2006, 05:04:56 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: fistful
As I earlier implied, the people that had reason to know about this event were so convinced of His ressurection that they endured all manner of persecution and execution in order to preach it.
So did the Branch Davidians and the people in Jonestown. Just because someone is convinced of something doesn't make it true.In the same way, modern jihadis are not in a position to know whether the Koran is a divinely-inspired book that orders them to kill children and other civilians. This is a major difference between bin Laden and Joshua. Joshua, after forty years with Moses, could have no doubt that the command to kill every man, woman, child and animal of the enemy was directly from the God that had the right to make such decisions. What proof hath bin Laden?
Quote from: The Rabbi
Check 2 Kings 4:8-37 on the prophet Elisha reviving the child. A passage in the Talmud (I think Megilla) where one rabbi accidentally murders another one, prays, and the other one is revived. Again, we have a principle that we do not rely on miracles.
The magicians in Egypt were able to replicate almost all the "miracles" performed by Moses. We don't believe in them either. The prophet Bilaam was able to perform miracles and communicate with G-d. That doesn't make him worthy of anything, since he was wicked.
btw, what "history" attests to this? You only have the Gospel account. How many people actually saw him? I think more people have seen Elvis or Czar Nicholas II since they died. That doesn't make Elvis the messiah, just a hunka hunka burning love.
Elisha - Did he claim divinity? Did he resurrect himself? If not, how is he relevant? The same can be said of this Talmudic account or of Balaam. And which of Pharoah's "magicians" was beaten, scourged half-to-death, crucified for six hours, speared in the side by Roman executioners to verify his death, then laid out in a tomb for three days (two and a half days by our modern reckoning) and then ressurected himself? The magicians in Egypt were able to replicate almost all the "miracles" performed by Moses. We don't believe in them either. The prophet Bilaam was able to perform miracles and communicate with G-d. That doesn't make him worthy of anything, since he was wicked.
btw, what "history" attests to this? You only have the Gospel account. How many people actually saw him? I think more people have seen Elvis or Czar Nicholas II since they died. That doesn't make Elvis the messiah, just a hunka hunka burning love.
I am curious, though. If you do not "rely on miracles" then do you rely on some other evidence for the truth of your beliefs? Or is Judaism even concerned about this?
What history, you ask? The Gospels are known for their historic accuracy, and if I am not mistaken, have a better provenance than the Tanach,** though of course I hold that also to be inspired and true. The other books of the NT are also considered by many historians to be accurate, based on objective standards, and also speak of Christ's ressurection. In one verse, Paul reports that Jesus was seen alive by 120 people, if that helps answer your question. I'm afraid I can't find it, though. I'll keep looking.
*Now, I'm not saying that Peter or I can prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but we can show that it is the best explanation for the facts of the case. On the other hand, the Jewish authorities attempting to quell the Christian sect should have been able to provide Jesus's dead body as proof, had they been correct.
**For that matter, the New Testament is more reliable as a historical document than any other document from the ancient world; if I am correctly informed.
Post by: Stand_watie on August 19, 2006, 06:36:30 AM
Quote from: fistful
Stand_watie,
I think cordex's point was that some of Jesus's claims in the Gospel may have been made up after his death and added to the Gospels. I don't agree with that, but pasting Bible verses isn't an argument, in this case.
What would you consider to be "an argument"?
I think cordex's point was that some of Jesus's claims in the Gospel may have been made up after his death and added to the Gospels. I don't agree with that, but pasting Bible verses isn't an argument, in this case.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 19, 2006, 07:36:48 AM
I want to first of all clarify that my point was that cordex called into question that Jesus really said the things that the Bible claims he said. Your response, apparently, was to supply some of the sayings under dispute, as if that settled things. If this wasn't your intent, I apoligize.
If someone like cordex doubts the integrity of the Gospel accounts, I guess the first step would be to explain the New Testament's reliability. That's probably too much to go into here, though, and we're probably not equipped to do it, unless we paste long selections from Strobel or McDowell, etc. It may be enough to simply point out that the biblical manuscripts are too early for so much "corruption" to have set in,* or that the apostles and other early leaders who would have known the truth would have gained little, and lost very much, by making up stories. It might be asked, "If the Biblical accounts had been tampered with, why leave in such embarrassing stuff as the female apostles seeing Jesus and believing before the men or the cowardice of Peter, the foremost leader of the church's early days.
Another approach would be to ask why Christ was sentenced to death, if not for claiming oneness with God.
By the way, what is your name all about?
*I think our earliest manuscripts date from the second century. The following link was too long for the window, so you'll need to cut and paste into the browser window.
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca
/~pietersm/Chester%20Beatty%20Papyri%20(ABD).pdf#search='chester%20beatty%20papyri'
Post by: Stand_watie on August 19, 2006, 04:39:03 PM
Quote from: fistful
Stand_watie,
I want to first of all clarify that my point was that cordex called into question that Jesus really said the things that the Bible claims he said. Your response, apparently, was to supply some of the sayings under dispute, as if that settled things. If this wasn't your intent, I apoligize..
No, you had it correct. I simply took Cordex's question as a question of what claims Jesus made, and cited relevant passages. I assume the discussion to be pointless from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe the veracity of the New Testament accounts.I want to first of all clarify that my point was that cordex called into question that Jesus really said the things that the Bible claims he said. Your response, apparently, was to supply some of the sayings under dispute, as if that settled things. If this wasn't your intent, I apoligize..
Regarding my username, it's just a tip of the hat to a prominent 19th century native American. Like most Americans of certain regions of the country I have traces of Indian ancestry in my family and like to try and keep alive the culture. Also, I'm amused without end by contradictory stereotypes and he provided a good example of one.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/watiebio.htm
Post by: Stand_watie on August 19, 2006, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: Barbara
Luke 5:16 "And he withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed to his God."
Matthew 26:39 "And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' "
John 8:42 " Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."
Ezekiel 2:1 "And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee".
Act 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"
Barbara, to whom was your post adressed? Did I miss a post, or was this an aside as to whether or not Jesus claimed to be the Messiah? Could you tell me the specific Bible version that the Luke 5:16 citation is from?
Matthew 26:39 "And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.' "
John 8:42 " Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."
Ezekiel 2:1 "And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee".
Act 2:22 "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know"
Post by: Ezekiel's_Buddy on August 20, 2006, 02:17:59 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: cosine
I've been pretty annoyed at something things lately posted in this thread, but that's no reason to abandon the high road...
Somehow I have a feeling we wont be hearing from him again.Post by: Guest on August 20, 2006, 02:38:59 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on August 20, 2006, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: Barbara
Presumably he was banned for not being able to disagree without calling other people names, not for being anti-anything.
Barbara, don't feed the trolls.
Post by: Guest on August 20, 2006, 04:17:50 PM
Post by: cosine on August 20, 2006, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: The Rabbi
...don't feed the trolls.
It's hard not to sometimes. *sigh* I've actually enjoyed this thread. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread in a calm, mature manner. I have learned a lot, even if tempers have been raised occasionally.
Post by: cordex on August 21, 2006, 05:37:04 AM
Quote
I assume the discussion to be pointless from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe the veracity of the New Testament accounts.
That is exactly my point.I was replying to Grampster's post in which he questioned why some non-Christians could recognize Jesus as a respected teacher or even a prophet but not divine. His contention was that because Jesus makes claims about his own divine nature that people should either believe that he was in fact the Son of the Most High, or he was a liar. However - as you say - if someone doesn't believe the veracity of the New Testament accounts, trying to refer to those accounts to prove anything is essentially pointless.
Post by: richyoung on August 21, 2006, 06:06:23 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
I am sorry that your mind is boggled by the fact that Judaism reccognizes the monotheism of Islam ...
I don't "recognize" the monotheism of Islam because there isn't any. "Allah" is/was ONE of the tribal Arabian gods, a Moon god and a god of war. (Guess whats on top of each mosque....AND on most Arabian flags?) Mohammad took an existing god, one of many, added in a meteorite and some Jewish and Christian window dressing, and oila, he had his own religion, just like Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 21, 2006, 06:47:27 AM
Post by: Stand_watie on August 21, 2006, 07:24:07 AM
Quote from: cordex
Quote
I assume the discussion to be pointless from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe the veracity of the New Testament accounts.
That is exactly my point.I was replying to Grampster's post in which he questioned why some non-Christians could recognize Jesus as a respected teacher or even a prophet but not divine. His contention was that because Jesus makes claims about his own divine nature that people should either believe that he was in fact the Son of the Most High, or he was a liar. However - as you say - if someone doesn't believe the veracity of the New Testament accounts, trying to refer to those accounts to prove anything is essentially pointless.
But then that is the nature of ancient religious writings. Discard the source material and you're not left with much to discuss.
Post by: richyoung on August 21, 2006, 08:06:11 AM
Quote from: fistful
rich, what does that have to do with Islam's monotheism or lack thereof?
Its origins are in the pantheistic tribal arabian religions, NOT a montotheistic heritage.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 21, 2006, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: fistful
rich, what does that have to do with Islam's monotheism or lack thereof?
Its origins are in the pantheistic tribal arabian religions, NOT a montotheistic heritage.Post by: Perd Hapley on August 21, 2006, 09:58:57 AM
Post by: Ezekiel's_Buddy on August 21, 2006, 10:48:13 AM
Quote from: Barbara
Presumably he was banned for not being able to disagree without calling other people names, not for being anti-anything.
I could ask him. He does not seem to care but he did talk about nobody telling him anything. He was like this when we were in graduate school together but he was right a lot.
Post by: Ezekiel's_Buddy on August 21, 2006, 10:51:44 AM
Quote from: cosine
Quote from: The Rabbi
...don't feed the trolls.
It's hard not to sometimes. *sigh* I've actually enjoyed this thread. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread in a calm, mature manner. I have learned a lot, even if tempers have been raised occasionally.
Post by: Ezekiel on March 03, 2007, 09:00:26 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2007, 10:19:36 AM
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=6077.msg94452#msg94452
Post by: SkunkApe on March 03, 2007, 12:40:55 PM
Post by: slzy on March 03, 2007, 05:27:28 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 06, 2007, 06:23:38 AM
Quote
Yes, those damn Jews ought to stop whining and get on with it.
We are in literal agreement.
There was nothing new or unique about the final solution. Ezekiel is right in that other victims need a far better publicist. Note that even the accepted term today is a jewish word, thereby tacitly laying claim of ownership.
To answer Art's points, an outside observer may indeed perceive that jews were productive loyal citizens, but that was not the stance of the nazi state. To Hitler's reich, they were a pernicious internal enemy on racial, political, and economic grounds. The state viewed them as a huge security problem which has to be addressed. In that sense, it is no different than Stalin's state killing off Ukrainians and Cossacks by artificially caused famines, again as political and economic enemies of the state. It is also known that Stalin as a Georgian had a deep-seated contempt and hatred for Russians, and some attribute his cavalier attitude to their lives to his desire to see them killed.
Generally, slaughter on ethnic grounds is nothing new in human history. RichYoung gave plenty of relevant examples. Whether it is done by an industrial nation or a barbarian nation makes no difference - in both cases one group of humans wants to eliminate another. I at least do not see why technological advancement would ameliorate the genocidal tendencies of Homo Sapiens. If anything, it would facilitate them.
Rabbi mentioned someplace in this thread that the elimination of the European jews was part of a plan for total elimination. I would agree if we are talking about 1942 and Himmler's & co. plans. But, at least I have read of no evidence that that was Hitler's intention since the get-go. I don't remember anything to that effect in Mein Kampf, although his contempt for jews is clear. It is my belief that extermination was tabled due to the logistic impossibility of policing millions of perceived internal enemies, as well as in an attempt to mete retribution for the war dragging on and killing German soldiers due to perceived international jewish conspiracies.
Overall, IMO the significance of the Final Solution is furiously spun and wielded like a political club, especially by pro-jewish groups.
Post by: Ezekiel on March 06, 2007, 07:32:06 AM
Quote
Overall, IMO the significance of the Final Solution is furiously spun and wielded like a political club, especially by pro-jewish groups.
I couldn't agree more.
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2007, 08:54:51 AM
Wow, I have not clicked on this thread, lo these many months and I miss out on one of the more interesting discussions.
Perhaps I can help with some of the more awkard questions.
Unrequited Philosemetism
What many Christians* do not understand is that a whole lot of orthodox Jews really do not like Christians and Christianity. TR has alluded to this, without coming out & writing it. All one has to do is take a gander at some of the big boys' writings TR mentioned earlier. Not many kind things and many unkind things were written about Christianity by the rabbis of note after exile. One might think, "Hey, look how they were treated by some Christians...THAT's why they have a chip on thier shoulder." Oh, I have no doubt that is some part of some individuals' sentiments, but the anti-Christian point of view is entirely supported by a reading of the materials outside of any ill treatment by Christians.
This dislike manifests itself more openly nowadays, since the secuirty of the Jewish ethnic group and orthodox Judaism is at a high point in history, given the populations in Israel & the USA. Most, however, are sharp enough to not alienate potential allies (in their support of Israel) and others maintain a lower profile due to survival behaviors learned over time. Thus, verbal circumlocutions and demurrals are often resorted to in interfaith dialog (on both sides).
Others are not so worried about giving offense. FWIW, roughly 2/3 of the Israelis who I also knew were orthodox Jews have openly expressed such sentiments in no uncertain and quite colorful language in my presence. This is not a statistically valid sample, obviously, but serves as an example.
One last note. Just because a particular religion is held in low regard by another in its scriptures & commentaries, is not determinative of any individual's predilictions. Also, there are several interfaith groups that work to forward causes dear to both orthodox Christianity and orthodox Judaism. Folks & organizations can and do look past such obstacles.
To generalize, folks who take their faith seriously often have similar habits, POVs, etc. in other areas and can get along quite swimmingly, if each can manage to be civil on faith matters.
When the Other Option Is Persection...
Why have Jews "tolerated" living around Christians? They had no other choice, since the Romans went after them, hammer & tongs & sent them packing. A religious/cultural minority is not in a position to dictate terms to the majority.
* Especially evangelicals with the fairly recent (developed in late 1800s) pre-millenarian eschatology (ie., folks to whom the Left Behind books are correct in their general eschatology).
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2007, 08:57:57 AM
People used to tell me, "scratch a goy" and I never believed them. What an eye-opener.
Wow is all I can say.
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2007, 09:03:42 AM
gunsmith posted:
He surely was not a classical liberal and not even a 20th-century liberal.Quote
Well thats because Stalin did it, it's ok to kill millions if you have a liberal agenda.
Stalin was a communist, not a liberal.Thing is, many 20th -century liberals ascribed to the view, "No enemies to the left*," and refused to criticize to oppose him.
Thus, they get to own him to some extent. See Walter Duranty & the NYT for a case in point. Also, the liberal attitudes toward involvement in WWII are very instructive. Anti-war...until the USSR is faced with annihilation...then they beat the drums for he USA to get involved to save their mustacioed lefty.
* Still operative late in the 20th century, as the liberal "Sandalistas" found in Ortega their darling lefty.
Post by: Ezekiel on March 06, 2007, 09:08:28 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2007, 09:11:47 AM
Wow.
People used to tell me, "scratch a goy" and I never believed them. What an eye-opener.
Wow is all I can say.
Yep, it is true some of the time. I think I addressed the other side of the coin above.People used to tell me, "scratch a goy" and I never believed them. What an eye-opener.
Wow is all I can say.
Humanity will never entirely eradicate dis-favor toward out-groups and favor toward in-groups. Every act & attitude that strives toward equality & decent treatment of the "other*" is a triumph over our corrupt human nature.
* However one defines "other"
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 06, 2007, 09:55:18 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 06, 2007, 10:24:03 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2007, 10:25:39 AM
As to the 6 millions figure, I am convinced the number supported by the data is near enough to that number that "6 million" serves just fine.
I also beleive that facts and accuracy matters, so foks who deny the approximate number in the face of supporting facts best have some other facts to support their contention.
Other Nazi Victims
Yep, they often have had short shrift. Ezekiel has written of marketing, as if it is a bad thing. I don't see it as such. Ignorance of widespread atrocity is not a good thing. In marketing, as in all pursuits, some will be more effective than others.
The only tme I get sore is when some of the ADL types scream "anti-semetism" as a response to legitimate criticism or debate. That gets old and undermines Abe Foxman's credibility.
Uniqueness of Holocaust
I think Art write what is close to my POV.
The power of film and the sheer magnitude of the atrocity was unique.
There are many other mass-killings in history that can be compared to the capital "H" Holocaust in ways: proportion, utility, race, religion, economics, potential threat, etc. There are reasons the Holocaust stands out.
- Magnitude. At 6 million, it was less in absolute numbers than Stalin's & Mao's killings and a smaller proportion of the countries' populations than Pol Pot's killings, but Stalin, Mao, & Pol Pot had folks in our country/culture playing interference for them. To The American public, the Holocaust was the biggest & baddest to date.
- Visibility. We did not have film footage of Stalin's purges & terror-famines. The power of film seared the Holocaust images on to folks' minds. Ezekiel's marketing played a part, too.
- Guilt. All the countries that could have taken in refugees, but didn't, had call for shame.
- Sytematic. In Rawanda, the Hutus butchered ~800K Tutsis over a matter of weeks with machetes. Their rate of killing exceeded the Nazi's. What the Nazis had, though, was a bureaucracy dedicated to the systematic butchering of non-combatant humans. Despite Ezekiel's claims that the USA did something similar, this is unique.
- European/"Civilized" Perpetrator. Germany was a participant in the Enlightenment and was second only to the USA in industrial capacity. Yeah, anti-semitism was ubiquitous in Europe, but denying a Jew entrance into the toniest clubs is not on the same plane as genocide. I think folks were shocked that such a thing was perpetrated by a euopean power on the european continent. Recall back to the European cries about Serbian enthic cleansing "on the continent of Europe" back in the 1990s.
---
Anyway, thats my $0.02 on the OP.
Post by: De Selby on March 06, 2007, 11:45:59 AM
If you think that other atrocities were just as bad, the proper response is to increase awareness of and revulsion to those atrocities....not to compare them to the Nazi genocide for the purpose of declaring it "nothing special."
The fact that genocide has happened more than once isn't a legitimate reason for accusing victims and those sympathetic to victims of the roughly 2000 year long attempted-annihilation of Jews of "marketing" the holocaust.
It was without qualification equal to the worst of crimes ever perpetrated against humanity. I think there can be legitimate criticism of holocaust memorial narratives in politics (I don't think Norman Finkelstein is an evil man, for example...he has some legitimate gripes), but most of it isn't. Most of the criticism is very thinly masked "Jews are controlling our media for their benefit!" language.
Post by: richyoung on March 06, 2007, 11:46:30 AM
Heat & light in one thread!
Wow, I have not clicked on this thread, lo these many months and I miss out on one of the more interesting discussions.
Perhaps I can help with some of the more awkard questions.
Unrequited Philosemetism
What many Christians* do not understand is that a whole lot of orthodox Jews really do not like Christians and Christianity.
Wow, I have not clicked on this thread, lo these many months and I miss out on one of the more interesting discussions.
Perhaps I can help with some of the more awkard questions.
Unrequited Philosemetism
What many Christians* do not understand is that a whole lot of orthodox Jews really do not like Christians and Christianity.
Interesting. In your opinion, doies this attitude contribute to incidents such as the Lavan affair, the attack on the Liberty, expionage, etc?
Post by: richyoung on March 06, 2007, 11:49:22 AM
It was without qualification equal to the worst of crimes ever perpetrated against humanity.
I don't think you can defend that position, in either absolute or relative terms. Neither in nature, duration, motivation, nor magnitude does it compare to similar events already listed in this thread.
Post by: De Selby on March 06, 2007, 12:03:27 PM
Let's see:
An industrialized campaign to wipe out an entire religion and ethnic group. Killed 6 million people. That 6 million represented a huge portion of the total population of that group.
How exactly can you do worse?
Post by: French G. on March 06, 2007, 12:48:42 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2007, 12:49:37 PM
If you care to look back a few pages, you will find I listed many reasons why the Holocaust was worse, the ones you gave among them. I mentioned both the level of civilization of Germany in the 1930s, the lack of any gain to the Nazis by their actions (indeed, the extermination tied up valuable rolling stock they could have used in the war effort), the thoroughness of the exploit, the lack of concern among the rest of the world, etc etc etc.
Richyoung attempted to refute all of these cogent points with arguments of the most trivial nature, none of them persuasive.
You are wasting your time.
Post by: De Selby on March 06, 2007, 01:03:22 PM
I guess what's interesting to me mostly is the conclusions that these "other holocausts" arguments lead to. Instead of concluding "We should be as shocked at Pol Pot as we are at what Hitler did!", then\y tend to conclude "We should not be as shocked with either Hitler or Pol Pot."
The endgame of this is to revise history so that people start to think that Nazism isn't as bad as we thought it was. In that sense, the "Holocaust wasn't special" crowd are on the same page as Holocaust deniers (even if they use a slightly less ridiculous method): to reduce the level of disgust with Nazism.
So here's my question to everyone who wants to come up with this or that argument that the holocaust wasn't special: Are you really convinced that Nazism wasn't that bad? Or that it's possible to overstate how bad it was?
Considering that you're making an argument to downgrade the level of evil ascribed to Nazism...could those of you who defend these points understand how others might be suspicious of your motives?
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 06, 2007, 01:09:06 PM
Yes, there is much use of the media to publicize the Final Solution, especially by film-makers and show hosts in exactly the false uniqueness POV others mentioned above. It is certainly abused to garner extra favor and squash political and cultural opposition, especially in cases where support for Israel or leftism is the transparent goal. To deny that is quite entertaining indeed.
It is certainly possible to overstate how bad nazism was, just as it is possible to overstate anything. Nazism was useful to western civilization as a counterweight to communism and should have been used as such. Comrade Roosevelt and a few senile elitist wankers in Britain thought otherwise, thereby delivering half of Europe to communism and ensuring internal leftist decay and a 50-year cold war. Nazism would not have lasted beyond Hitler's death and could be far more easily contained in the political arena. Instead of realizing this, we are daily fed bs about how defeating nazism was the obvious highest priority and the best move (generally by closet leftists).
Post by: De Selby on March 06, 2007, 01:14:15 PM
Even accepting your premise that Jews are controlling the media (there's a biggie),
What on earth connection does "The holocaust is used in debates about Israel" have to level of evil involved in the holocaust?
There is simply no logical relationship between the two. The fact that Al Sharpton mentions slavery on a television program does not make slavery any more or less evil. Likewise, the fact that the culmination of Europe's hatred for Jews comes into debates about Israel today has absolutey zero impact on a discussion about how evil the holocaust was.
The only possible reason for connecting judgments about the moral evil of the holocaust and political discussions today is if you have your own agenda....and that's what I'm point to here.
If you look at the "holocaust wasn't special" and "Jews control the media" people, usually their arguments have little to do with the holocaust and more to do with anti-semitic delusions of Jews controlling and robbing them today.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2007, 01:17:15 PM
It's true: we really do control the media. And the banks. And the gov't. Now bring me all your money and white women....
Post by: Iain on March 06, 2007, 01:18:19 PM
especially in cases where support for Israel or leftism is the transparent goal. To deny that is quite entertaining indeed.
And here I was thinking that the left was all anti-semitic and stuff.
"There was an intensity of positive hatred in those who planned the genocide, which was not matched in the Stalinist exterminations." Jonathan Glover
Mention of Stalin strikes at the crux of the issue for me. 'Uniqueness' claims for the Holocaust are seen by some as undermining to the horrors of Stalin, interpreted as deliberately doing so, interpreted as support for Stalin, an attempt to over play Hitler so as to cast a shadow over Uncle Joe.
Post by: De Selby on March 06, 2007, 01:28:37 PM
Do I get a 10 percent cut for collaborating with the worldwide trilateral conspiracy?
This is really amusing. "We're not anti-semites, we just think Jews are controlling the media and promoting the holocaust in order to perpetuate their control and theft schemes."
Translation: "I'm not an anti-semite, I just think Jews are evil." It's a depressing absurdity.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 06, 2007, 01:29:45 PM
Quote
If you look at the "holocaust wasn't special" and "Jews control the media" people, usually their arguments have little to do with the holocaust and more to do with anti-semitic delusions of Jews controlling and robbing them today.
They are welcome to their own delusions. It is their right to believe it, just as it is yours to dismiss everything they say, because some of it is ridiculously nutty.
The political connection is hard to deny. The consistent portrayal of the final solution as something special is aimed at garnering pity and support of jewish groups, because they are to be considered the innocent victims and thus accorded special treatment.
In terms of foreign policy, the final solution was used as an excuse to displace arabs and help found modern Israel, while support for it is also offered on grounds of prevention of an arab version of the final solution. Every time some nitwit blows himself up in Israel, parallels are immediately drawn to the nazis on basis of hatred, so the arabs are automatically the bad guys, and we are locked into supporting Israel, whether it is to our national benefit or not.
In terms of individual behavior, many use their ethnicity as a career vehicle and an offensive tool, because if anybody dislikes them for who they are as individuals, it must be it is because they are anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is freely thrown as an accusation and discrediting attack way too often. That would not be the case if everybody cut the crap and recognized there was nothing special about it.
By simple comparison, I do not run around demanding special attention or special treatment because my European ancestors survived countless wars, horrors, injustices, and pestilence over the centuries there. Neither can I or do I whack people that dislike me for me with things like "Well, you are clearly an anti-white bigot and should be ashamed of yourself. Don't you know how much my people have suffered??"
It is all bullcrap and cheap leftist mindtricks.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2007, 01:38:54 PM
Rabbi,
Do I get a 10 percent cut for collaborating with the worldwide trilateral conspiracy?
This is really amusing. "We're not anti-semites, we just think Jews are controlling the media and promoting the holocaust in order to perpetuate their control and theft schemes."
Translation: "I'm not an anti-semite, I just think Jews are evil." It's a depressing absurdity.
Do I get a 10 percent cut for collaborating with the worldwide trilateral conspiracy?
This is really amusing. "We're not anti-semites, we just think Jews are controlling the media and promoting the holocaust in order to perpetuate their control and theft schemes."
Translation: "I'm not an anti-semite, I just think Jews are evil." It's a depressing absurdity.
For a small fee I could issue you a card as a fellow traveler in the conspiracy. For a little more money we could even get you classified as a Neo-Con.
More seriously, you are right: the kinds of sentiments you are seeing expressed here, on a website founded by a Jew who lost many family members in the Holocaust no less, are classic anti-Semitism. Attempts to dismiss this obvious truth by calling it PC-ness are laughable. There is nothing PC about it: whether someone chooses to deny the Holocaust or deny the significance of the Holocaust or to claim that the Holocaust is used exclusively to badger other parties for special treatment of one kind or another stems, imo, from anti-Semitism and no other source.
Next I expect the "but some of my best friends" line and "I knew a Jew once" both famous old chestnuts.
Post by: Mannlicher on March 06, 2007, 03:34:43 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 06, 2007, 04:05:30 PM
Quote
Translation: "I'm not an anti-semite, I just think Jews are evil." It's a depressing absurdity.
Nice try. Nobody is fooled. Your underlying absurdity is: "If you criticize some jews, you obviously hate all jews, and for no other reason than that they are jews."
More freakalogic:"A claims B, C claims B,D,F. Therefore A=C. Don't pay attention to B."
My hat off to the Rabbi as well, for putting all that disagree with him in a nice big bin, and throwing in the personal emotional twister as well for extra effect. Masterfully done.
Thank you both for providing ample example (in the very same thread nonetheless) for the exact methods I criticized. This is absolutely priceless.
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2007, 04:13:38 PM
Heat & light in one thread!
Wow, I have not clicked on this thread, lo these many months and I miss out on one of the more interesting discussions.
Perhaps I can help with some of the more awkard questions.
Unrequited Philosemetism
What many Christians* do not understand is that a whole lot of orthodox Jews really do not like Christians and Christianity.
Wow, I have not clicked on this thread, lo these many months and I miss out on one of the more interesting discussions.
Perhaps I can help with some of the more awkard questions.
Unrequited Philosemetism
What many Christians* do not understand is that a whole lot of orthodox Jews really do not like Christians and Christianity.
Interesting. In your opinion, doies this attitude contribute to incidents such as the Lavan affair, the attack on the Liberty, expionage, etc?
I'd say both were screwups by Israel gov't & institutions and those who comprised them. Sure, I'd bet some of the actors had anti-christian sentiment and perhaps tried to influence policy. In the end, Israel persued what it thought its interest in both cases, IMO. What should be noted is that American and Israeli interests are not identical. Sometimes they coincide, but we must always be cognizant that we pay a price in blood and dollars and influence for our moral support of Israel.
The Lavan mess was obviously an amoral attempt to influence (US & UK) policy in Israel's favor. I would hope that the bungled nature of the operation and the following ill effects on Israel & Egyptian jewry would put to rest the myth that Israeli intel is some sort of super-competent organization.
The Liberty mess is most easily explained as a (sort-of) friendly fire screwup. The respective governemnts sure did their level best to reinforce that conclusion. I have heard rumblings about it being a cover-up due to the Liberty sniffing out some elint unfavorable to Israel, but I have not seen hard data. Unless/Until that data emerges, I will stick with the simplest solution.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 06, 2007, 04:28:47 PM
Quote
one or one million, or 6, or 14 million. Does it make a difference? Do you feel it necessary to quantify the exact number of dead Jews, Gypsys, Homosexuals, political dissidents and just plain unlucky folks that died in the Nazi Concentration camps?
Ah, young grasshoper, if we do not do skull arithmetic, how can we establish who owns the moral highground for political battles? If we recognize that all victims died equal, then even the 6 million jews are dwarfed by the 27 million soviet citizens and 11 million Germans that also perished. We are also not to discuss that more people were killed by allied bombings of Dresden and Hamburg alone than in some of the concentration camps. Somehow we do not see many Oscar-winner movies about those two groups. Oh, I know, they deserved it. Heh.
Post by: roo_ster on March 06, 2007, 04:45:11 PM
Cry wolf enough times & when a real wolf comes to town, watch everyone yawn and say, "Jeez, not this **** again!"
I'm thinking that insensitivity; lack of reverence for someone else's Gods, idols, or beliefs; or resentment that one's own ethnic group got shorted in recognition of its sufferings can cover the more adversarial postings just fine without having to resort to self-discrediting accusations.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 06, 2007, 07:03:29 PM
Quote
I mentioned both the level of civilization of Germany in the 1930s, the lack of any gain to the Nazis by their actions...
That latter claim is open to argument.
There is a current bookn out (and it isn't a voice in the wilderness) that posits, fairly successfully according to the NYT book review, that it was the wholesale theft of Jewish businesses, homes, wealth and belongings that made Nazism economically and politically possible. Without the wholesale theft, they couldn't maintain the welfare state that kept the German people bought and paid for with jobs, bread and circuses and thus kept them in power. If that theory is true even in part, the cost of rolling stock is not an expense without return but rather an operating cost of the theft scheme.
Although objectively the rolling stock could have been used more efficiently to, say, win the freaking war, but the Nazi's made a lot of bad calculations like that.
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 06, 2007, 08:32:41 PM
We can "guesstimate" how many people Stalin killed. But the Nazi party pretty much has solid records.
One can play the Moral Relativism card by saying "Stalin did this" or "Pol Pot did that," or the Hunu's did this to the Chunu's.
But, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been an entire industry--yes, industry--set up by a government to slaughter people. These were not drive-by shootings. These were literally factories that were built to kill. Their CEO's were judged not on profits, but upon the efficiency of the killing.
This was depravity on a scale mankind had never seen before, and hopefully will never see again.
Anyone who says that, "oh, O'l Hitler, well, he was kinda like Stalin" just doesn't get it.
It's not the numbers. It's the dedicated system, the hierarchy, the purposelfullness.
It's Henry Ford's idea of mass production combined with the most murderous regimes in world history.
If that doesn't make the Holocaust something of special meaning, I don't know what does.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 02:16:37 AM
Quote
I mentioned both the level of civilization of Germany in the 1930s, the lack of any gain to the Nazis by their actions...
That latter claim is open to argument.
There is a current bookn out (and it isn't a voice in the wilderness) that posits, fairly successfully according to the NYT book review, that it was the wholesale theft of Jewish businesses, homes, wealth and belongings that made Nazism economically and politically possible. Without the wholesale theft, they couldn't maintain the welfare state that kept the German people bought and paid for with jobs, bread and circuses and thus kept them in power. If that theory is true even in part, the cost of rolling stock is not an expense without return but rather an operating cost of the theft scheme.
Although objectively the rolling stock could have been used more efficiently to, say, win the freaking war, but the Nazi's made a lot of bad calculations like that.
I knew someone would play that song.
Perhaps in the short run that was true (and we're talking maybe 8 years at most). Over the longer term, the Nazis effectively destroyed their entire culture. If one looks at the position of Germany in say 1925 in regard to arts, mathematics, science, medicine, etc etc and then what it was at any point after the war, including today, there is no comparison. They chased away or killed their most productive and brightest citizens, both Jews and non-Jews. Concurrently, there isn't a single academic field in the US or Britain that did not gain immeasurably by the addition of German refugees.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 07, 2007, 04:15:28 AM
Quote
If one looks at the position of Germany in say 1925 in regard to arts, mathematics, science, medicine, etc etc and then what it was at any point after the war, including today, there is no comparison. They chased away or killed their most productive and brightest citizens, both Jews and non-Jews. Concurrently, there isn't a single academic field in the US or Britain that did not gain immeasurably by the addition of German refugees.
Let's not forget "the most productive and brightest" that perished fighting from the Atlantic to Volga and from Norway to Egypt, and those the allies murdered in their homes from above. Also let's not forget the massive post-war exodus, running away from the Soviets or just seeking a better life in Canada and the US. Finally, let's not forget Mission Alsos and the ones kidnapped, so they do not fall in Soviet hands. No worries, I have come to expect selective memory.
Quote
But, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been an entire industry--yes, industry--set up by a government to slaughter people.
Then I encourage you to read "The GULag Archipelago" by Solzhenitzin.
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 04:33:55 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 07, 2007, 08:43:06 AM
I knew someone would play that song.
Perhaps in the short run that was true (and we're talking maybe 8 years at most). Over the longer term, the Nazis effectively destroyed their entire culture. If one looks at the position of Germany in say 1925 in regard to arts, mathematics, science, medicine, etc etc and then what it was at any point after the war, including today, there is no comparison. They chased away or killed their most productive and brightest citizens, both Jews and non-Jews. Concurrently, there isn't a single academic field in the US or Britain that did not gain immeasurably by the addition of German refugees.
I knew someone would play that song?
What the hell kind of comment is that?
Excuse the hell out of me for mentioning an apparently valid historical-economic position which appears to be supported by multiple non-anti-semetic, non-Holocaust-denying, non-axe-to-grind historians.
I'm sure the complete position contains enough nuance to differentiate short-term gains versus long-term losses, but feel free to act all supercilious.
Just off the top of my head and using plain old logic AND looking objectively.
Let's say we start with the apparent Nazi belief that the Jewish scientists, artists, doctors et al really were sub-human and had nothing to offer that the good Aryan types couldn't (eventually) provide. If they truly had that belief (and there's no reason to believe they didn't), then they would have had no reason to predict the massive loss to their country that would result in the long term.
Thus their short-term choices of death, theft and exile would have been internally consistant with their ethnic superiority position. Due to the war, there's no reason to believe they even had a glimmer of what they lost, until maybe when they realized how badly they needed the Jewish physicists to work on the bomb.
The argument is that the Nazi's thought the massive theft made sense and thus explains their choices, not that it actually did make sense or was correct or wise long term.
Post by: Ezekiel on March 07, 2007, 08:49:57 AM
Quote
Whew! I haven't seen that much (over) playing of the anti-semitism card in a good, long while.
Concur.
At least they're being open about it, now.
Quote
the kinds of sentiments you are seeing expressed here, on a website founded by a Jew who lost many family members in the Holocaust no less, are classic anti-Semitism.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry... This is a statement of such absurdity...
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 09:43:11 AM
I knew someone would play that song.
Perhaps in the short run that was true (and we're talking maybe 8 years at most). Over the longer term, the Nazis effectively destroyed their entire culture. If one looks at the position of Germany in say 1925 in regard to arts, mathematics, science, medicine, etc etc and then what it was at any point after the war, including today, there is no comparison. They chased away or killed their most productive and brightest citizens, both Jews and non-Jews. Concurrently, there isn't a single academic field in the US or Britain that did not gain immeasurably by the addition of German refugees.
I knew someone would play that song?
What the hell kind of comment is that?
Excuse the hell out of me for mentioning an apparently valid historical-economic position which appears to be supported by multiple non-anti-semetic, non-Holocaust-denying, non-axe-to-grind historians.
I'm sure the complete position contains enough nuance to differentiate short-term gains versus long-term losses, but feel free to act all supercilious.
Just off the top of my head and using plain old logic AND looking objectively.
Let's say we start with the apparent Nazi belief that the Jewish scientists, artists, doctors et al really were sub-human and had nothing to offer that the good Aryan types couldn't (eventually) provide. If they truly had that belief (and there's no reason to believe they didn't), then they would have had no reason to predict the massive loss to their country that would result in the long term.
Thus their short-term choices of death, theft and exile would have been internally consistant with their ethnic superiority position. Due to the war, there's no reason to believe they even had a glimmer of what they lost, until maybe when they realized how badly they needed the Jewish physicists to work on the bomb.
The argument is that the Nazi's thought the massive theft made sense and thus explains their choices, not that it actually did make sense or was correct or wise long term.
And as I thought about it more, that theory only deals with Nazi actions towards German Jews. They only made up about 2% of the population. They were hardly wealthy, although some members were.
It does not explain the actions towards the rest of European Jewry, most of whom were poor with little possessions.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 07, 2007, 10:10:03 AM
Quote
I knew someone would play that song?
What the hell kind of comment is that?
What the hell kind of comment is that?
It is the perfect demagogic kind - maximally emoting, baiting, insubstantive, and irrefutable. Watch and learn, young grasshoper. We have a true master here. Hehehe.
What does it matter if the jews had stuff to confiscate or not? It the eyes of the nazi state, they were a mortal enemy. If you displace or liquidate an enemy, it is natural to confiscate his property as partial reparation for damages incurred. We have no reason to believe that the nazis went after the jews because they wanted jewish property. The mentioned book at best can establish that confiscations were a profitable business, which is no surprise. My assumption would be the value of the book is that it shows the actual numbers.
I have also read that the nazis confiscated significant amounts of gold reserves from the conquered countries and laundered them through the Swiss to buy raw materials for their war machine. It is difficult to use that fact as the motivation for the nazis invading those countries.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 11:34:47 AM
Post by: French G. on March 07, 2007, 12:52:20 PM
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 12:55:59 PM
It matters because you have to ask what the motivation was to do something that not only did not help their war effort, but actually impeded it.
What effect did Stalin;s purge of his officer corps in 1937 have on the performance of his military when Germany invaded?
Quote
Most genocides take place when one party sees an advantage to committing genocide to another. In the case of the Turks against the Armenians, or Stalin against the Ukrainians the purpose is to quell a troublesome minority. Here there was no purpose beyond Nazi ideology. That is one factor making it unique.
When they stand you up against the wall, does "why?" really matter? Is there any "good" or "less evil" reason for such madness?
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 12:56:44 PM
Can we agree on something? It was a horrendous atrocity as was Stalin, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Darfur, etc, etc, ad nauseum. All perpetuated by the holders of state power. We as a nation are periously close to disarming ourselves. Perhaps we should remember all of these as we forever reserve the right to shoot the bastards. Hopefully in our time we will not deny what is happening until we have no choice other than to get on the train. When in doubt, shoot a tyrant.
+1. Amen.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 01:40:56 PM
It matters because you have to ask what the motivation was to do something that not only did not help their war effort, but actually impeded it.
What effect did Stalin;s purge of his officer corps in 1937 have on the performance of his military when Germany invaded?
Quote
Most genocides take place when one party sees an advantage to committing genocide to another. In the case of the Turks against the Armenians, or Stalin against the Ukrainians the purpose is to quell a troublesome minority. Here there was no purpose beyond Nazi ideology. That is one factor making it unique.
When they stand you up against the wall, does "why?" really matter? Is there any "good" or "less evil" reason for such madness?
Huh?
Stalin's purge happened years before the Nazi invasion. What does that have to do with anything?
No one is standing anyone else against the wall here. Yes, there is a more evil and less evil reason for the same reason that killing someone to get something valuable is at least perceived as a whole lot less evil than killing someone because he looked at you wrong.
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 02:31:56 PM
Huh?
Stalin's purge happened years before the Nazi invasion. What does that have to do with anything?
Stalin's purge happened years before the Nazi invasion. What does that have to do with anything?
Stalin's purge happened at the same time that German oppression of Jews as government policy began. Kristallnacht was November, 1938 - is it not considered part of the Holocaust? YOUR argument is that the Jewish Holocaust ALONE was undertaken:
A. against its own citizens,
B. "for no reason", and
C. to the detriment of the war-making ability of the country that did it, whereas * I* contend that the Stalin officer purge was undertaken
A. against its own citizens,
B. "for no rason", (certainly, no more "rational" reason was advanced than for the "final solution"), and
C. to the PROFOUND detriment of the war-making capability of the country did it, as evidenced by their performance for the first half of WWII.
Quote
No one is standing anyone else against the wall here. Yes, there is a more evil and less evil reason for the same reason that killing someone to get something valuable is at least perceived as a whole lot less evil than killing someone because he looked at you wrong.
Not in my book. Who so percieves it?
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 03:19:28 PM
Would it do any good, any good at all, to point out that Hitler's genocidal campaign took place during war while Stalin's took place before the war?
Would it also do any good to point out that Stalin was acting to avert the perceived threat to his own rule by the army, a threat that may have been real while Hitler's actions were against people who were not necessarily opposing him and posed no threat?
Post by: Ezekiel on March 07, 2007, 03:24:57 PM
Quote
Would it do any good, any good at all, to point out that Hitler's genocidal campaign took place during war while Stalin's took place before the war?
Only if you're endeavoring to erroneously report that any one such atrocity is more evil, heinous or inherently "wrong" than another. (sigh)
Pointless...
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 07, 2007, 04:26:52 PM
And as I thought about it more, that theory only deals with Nazi actions towards German Jews. They only made up about 2% of the population. They were hardly wealthy, although some members were.
It does not explain the actions towards the rest of European Jewry, most of whom were poor with little possessions.
It does not explain the actions towards the rest of European Jewry, most of whom were poor with little possessions.
Actually, if I'm understanding the book I haven't actually read correctly, the Nazi's theft program applied to Jews and other sub-races and anyone they didn't like everywhere they went. Trains of loot rolled in to buttress the economy, keep the factories pumping out consumer goods and keep the German Volk nice and satiated.
The theory is not saying theft is why the Jews were slaughtered, it simply covers the motivation for Nazi theft from anyone from day one, which is different from why they chose to actually kill all those people instead of just robbing them and sending them on their way.
Though the thefts, besides maintaining the welfare state, also helped defray the cost of shipping the victims to their doom. win-win situation
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 06:01:48 PM
Based on your logic the Iraq War has been undertaken against its own citizens (American soldiers are dying), for no reason (is there ever a reason to go to war?), and to the detriment of its war making capability.
I leave to the gentle reader to determine for his or her self the absurdity of that claimed equivalence.
Quote
Would it do any good, any good at all, to point out that Hitler's genocidal campaign took place during war while Stalin's took place before the war?
1937 verses 1938? You REALLY don't think the 'Final Solution" was being cooked up before Poland got the one-two from Hitler and Stalin? You REALLY want to say one year makes that much difference, such that one should be considered, and the other not?
Quote
Would it also do any good to point out that Stalin was acting to avert the perceived threat to his own rule by the army, a threat that may have been real ....
Right. 97% of his officers were "conspiring against him". Or, maybe... the officers were a convenient scape goat, just like the Jews in Germany?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 07, 2007, 06:08:48 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 07, 2007, 08:41:26 PM
Quote
Most genocides take place when one party sees an advantage to committing genocide to another. In the case of the Turks against the Armenians, or Stalin against the Ukrainians the purpose is to quell a troublesome minority. Here there was no purpose beyond Nazi ideology. That is one factor making it unique.
Communism is an ideology, so your Ukrainian example makes no sense. Nationalism is an ideology as well, so your Armenian example makes no sense either.
Post by: Monkeyleg on March 07, 2007, 09:02:10 PM
Given such ignorance, I have to ask: did the Soviets have camps with trains that regularly delivered prisoners? Did these camps have special equipment to move these prisoners quickly from the train cars to the showers to the gas chambers and then to the crematoriums?
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass by asking. I'm just trying to find out if there has ever been such a mechanized and industrial effort to wipe out an entire race and religion in prior history.
As others have pointed out, if not for the efforts and expenditures of men and materials devoted to "The Final Solution," Nazi Germany might well have prevailed.
Also, why did certain members of Hitler's inner circle get a pass, despite their having some Jewish heritage in their backgrounds? (Easy enough to answer).
Post by: Cosmoline on March 07, 2007, 09:36:02 PM
They hate each other as well, but there's a difference. The Russians may hate the Ukranians, and visa versa, but they can unite over beer and vodka to discuss their mutual hatred of the Juden. The hatred of the Jews is the first hatred, which is why their slaughter during WWII stands out even among so much bloodshed. Poles helped German invaders round up the Jews. The Polish resistance stood by and let the Jews get overwhelmed in Warsaw in 1943. The French were the same. The Hungarians, at the very end of the Nazi empire, but still took the time to round up all their Jews and ship them off to death. No Germans forced them, they put everything else aside to see to it. Everywhere, enemies united in their hatred of Jews. And only the surface has changed.
Post by: ilbob on March 08, 2007, 02:41:36 AM
I don't consider murdering 3 million people less offensive than murdering six million.
Post by: Laurent du Var on March 08, 2007, 02:55:11 AM
The Europeans have always hated Cosmoline, and probably always will, especially for writing unfunded and overgeneralizing posts.
There, I fixed it for you.
Post by: Ezekiel on March 08, 2007, 03:31:27 AM
I don't consider murdering 3 million people less offensive than murdering six million.
"Concur."
Further, murdering Jews is no more significant than murdering anyone else: a reality that really seems to set some people off...
Quote from: fistful
Just when I thought this thread was a total mess, Iraq comes up. At least that's something on which all parties can agree.
I love subtle, not terribly snarky, sarcasm. "Nice."
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 04:15:01 AM
Quote
Would it do any good, any good at all, to point out that Hitler's genocidal campaign took place during war while Stalin's took place before the war?
1937 verses 1938? You REALLY don't think the 'Final Solution" was being cooked up before Poland got the one-two from Hitler and Stalin? You REALLY want to say one year makes that much difference, such that one should be considered, and the other not?
Are you on something? Or are you totally ignorant of the history here? There was no Final Solution in 1937 or 1938. Or 1940 for that matter, which is when my father in law escaped Hamburg. The Final Solution didnt start until 1942 when Germany was already at war. Stalin's purges happened long before he contemplated getting into war. He had even signed a peace accord with Germany.
If you cannot understand that simple distinction then Gd bless you.
Post by: Ezekiel on March 08, 2007, 05:34:46 AM
Quote
There was no Final Solution in 1937 or 1938. Or 1940 for that matter, which is when my father in law escaped Hamburg. The Final Solution didnt start until 1942 when Germany was already at war.
You imply such was generated in a vacuum? (sigh)
Or, is it key in victimology to produce a "starting date?"
For example, as an American Indian, we often fight over 1492 vs. other dates of historical significance in this hemisphere. It's, actually, rather grotesque...as nothing beyond a symbol of ongoing, personal repression for those that choose to do so...
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 05:47:10 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on March 08, 2007, 06:05:33 AM
Quote
Prior to that there were other aims and policies.
Seriously: you're implying the ideology did not exist until such time as it was made public in 1942 "or so," which is not a specific moment to begin with? And you're still -- in previous postings -- attempting to promote this particular attempt at genocide as the standard bearer for all evils in magnitude, scope, success and design?
I cannot concur with such. Others have indicated multiple examples negating such claim, of which I agree.
Horrific? "Sure." Worthy of unique or special acclaim based upon to whom it occurred or in what manner it was carried out? "Not close."
Post by: roo_ster on March 08, 2007, 07:56:08 AM
Forgive me. I didn't read "The GLag Archipelago" by Solzhenitzin. I just read about it in the newspapers.
Given such ignorance, I have to ask: did the Soviets have camps with trains that regularly delivered prisoners? Did these camps have special equipment to move these prisoners quickly from the train cars to the showers to the gas chambers and then to the crematoriums?
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass by asking. I'm just trying to find out if there has ever been such a mechanized and industrial effort to wipe out an entire race and religion in prior history.
As others have pointed out, if not for the efforts and expenditures of men and materials devoted to "The Final Solution," Nazi Germany might well have prevailed.
Also, why did certain members of Hitler's inner circle get a pass, despite their having some Jewish heritage in their backgrounds? (Easy enough to answer).
One thing folks miss is that communism, naziism, & Italian facism had a perverted feedback loop working the whole time.Given such ignorance, I have to ask: did the Soviets have camps with trains that regularly delivered prisoners? Did these camps have special equipment to move these prisoners quickly from the train cars to the showers to the gas chambers and then to the crematoriums?
I'm not trying to be a wise-ass by asking. I'm just trying to find out if there has ever been such a mechanized and industrial effort to wipe out an entire race and religion in prior history.
As others have pointed out, if not for the efforts and expenditures of men and materials devoted to "The Final Solution," Nazi Germany might well have prevailed.
Also, why did certain members of Hitler's inner circle get a pass, despite their having some Jewish heritage in their backgrounds? (Easy enough to answer).
Things like, Mussolini was a marxist before he started on his facist path. He did not think he could attain power under the banner of an international ideology, but nationalistic authoritarianism...
Hitler looked to Mussolini as an example to emulate before Hitler had assumed power.
Hitler & Stalin played atrocity tennis. One would do somehting vile & the other would then see the possibility of doing it and follow suit. One instance that stands out was Hitler's purging the Nazi Party, "Night of the Long Knives" I think it is called. Up to that point, there were two groups in the NP that competed against each other for ultimate power. Hitler had his folks & the SS, while the other guy had his SA troopers. Hitler used violence to end all vestiges of democratic participation within the party & set up as absolute dictator of party & state. Stalin saw this example & did the same the next year in the commie party. The liquidation of troublesome minorities occured in a similar fashion.
----------
Both Hitler & Stalin held power by means of terror. The Nazi terror could be attenuated by the Germans to some extent by their own actions: keeping mum, following the NP line, etc. There were some rules, however twiste d& evil. The Soviet terror was much more a shotgun deal. Apparachiks had quotas to fill & they would knock on doors to haul off random folk if they could not find enough folks who mouthed dissent or committed some infraction.
---------
No matter how much/little the Nazis dedicated to the killing of Jews, their fate was sealed the moment America got into the war. Not to be arrogant, but America had the strongest industry in the world and was unassailable by her enemies. We could (and did) equip nearly the entirety of the allied effort. The Russians transported theor troops and collected their harvests with American trucks. The Free French rode in to Paris in Sherman tanks (as did many Brits). The list goes on.... America was also mighty pissed at Pearl Harbor. Hitler declaring war on the USA was met with, "Take a number, kraut-boy, we'll get to you soon enough."
Post by: richyoung on March 08, 2007, 08:35:46 AM
Are you on something? Or are you totally ignorant of the history here? There was no Final Solution in 1937 or 1938. Or 1940 for that matter, which is when my father in law escaped Hamburg. The Final Solution didnt start until 1942 when Germany was already at war.
Oh, really? Lets see what a few sources other than me and thee have to say about the (Big "H") Holocaust, which is, after all, what we are talking about, right?
Wiki sez:
Quote
Many scholars date the beginning of the Holocaust itself to the anti-Jewish riots of the Night of Broken Glass ("Kristallnacht") of November 9, 1938, in which Jews were attacked and Jewish property was vandalized across Germany. Approximately 100 Jews were killed, and another 30,000 sent to concentration camps, while over 7,000 Jewish shops and 1,574 synagogues (almost every synagogue in Germany) were damaged or destroyed. Similar events took place in Vienna at the same time.
The Jewish Virtual Library sez:
Quote
The Holocaust (also called Shoah in Hebrew) refers to the period from January 30, 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, to May 8, 1945 (VÂE Day), when the war in Europe ended.
Just who, other than you, limits it to WWII?
Quote
Stalin's purges happened long before he contemplated getting into war.
Wrong again. Germany and Russai had been on a collision course since the Nazi ascendency in 1933 - and both parties knew it. They agreed to a temporary truce to divy up Poland and attempt to settle the Finnish question. The decimation of the Soviet military leadership may have prompted Hitler to violate the nonagression pact earlier than he originally planned.
Quote
He had even signed a peace accord with Germany.
An accord neither party intended tohonor.
]
Post by: richyoung on March 08, 2007, 08:52:00 AM
Forgive me. I didn't read "The GLag Archipelago" by Solzhenitzin. I just read about it in the newspapers.
Given such ignorance, I have to ask: did the Soviets have camps with trains that regularly delivered prisoners?
Given such ignorance, I have to ask: did the Soviets have camps with trains that regularly delivered prisoners?
In many cases, yes.
Quote
Did these camps have special equipment to move these prisoners quickly from the train cars to the showers to the gas chambers and then to the crematoriums?
Oh heck NO. The "prisoner" was not to be allowed to die until he had "paid for his treason" by laying railroad track, harvesting lumber, quarrying uranium, or whatever. No need for gas chambers when over-work, malnutrition, exposure, and lack of medical care will do the job for free. No need for cremetoriums when you can add burying the dead to the work quota of the yet-living prisoners.
]
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 08, 2007, 02:18:27 PM
The book certainly should be a required reading for every American highschooler as a form of anti-communist immunization.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 08, 2007, 02:22:27 PM
Quote
The Europeans have always hated Cosmoline, and probably always will, especially for writing unfunded and overgeneralizing posts.
There, I fixed it for you.
There, I fixed it for you.
Sorry, dude, Cosmoline is right about the endemic presence of anti-semitism in Europe, although I can see how France can be an exception in some ways. Still, I don't think anti-semitism always trumps nationalistic resentment or old scores.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 02:58:25 PM
Quote
Prior to that there were other aims and policies.
Seriously: you're implying the ideology did not exist until such time as it was made public in 1942 "or so," which is not a specific moment to begin with? And you're still -- in previous postings -- attempting to promote this particular attempt at genocide as the standard bearer for all evils in magnitude, scope, success and design?
I cannot concur with such. Others have indicated multiple examples negating such claim, of which I agree.
Horrific? "Sure." Worthy of unique or special acclaim based upon to whom it occurred or in what manner it was carried out? "Not close."
The rest of your post reads like gibberish to me. I can't make heads or tails out of it.
Post by: Art Eatman on March 08, 2007, 03:46:42 PM
"What to do? What to do?"
"Here is my final solution..."
Art
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 03:49:56 PM
Quote
The Wannsee Conference was a meeting of senior officials of the Nazi German regime, held in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee on January 20, 1942. The purpose of the conference was to inform senior Nazis and senior Governmental administrators of plans for the "Final solution to the Jewish question" - the killing of all the 11 million Jews of Europe, a process now known as the Holocaust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
Post by: slzy on March 08, 2007, 05:38:03 PM
Post by: Laurent du Var on March 11, 2007, 07:29:05 AM
I imagine that the first years of sequestration of Jews and "other undesirables" into concentration camps and work camps was reasonably profitable for the Nazi regime. They got the property and the slave labor. The people of the camps began to be a burden, I'd bet, as the Nazis looked at issues like supplies of food and fuel. And, as you starve people down, their ability to do useful work declines.
"What to do? What to do?"
"Here is my final solution..."
Art
"What to do? What to do?"
"Here is my final solution..."
Art
"
I am not implying any such thing. I am stating historical fact that extermination of European Jewry was not an aim of the Nazis prior to 1942 and the Wannsee Conference. "
Sorry do dig this old monster of an ugly thread up but I just wanted to
tell about the two theories about the holocaust known to me:
The first which Art has described would be: Functionalist - meaning a situation which went from bad to worse, imprisonment, forced labor and then the final solution.
The second would be: Intentionalist - meaning Hitler has planned it all along.
The Wannsee conference seemed to be not a question of the if but the how and it has to be mentionned that it took place only after Hitler and the leading Nazis recognized that they would lose the war which in my opinion leans more to the functionalist theory.
There was antisemitism in Germany like anywhere else, but it did not lead to the Holocaust, that was Hitlers doing and the real crime of the Germans and later the Austrians, the French, the Polish, the Hungarian, the Swiss, the Italians etc. was to let it happen.
Post by: slzy on March 11, 2007, 08:15:57 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 11, 2007, 10:09:27 AM
babi yar was sept.29-30 1941 with over 33,000 shot,way before wansee. so i am going with the "planned all along side". national socialists started realizing how large the task was. those most catholic monarchs,ferdinand and isabella,most of their auto de fe victims were jewish conversos ,fwiw.
side point - The Reconquista of Spain from the Saracens is hardly a parallel historical or situational context to Nazi expansionism. It had much different political and religious goals at every point in time.
Post by: slzy on March 12, 2007, 11:38:33 AM
Post by: De Selby on March 12, 2007, 11:42:11 AM
Different can of worms, but it was in many ways the foundation of the race-based anti-semitism that drove Nazi culture.
1492....the year the Spanish "liberated" America and also expelled all Jews from Spain with threats of death.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 12, 2007, 11:43:30 AM
No one expected the Spanish Inquisition....
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 12, 2007, 11:48:28 AM
Interesting turn to the reconquista.
Different can of worms, but it was in many ways the foundation of the race-based anti-semitism that drove Nazi culture.
1492....the year the Spanish "liberated" America and also expelled all Jews from Spain with threats of death.
Different can of worms, but it was in many ways the foundation of the race-based anti-semitism that drove Nazi culture.
1492....the year the Spanish "liberated" America and also expelled all Jews from Spain with threats of death.
The foundation in the sense that they were trying to drive the Moors and, ancilliarily, all other non-native religions (Jews) out of Spain. It wasn't primarily "aimed" at the Jews, it was aimed at removing foreign invaders.
And in 1492 the Spanish had just gotten to the New World, they wouldn't destroy the brutal theocracies of the Mexicas and Maya, with the help of those tyrants subject tribes for another 30-40 years.
Post by: De Selby on March 12, 2007, 12:07:19 PM
Well, there certainly was a drive to push out all non-natives, there wasn't by any means only a general push that happened to include Jews. http://www.sephardicstudies.org/decree.html
Quote
And since we are informed that neither that step nor the passing of sentence [of condemnation] against the said Jews who have been most guilty of the said crimes and delicts against our holy Catholic faith have been sufficient as a complete remedy to obviate and correct so great an opprobrium and offense to the faith and the Christian religion, because every day it is found and appears that the said Jews increase in continuing their evil and wicked purpose wherever they live and congregate, and so that there will not be any place where they further offend our holy faith, and corrupt those whom God has until now most desired to preserve, as well as those who had fallen but amended and returned to Holy Mother Church, the which according to the weakness of our humanity and by diabolical astuteness and suggestion that continually wages war against us may easily occur unless the principal cause of it be removed, which is to banish the said Jews from our kingdoms. Because whenever any grave and detestable crime is committed by members of any organization or corporation, it is reasonable that such an organization or corporation should be dissolved and annihilated and that the lesser members as well as tile greater and everyone for the others be punished, and that those who perturb the good and honest life of cities and towns and by contagion can injure others should be expelled from those places and even if for lighter causes, that may be injurious to the Republic, how Much more for those greater and most dangerous and most contagious crimes such as this.
I think they definitely had a special hatred for Jews.
And that attitude certainly wasn't lost when they did get on to conquering Mexico and South America...those who survived certainly were freed from ritual human sacrifice, but not from virtual slavery.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 12, 2007, 01:10:24 PM
The Reconquista arguably began in, what, 800-something and as a goal originally almost solely aimed at driving out the Moors. The Jews were more-or-less lumped in. That decree hit right after the last Muslim ruler surrendered and was putting the capstone on the worst of the reactionary impulses, which, as the Rabbi points out, removed a key economic link from the Kingdom.
And yes, the Central and South Americans would have been better off trading their domestic tyrants for almost any other European ones. (given that such a trade was pretty much inevitable)
Post by: MechAg94 on March 12, 2007, 04:50:50 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 12, 2007, 06:13:55 PM
I thought I read that Ferdinand had Jewish advisers up until that time.
You mean Jewish masters. Obviously, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, 9/11 and other "anti-Jewish" atrocities were in fact planned by Zionist elements including Mossad, which warned most of the Jews to escape Spain, the Reich and the Twin Towers before-hand. Then there was Mossad secret agent Cristobal Colon, who, as everybody shoud know by now, discovered the New World in order to bring the vast American gold supply under Spanish (therefore Zionist) control. While they were at it, the Jews used the addictive properties of chocolate to further solidify their already considerable sway over the world. This is the subtle, yet plain, message behind the film, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But nevermind these uncomfortable facts. Put on a pot of hot chocolate and return to your slavery, blind Gentiles.
I would like to think LAK for contributing to my research for this thread.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 12, 2007, 06:19:04 PM
Wait, now we all know too much... damn you fistful!
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2007, 04:19:12 AM
Considering the Inquisition seized all the assets of the people imprisoned, I can see where they thought Jews were a good target. Not sure about before all that. I thought I read that Ferdinand had Jewish advisers up until that time.
Famously the Biblical commentator Don Isaac Abarbanel, who was chief finance minister, was given the choice to stay but courageously chose to remain with his people in exile.
Fistful, did anyone mention the connection between Putin and Israel??
Post by: De Selby on March 13, 2007, 07:29:25 AM
I think we're on the same page with the origins of the situation in Spain. I think what it represents in terms of its relationship to the Nazis is the beginning of viewing Judaism as a racial quality that cannot be changed, hence..they demanded conversion, and then when some converted, the converts were tortured and killed on suspicion of not being "real" Christians. Maybe there's some parallel here to the Nazi practice of meticulous classification of "Jewish blood".
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 13, 2007, 07:45:23 AM
carebear,
I think we're on the same page with the origins of the situation in Spain. I think what it represents in terms of its relationship to the Nazis is the beginning of viewing Judaism as a racial quality that cannot be changed, hence..they demanded conversion, and then when some converted, the converts were tortured and killed on suspicion of not being "real" Christians. Maybe there's some parallel here to the Nazi practice of meticulous classification of "Jewish blood".
I think we're on the same page with the origins of the situation in Spain. I think what it represents in terms of its relationship to the Nazis is the beginning of viewing Judaism as a racial quality that cannot be changed, hence..they demanded conversion, and then when some converted, the converts were tortured and killed on suspicion of not being "real" Christians. Maybe there's some parallel here to the Nazi practice of meticulous classification of "Jewish blood".
OK, I get it now. That's a good point.