Forbidden words and symbols in “The Land of the Free”
I Gave you a thumbs up Carnaby. You have made my point, Thank you. No more comforting lies please. Those rationalizations are what we use to justify war. There are no white hats and black hats. Identify for me please who wears which colour hat in the Middle East today.
May I add that the Second World war never ended. To stand a saying on its head,
Politics is war by other means
Apologies von Clausewitz.
A notable Prussian.
I agree with Sterling. Having followed this thread from the beginning it has made me more and more uneasy as it has progressed.
I agree with Thc0655's original premise that political correctness imposes a form speech and thought control. I do not see it as a left/right or liberal/conservative issue as all sides in the media and in politics are pushing their own agendas and have their own lists of forbidden/favorite words and ideas. From there the thread has evolved into a sort of rambling give and take on whose history is the true history, bordering on a debate over who were the greatest victims. (As if this is a badge of honor, courage or some other virtue.)
We all come from particular backgrounds of race, ethnicity, culture and religion. Try as we may to deny it, much of this is hard wired into us as children. It affects our view of life, the world and other people. My immigrant grandparents made sure I knew the cultural stories and prejudices.
There have been a number of Holocausts. There has been military occupation and brutality imposed upon many peoples. If you look at it honestly, even with the great moves forward in science, medicine and industry, the past century was a pageant of horrors. No nation, or people have clean hands. There were bad, and good, individuals from every group.
I do believe in ultimate truth. Truth that is not relative. I also understand that our perception and understanding of "truth" can be quite different and that people of good will can have profound differences in how they interpret and apply truth as they see it. That being the case I would hope that here we can focus on those things where we can agree. I do not expect anyone to give up their personal views but I would hope to place our differences further back in the conversation. The simple facts contained in the crash course threaten to overwhelm most of us in short order. That is the present reality. That is the difficult truth. The time for arguing over our views of the past is nearly over. The present and the near future will take all of our attention and intellect to survive.
I do believe in ultimate truth. Truth that is not relative. I also understand that our perception and understanding of "truth" can be quite different and that people of good will can have profound differences in how they interpret and apply truth as they see it. That being the case I would hope that here we can focus on those things where we can agree.
The simple facts contained in the crash course threaten to overwhelm most of us in short order. That is the present reality. That is the difficult truth. The time for arguing over our views of the past is nearly over. The present and the near future will take all of our attention and intellect to survive.
My concern is that, as this thread has indicated, difficult truths are hard to accept. This leaves me quite concerned that the truth of what we collectively are facing will not gain the necessary level of acceptance until it is too late. IMHO it is already too late, and all we can do now is manage the downside as well as we can. To that end, wasting precious energy arguing about the past channels that energy away from what can and should be taking place to mitigate what those at PP know is coming at us like a tidal bore.
Where we choose to focus energy will dictate how well we manage the downside slope.
Although I largely agree with your post JT, I have to disagree with [quote]I do not expect anyone to give up their personal views but I would hope to place our differences further back in the conversation…The time for arguing over our views of the past is nearly over.[/quote]
In response I will repeat the oft repeated quote: "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it."
When I see or hear or read someone denying one of the most horrific periods of the past century, I feel obligated to call them out and try to set them straight. Not so much for the individual denier, but for those who might be swayed by the faulty impressions they are trying to spread.
I think it is also important to distinguish between garden variety atrocities committed in the course of war (virtually all wars) and a government policy of systematic extermination of an identifiable group of people who are largely non-combatants and defenseless.
In the former category I would place the bombing of Dresden, Frankfurt and even the A bombs dropped on Japan. Those bombings, as horrific as they were, had the specific military purpose of degrading Germany's and Japan's ability and will to continue fighting, and hence, killing allied forces; not exterminating the Germans and Japanese as peoples. Those bombings ceased when the Axis powers surrendered. Jews had no ability to surrender. They were just slaughtered for no strategic purpose beyond propagandizing the Aryan myth.
I feel strongly about remembering the Holocaust with all its horror so that we don't repeat, and thereby legitimize, the ethnic and racial stereotypes that are still held by far too many in America and other western cultures. If you doubt those biases still exist, just read the commentary at ZH. It disgusts me that that site is still held in esteem here.
The Aryan Myth was simply a means to unify a denigrated people. The great clamour for esteem among an impoverished people demanded such theatrics. Whether it was tangible or not is largely irrelevant in the quest for recognition. Indeed, the more absurd the idea the greater the merit when one reaches such lofty ambitions. Empires rise and fall. Simply blaming the last empire to fall for the ills of the world shows a distinct lack of intellectual integrity. Does the Palestinian child not have the right to dissent against Israeli aggression simply because six million of his people have yet to be exterminated? At what point does collateral damage become genocide? Does the fact that we exterminated 560,00 Iraqi children from 1990-1996 not count because we weren't sporting swastikas? Perhaps you can stand on the tombs of malnourished children and protest your innocence.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reported that UN sanctions on Iraq had been responsible for the deaths of more than 560,000) children in Iraq since 1990. Most children’s deaths were from effects of malnutrition including kwashiorkor, wasting or emaciation which had reached 12 percent of all children, stunted growth which affects 28 percent, diarrhea dehydration from bad water or food which is ordinarily easily controlled and cured; common communicable preventable by vaccinations, and epidemics from deteriorating conditions. There are no deaths crueler than these. They are suffered slowly, helplessly, without simple remedial medication, without simple sedation to relieve pain, without mercy.
Stahl: (Voiceover) If the Iraqi people place any blame on Saddam Hussein, they’re afraid to say so. And there is no longer much hope that the sanctions will inspire the people to rise up and topple the government. Now people are just trying to get by because one of the side effects of the sanctions has been inflation, which has jumped as high as 3,000 percent. To make ends meet, Iraqis are selling everything they can. Flea markets have sprung up on the streets, where families can sell their furniture, clothes, anything they can to make a few extra dinars. Most Iraqis are suffering.
We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died when-wh-in-in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it?
Ambassador Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.
The charts in this document really drive the point home. Chart 3 on page 3 is the 1998 revision (I dare say most accurate) – UNICEF
My opinion is that the innocent people of Nagaski and Dresden had no real ability to surrender, either. Dead is dead and innocent is innocent. Call it genocide, call it planned extermination, call it garden variety war atrocity, blood is on the hands of those that kill innocents.
The ability of our species to inflict horror on innocents is disturbing to me.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting many of these comments but it seems like many people here are making the case that the Third Reich was really not that bad. Apparently, they had good reasons for their actions. Further, they were just like any other society, after all, they've all done bad things, so we shouldn't judge.
I've tried to stay out of this discussion but I'm finding this line of reasoning quite off-putting. I am a big fan of Chris and the three Es philosophy but I'm starting to think that I've misjudged this site. Am I the only one who feels this way?
To try to get some perspective on Exactly where we are in the picture I again offer the Business as Usual Graph. The reason why I dredge it up from the basement for your inspection is so that you can compare the effect of the combined horrors of the past century with what lays ahead.
Do you see that slight perturbation in the deaths line around 1945? Surely this must cause you to exclaim "Is that It? Is that the impact of the Spanish flu, Pol Pot, famines in India and China, the two World Wars, . . .??"
And then run your eye along the deaths line.
But be of good cheer. Orlov assures us that the only impact that it will have on the survivors is when they they look at their old school photos and see how few remain, if any.
What concerns me is the food per capita. I do believe that obesity will once again become a mark of wealth.
No, you are not the only one disturbed by Nazi apologists. But I don’t share your attitude of having misjudged the site.
The problem is, the neonazis in our country were at war with the government to a lesser extent (during the deconstruction, the formation of the kkk) or greater extent (the separatists of idaho, for example) for some time. As such, they are going to be quick to jump on every “get off the wagon” movement that they can, and may even try to push people off in their direction.
So I knew to expect this.
But just because I disapproved of the Vicki Weaver shooting in 1992 doesn’t mean I hold their views.
Now add in those, like Robey, who in addition have been severely traumatized by equivalent actions by the Zimbabwe government as they collapsed well ahead of our collapse, and you will have some deep political misdirection.
However, those very people are also those who saw how to live through a collapse, either with your human dignity or without it. We should listen, but judge and sort, therefore. Kosovo, Ukraine, the Hutus and Tutsis, Cambodia, Sri Lanka… the survivors may have some wisdom, some experience worth listening to.
I, for one, want my human dignity to survive.
Yes, the Holocaust happened: I spent some time in Lithuania, and am acutely aware of such things as the paper “Holocaust in Jurbarkas”; I visited the Vilnius Holocaust/Shoah museum. Yes, it was horrible, though there were some, like the ẐẐZemetaitas family, that at great cost to themselves protected and rescued the victims. And no, I do not find it acceptable to worship demons (both the Nazi government, and that “ancestral religion” that someone spoke of.) And yes, I do believe that Satan’s hatred of Jews has a lot to do with the whole thing.
And yes, it bothers me.