or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › How we remember Shoa and other atrocities
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How we remember Shoa and other atrocities - Page 6

post #76 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

UH, FL, the Muslims did not "come to occupy the ME" they or the people that would become the first Muslims were there pretty much from the start. Or at least long enough for it not to matter.
but Lasbar is still being an idiot.

islam took over the middle east by force. that is historical fact. the 90% of the people of egypt who are muslims, for instance, and genetically different from the copts, who are descended from the ancient egyptians. most of the population converted to islam in most of the countries, but that was after wars of conquest. so, yes, the muslims did occupy the middle east, if you count north africa, Israel, jordan, syria, Turkey iraq and iran as the middle east, then there was certainly ethnic cleaning and population transfer, aside from cultural transfer and conquest.
post #77 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

islam took over the middle east by force. that is historical fact. the 90% of the people of egypt who are muslims, for instance, and genetically different from the copts, who are descended from the ancient egyptians. most of the population converted to islam in most of the countries, but that was after wars of conquest. so, yes, the muslims did occupy the middle east, if you count north africa, Israel, jordan, syria, Turkey iraq and iran as the middle east, then there was certainly ethnic cleaning and population transfer, aside from cultural transfer and conquest.

Meh, I'm pretty sure SA is in the middle east, you know, where Mo and Islam were born. Of course the spread of Islam was aided by being the religion of an empire that grew rapidly at that time. But that is true of Christianity as well, why hold it against the Muslims.

And which ancient Egyptians are you talking about? The Macedonian Pharaohs. Or maybe the Nubian. People change, populations move and over time there are no monolithic populations. Hell aren’t many Jews in Israel not of even remotely Semitic blood?

Conquest and expansion does not equal ethnic cleansing and I don't think its fair to equate the spread of Islam with ethic cleansing. Hell the biggest Muslim population in the world is not Arab and never was conquered during the Arab conquests.
post #78 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

Meh, I'm pretty sure SA is in the middle east, you know, where Mo and Islam were born. Of course the spread of Islam was aided by being the religion of an empire that grew rapidly at that time. But that is true of Christianity as well, why hold it against the Muslims.
And which ancient Egyptians are you talking about? The Macedonian Pharaohs. Or maybe the Nubian. People change, populations move and over time there are no monolithic populations. Hell aren’t many Jews in Israel not of even remotely Semitic blood?
Conquest and expansion does not equal ethnic cleansing and I don't think its fair to equate the spread of Islam with ethic cleansing. Hell the biggest Muslim population in the world is not Arab and never was conquered during the Arab conquests.

I'm not holding it against the muslims, I'm saying that its crazy to suggest that the muslims are/were persecuted. that line of reasoning is about an inch from holocust denial, people like to say "well, waht happened to the jews really wasn't anything worse than what happend to X" and use that to try to erode the facts of the holocust.


historically speaking, islam, and arabs, came from the arabian pennisula. in the 7nth century, they spread out to north africa, to the levant, to persia, to the rest of the gulf. they did so with violence. they did use what we would call enthic cleansing today. the difference between that and christianity is that the "empire" of islam was exactly equal to the "church" of islam. the leader of the army and the state was also the leader of the religion, for almost all of the expansion.

honestly, what's frustrating with these conversations is that its not like we are talking about something that isn't documented. for 50 bucks, an amazon account and 8 hours of time, you can know the history of the muslim conquest, too.
post #79 of 125
sigh. this thread has strayed far from its course. much appreciation to GT, for bringing very interesting, and backed up, info to the discussion.
post #80 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

Nvm - a total sidetrack

sidetrack: I just got back from the acidwife's sister's place. my fucking idiot bigot of a brother in law, who likes to rant about the 'china vs. the west' b.s., started flapping his ignorant gums about how the jews are at fault for the west's problems, that israel's controlled by a few families, how they controlled europe in the 18th century through their money, and hitler was smart and knows that the jews were a threat to the rest of europe. fuck that dude doesn't even deserve a condescending guffaw from me. I'm very embarrassed to know this jerk.
post #81 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by acidboy View Post

sidetrack: I just got back from the acidwife's sister's place. my fucking idiot bigot of a brother in law, who likes to rant about the 'china vs. the west' b.s., started flapping his ignorant gums about how the jews are at fault for the west's problems, that israel's controlled by a few families, how they controlled europe in the 18th century through their money, and hitler was smart and knows that the jews were a threat to the rest of europe. fuck that dude doesn't even deserve a condescending guffaw from me. I'm very embarrassed to know this jerk.

I run into this kind of thing a lot.

what I find interesting is the chinese and japanese who really admire that about the jews - they'll say "oh, the jews run everything with their secret cabal, I wish we were so organized"
post #82 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

sigh. this thread has strayed far from its course. much appreciation to GT, for bringing very interesting, and backed up, info to the discussion.

happy to help.

honestly, I think that the biggest threat to remembering the holocust is exactly this kind of bullshit -people saying "yes, what happened to the jews war horrible, but its exactly the same to what's happening to the X people - my god, those poor people only have access to basic cable, its genocide, just like like the holocust."

there have been a lot of really horrific things that have happened in the world over the years, but really there has been no hatred of a group in recorded history that is parallel to what happened to the jews.

there have been a great deal of horrible thigns that have happened to groups of people over the course of recorded history. I'd say that the holocust is pretty much a stand alone event (although I would say that the atlantic slave trade is a stand alone event its horror, too) in terms of horror.

there is a tendancy by a lot of people to try to minimize the holocust, and minimize anti-semitism. fuck them.
post #83 of 125
well put.

i run up against that as well. in no way do i ever mean to lessen the horrors that have befallen many people throughout the world over the course of history (the armenians, mass exterminations by dictators all over...). but whenever i try to differentiate between them, and what has happened to the jewish people throughout history, i get attacked. as if i think bad things only happen to the jews, and the rest of the world has never as much as had its toes stepped on. which i certainly do not think.

i usually give up at that point, and i try to stay out of those/these conversations because i feel i will inevitably be taken as lacking sympathy to others.
post #84 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

well put.
i run up against that as well. in no way do i ever mean to lessen the horrors that have befallen many people throughout the world over the course of history (the armenians, mass exterminations by dictators all over...). but whenever i try to differentiate between them, and what has happened to the jewish people throughout history, i get attacked. as if i think bad things only happen to the jews, and the rest of the world has never as much as had its toes stepped on. which i certainly do not think.
i usually give up at that point, and i try to stay out of those/these conversations because i feel i will inevitably be taken as lacking sympathy to others.

yes, and I guarantee that there are a couple of people who have read my posts above, and are thinking "that fucking jew, he thinks that his people are so special, and he doesn't care about all the other genocides that we jsut as bad that have happened. who is fuck is GT to suggest that I read about history? I know all about history, I know that a lot of jews were thrown into prison in wwii, it was just like Gitmo, so why should I read any more about it?"
post #85 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post

UH, FL, the Muslims did not "come to occupy the ME" they or the people that would become the first Muslims were there pretty much from the start. Or at least long enough for it not to matter.
but Lasbar is still being an idiot.

I'll echo Globe's reply, but clarify that I'm not saying that how Islam spread was unique in any way. I was putting the Crusades in context. Some people act as if the Crusades were some unique horror perpetrated by Christians and justification for everything from Munich to 9-11. The Crusades weren't any more or less barbaric than other warfare that went on at that time(although the Children's Crusade is pretty bad). Just another swing of the pendulum.

Also, there's some evidence to suggest that Islam was actually started in the Levant by an apocalyptic cult of Jews, but that's a whole other tangent....
post #86 of 125
There's not a lot of difference between what happened to the Jews and what happened to other repressed minorities (blacks, Muslims, etc) up until the Holocaust. The Holocaust changed the equation, and as an event is fundamentally different than anything that came before and has occurred since.

Edit: To preempt some replies wherein someone posts about Kosovo, or Rwanda or the Congo...

What was different about the Holocaust:

1. The perpetrating nation was not simply a modern state, but was literally the center of culture (or Kultur) in the word -- from about 1870 to 1930 Germany was the center of education, science and progressivism in the world.

2. The mechanization and systemization of the Holocaust is unique.

3. The Germans were not simply content to exterminate or expel the Jews within their own borders, their plans, which were in many ways fulfilled, involved seeking out of all of the Jews in Europe and the World and either isolating or murdering them.

4. The justification for the Holocaust was more than ideology or propaganda, it was underscored with widely-held 'scientific' conclusions that had been researched and proven.
post #87 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

yes, and I guarantee that there are a couple of people who have read my posts above, and are thinking "that fucking jew, he thinks that his people are so special, and he doesn't care about all the other genocides that we jsut as bad that have happened. who is fuck is GT to suggest that I read about history? I know all about history, I know that a lot of jews were thrown into prison in wwii, it was just like Gitmo, so why should I read any more about it?"

that is exactly what i fear. but i have come to accept, that there is no way to ever control what people may think. i know that is not what i mean, and if someone wants to put words in my mouth, there is not much i can do about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

I'll echo Globe's reply, but clarify that I'm not saying that how Islam spread was unique in any way. I was putting the Crusades in context. Some people act as if the Crusades were some unique horror perpetrated by Christians and justification for everything from Munich to 9-11. The Crusades weren't any more or less barbaric than other warfare that went on at that time(although the Children's Crusade is pretty bad). Just another swing of the pendulum.
Also, there's some evidence to suggest that Islam was actually started in the Levant by an apocalyptic cult of Jews, but that's a whole other tangent....

the bold is a good point. and i am always thankful that we do not live in medieval times. that shit scares me senseless.
post #88 of 125
no, FLMM is wrong. the crusades were more barbaric than most warfare that went on the time, because the motivation for the warfare was different (ideological/religious vs territorial). most warfare during the middle ages was a very brief, if violent affair - neither side could absorb a high number of casualties because most of their army was composed of peasants, and most armies broke after the initial engagement. there was also little involvement of civilians, and most civilians didn't really care what abstract, foreign power they paid taxes to.
post #89 of 125
im no historian. and i know that some pretty horrible shit happened during the crusades to jews and lots of others, but was it really different than any conquering army bulldozing through cities and claiming them for their own while they raped murdered and pillaged?
post #90 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

im no historian. and i know that some pretty horrible shit happened during the crusades to jews and lots of others, but was it really different than any conquering army bulldozing through cities and claiming them for their own while they raped murdered and pillaged?

yes. first, there was less of 'conquering armies' in the middle ages, and why would you rampage and destroy a city when you're fighting to gain control over that city and its resources (labor)? it comes down to a question of motivation: you will fight a lot harder if you're fighting for your god, then if you're fighting for your lord to get an extra ten miles of farmland. remember that during the middle ages there was no concept of nation, of nationalism, or state. armies during this period just didn't fight for long periods of particularly fiercely - there was little training, most of your military was made up of peasants whose labor you need back in the fields, and the troops themselves were poorly motivated.

there's also a big question of scale. the number of soldiers on either side in most engagements in continental europe during this period were small - several thousands, but really only several hundred with professional training and good equipment. the crusades were different.

obviously war was violent and awful, but generally there was an understood military code that drew a distinction between civilian and soldier. this wasn't really the case in the holy land, because you were fighting to destroy an evil.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › How we remember Shoa and other atrocities