1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

How we remember Shoa and other atrocities

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by romafan, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    

    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"
     
  2. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    

    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.
     
  3. in stitches

    in stitches Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    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.
     
  4. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    

    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?"
     
  5. FLMountainMan

    FLMountainMan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,921
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Location:
    McAnally Flats
    

    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....
     
  6. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  7. in stitches

    in stitches Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    

    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.


    the bold is a good point. and i am always thankful that we do not live in medieval times. that shit scares me senseless.
     
  8. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  9. in stitches

    in stitches Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    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?
     
  10. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2012
  11. NorCal

    NorCal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,419
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    

    Look, I'm not talking about holocaust denial. That is an issue for idiots.

    My problem is with your version of the history, which in turn was a reaction to FLMM's suggestion that Islam somehow was an invader/foreign in the ME.
    I'm not even slightly ignorant of the history of the Arab conquests. And frankly your suggestion that I need to spend 8 hours on Amazon and IS suggestion that "you bring the facts" is asinine.
    Speaking of facts, the HOLY Roman Emperor was also the leader of the armies and held a position of authority and leadership with the Church, albeit not the Pope. OH, wait, that was and is the Church of England, where you had the head of the Church, Gov., and military all rolled up into one. You know, the same England/Holy Roman Empire that are responsible for two of the greatest PAX's in history, both of which you love to reference as examples civilization/leadership/human advancement. Throughout history it has been commonplace for individuals to hold military/political/religious power. Why do you seem to find fault with the Muslims for the same history?

    anyway i have a lot more to say but my kid needs my attention.
     
  12. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    what? the holy roman emperor (do you mean during.. rome? or much later?) did not hold religious authority equivalent to the caliph...
     
  13. nootje

    nootje Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,098
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I'll just add a couple of tidbits, but don't really want to get involved. This topic is a bit too heavy to safely participate in a discussion.

    re: crusades, they were a lot more horrific than most are willing to admit. Cannibalism when they ran out of food, torching cities when conquered and generally not even abiding the meager code of conduct for war at the time.
    But I dont see how the crusades fit in a discussion about the shoa.

    re: Islamic conquest, most of this was small scale war against a regions ruler, who once conquered or fled, was replaced by an Arab regent. This would necessitate the regent to work with the local aristocracy as they didnt have their own army to rely on(really, read up on it, especially northern africa was conquered by a very small army). Muslim rule tolerated other faiths, but made them second class citizens. Depending on where you lived, this life could be as normal as could be(for the time). Persecution wasnt really in their books. It certainly didnt involve mass slaughter as a general rule. But, to get ahead you would need to become a muslim, which could take 100s of years for a region (approx 200 for spain, with a conversion rate in the 70% effective, 90% for the books.

    re: the comparison between jews in the 1800s and muslims now, of course it doesnt add up. One has been traditionally used as a scapegoat for governmental or societal failure, and the other is only now being pushed in that direction. Ironically, the existence of the first group and what happened to them will prevent the second to attain that position.

    re: eugenics, this wasnt unique for germany. Sweden practised this in some form untill the seventies (sterilising mentally handicapped etc.), and other countries conducted experiments to "enhance" their population too.

    And I stand behind the four points about the uniqueness of the holocaust submitted by teger. The institutionalization of the whole thing is what makes it scary.
     
  14. NorCal

    NorCal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,419
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    

    if this is a reference to me go fuck yourself.
     
  15. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    

    not to be a whinning bitch, but I'll tell you what I think the main difference is:

    the jews were a minority in dozens of geopolitical units, across 3 continents, for about 2,000 years (depending on how you define jews) and were steadily subject to persecution, without ever being on the top. aside from that, the justification changed every time. much of that persecution was from the soveriegn, or often from the people supported by the sovereign. the persecution was often violent.

    the closest thing that you might find would be the roma.

    I would argue that in almost every other case persecution was a matter of a specific time and place, or a situation where differnt groups shifted their positions in society.

    I'd agree with all of these points. I've argued most of them in the pages of SF over the years.
     
  16. NorCal

    NorCal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,419
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    

    sigh
    of course two different people that lived a continent and hundreds of years apart where not identical but the combination of religion/military/ and politics has been common across history and cultures.
     
  17. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    scientific racism is really, really fascinating.
     
  18. nootje

    nootje Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,098
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location:
    Netherlands
    

    In The eastern roman empire hè did unify The head of state with that of The church. Interestingly, this position was pursued but not attained in The same matter by The later tsars.

    Forgive The spelling, iphone isnt used to dutch and english together..
     
  19. globetrotter

    globetrotter Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    

    why would you think it is a reference to you?
     
  20. Teger

    Teger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,933
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    

    Huh? My point is that the Caliph in the early Muslim states was invested with a level of religious authority that did not exist in the "Holy Roman Emperor", whose title was as much an acknowledgement that the Emperor's authority came from god (divine right) than a statement of the Emperor's role within the Christian Church. You are also confusing the Roman Emperors who were Christian, and the Holy Roman Emperor, which was a title conferred by the Pope which existed in some form from about 600 - 1300 AD. The latter category had very little religious authority, while the former (which I'm referring to in the first sentence of this post), had much more.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by