I addressed it previously. I do not believe Mel Gibson minimized the Holocaust or its impact on Jews. I simply believe he mentioned other genocide victims in addition to the Holocaust. And I don’t believe he used the word “Zionist” at all. If you can’t see the difference between that and the venom spewed by the people you’ve quoted, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. Will you agree that Mel Gibson and Mahmoud Abbas aren’t exactly in the same league?
Again, I don’t believe Mel Gibson even used the word “Zionists,” let alone accused them of anything. I’m trying to discuss the issue at hand, which is Mel Gibson and his movie. Why are you dragging everyone who ever uttered an anti-Semitic word into this argument?
I disagree that “yes or no” will do; it’s not a black-and-white (no pun intended) issue. There are ways to mention others which are useful and do not detract from the cause at hand, and there are ways that just muddy the waters. As I have already said what seems like half a billion times, I believe that we should at least acknowledge the suffering of others.
How do you figure the WWII-era deaths of non-Jews are only “distantly related” to the Holocaust?
And where did I say anyone who focused on one oppressed group was “complicit in denigrating” members of other oppressed groups? If anyone’s ascribing alternate meanings around here, I think it’s you.
Of course.
But why is this so hard for you to answer: “The issue you do not address, of course, is whether minimizing the Holocaust in a nearly identical manner to those with a clear agenda of bigotry and/or political demonization (as in the bold-faced quote above) helps to serve those agendas.”
You asked me a specific question about how Holocaust minimization serves people with certain Mideast agendas. I answered it.
Your refusal to answer, plus failing to address the issue of “exclusivity” in dealing with the other social issues described, speaks for itself.
You’re the one harping on the Ukrainian famine of '32-33 and Stalinist purges, for God’s sake. If there’s even a distant relationship there that makes it logical to bring those events up when somebody asks about the Holocaust, I don’t see it.
If you’re going to do that, why not demand simultaneous discussion of the Rape of Nanking? Or hell, drag in the Spanish Inquisition too. We don’t want to ignore those victims.
Your meaning is unfortunately quite clear.
If you can’t deal with others finding your position illogical and offensive, perhaps it’s time to rethink it.
May I ask you to clarify (very specifically = links included) this comment on my posts please?
Thank you.
You seem to be unable to read my posts without being prejudiced for whatever reason. If it can be a comfort to you, you are certainly not the First and Only One to try this trick out but nevertheless I would prefer that you keep words like “bigot” for yourself when talking about me. Thank you.
Y’know, I’m Jewish and have an interest in biblical archeology – not just as it relates to the Old Testament, but the New as well. As a kid I fell in love with the musical Jesus Christ Superstar and became fascinated with history of Israel/Rome as a result. One of my favorite series on A&E and History Channel is “Mysteries of the Bible.”
So when I first heard of this film project, I was very impressed and interested. “A movie about the last days of Christ? In Aramaiac??? WOW that is cool! Talk about authenticity! Talk about being daring! Good for Mel!”
Later, when I read about his father’s wacko beliefs in the Times magazine, I shook my head and shrugged. “Dang, what an asshat. Well, poor Mel can’t help having a racist fruitloop for a dad,” thought I. “He can’t call his father an idiot in the press, so he’ll probably stay silent. Sucky position to be in.”
So I was keeping an open mind all along – indeed, giving Gibson the benefit of the doubt. But reading THIS interview? My mind’s door has slammed shut. At best, his comments are insensitive and dismissive. At worst, they display a contempt and bigotry that I would have never expected to see in a Hollywood movie star in the 21st century.
He says “…millions of people died in the Holocaust. Some of them were Jews.”
Some of them.
That’s like saying…
“Millions of people are raped each year. Some of them are women.”
“Millions of Africans emigrated to the U.S. Some of them were slaves.”
“Millions of Japanese civilians died during WWII. Some of them were killed by the U.S.'s atom bombs.”
“Millions of people die from lung cancer. Some of them smoked.”
“Some Jews also died.” Riiiiiiight. Sorry, but the idea that Gibson was acknowledging the fact that Jews were the primary target of Hitler & Co. – by far the largest percentage of the Nazis’ victims who were specifically, systematically murdered with an intent to sweep them out of existence – is utter bullshit.
No. Mel Gibson knew damn well what he wanted to say, what message he was imparting. That dismissive “oh yeah, by the way I guess some Jews died too” is a dead giveaway. Ol’ Dad indoctrinated him well.
Lucky for Mel he’s better looking, richer and a little smarter than his father, and manages to avoid saying things like “Yeah, I hate them lousy dirty money-grubbing baby-eating Christ-killing Kikey McHooknoses.”
You’re welcome, LOL. I think others have seen it but just haven’t focused on the same thing I did. When I read his words, my jaw literally fell open. I rarely feel a visceral hatred for someone merely from an interview in a magazine, but that “some of them were Jews” hit me in the gut.
You’re right. I’m frankly glad that he seems increasingly unable to keep his noxious views to himself. And I do hope this thrusts him out of the “bigot closet” once and for all.
To be honest I’m very disappointed in him. I didn’t WANT him to be a schmuck. While he’s not my favorite actor of all time, not by a long shot, he’s been very purty to watch in The Bounty and Mad Max, and was even quite effective as an actor in stuff like Conspiracy Theory.
But I don’t see my being able to enjoy his films anymore. This is too much to swallow.
I don’t have it in for you, Aldebaran. I don’t consider anybody here such an adversary that I make a point of going after them. I said that some of your remarks came across in that manner. In other cases, you did think to make it clear you were talking about specific people, not a general group.
I would prefer it that members would ask me personally for clarification when something I write isn’t clear to them. Instead of making remarks about my posts - and “me” or “my intentions” as they see them - while adressing themselves to other members or the members general.
Salaam. A
It is to bring under your attention the reality that people get sick and tired of the repeated abuse of the Jewish Holocaust victims by those groups and individuals who have as only goals their own political agenda.
This doesn’t work at all in favour of the Jewish people in general since, as we know all too well: humans all over the globe tend to generalize because that is such a simple thing to do.
In addition it doesn’t work in the favour of getting/maintaining sympathy for the Israeli case. Quite the contrary. You only need to look at the rather drastic change in opinion about Israel and its policies.
Salaam. A
You know, I really am starting to feel like this thread is becoming the debating equivalent of Groundhog Day. I already stated that I do not believe that Mel Gibson’s statement quoted at the beginning of the thread minimizes the Holocaust. If I don’t believe the statement minimizes the Holocaust, then it rather logically follows that I do not believe it minimizes the Holocaust in an identical manner to others who minimize the Holocaust.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that Hamas has a “certain Mideast agenda.” I happen to disagree that Mel Gibson’s single statement proves that he has any agenda whatsoever. Honestly, like DSeid, I’m not much of a celebrity hound. I haven’t followed every statement that Mel Gibson has ever made on issues relating to Jews, and I don’t think the statement on which this thread is based, in itself, proves anything at all about his feelings toward Jews. The argument you are making, to me, is pretty much analogous to “anyone protesting the war on Iraq is supporting terrorism.” In fact, it’s rather disgusting.
No, I don’t think it does speak for itself, and I’m noticing a distinct lack of other posters who have alleged that I am a bigot because I believe there should be a more proportional distribution of public resources and attention devoted to all instances of genocide. If you think my stated opinions speak for themselves, then I think it would behoove you to say clearly and openly, once and for all, what you think they do say, because the rest of us are apparently missing your point.
In related news, just for kicks, last night I paged through my Oxford Companion to World War II. It’s arranged more or less in encyclopedia form, and doesn’t have a political agenda that I’ve been able to discern; it’s pretty much a straightforward reference work. It’s over 1,000 pages long, and has tons of great information: bios of major figures of the time, historical maps, flow charts of population movements, etc. It lists all sorts of relatively minor historical figures I’d never even heard of. It has roughly five pages of solid, single-spaced text on the history and development of the Final Solution concept. In general, it’s pretty exhaustive.
However, there is not a single separate entry on the Romani, or on the North Caucasian deportations. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dead and displaced people here, probably more than perished in any single WWII battle. The only mention of the Caucasus at all is in connection with Stalin’s desire to protect Azerbaijani oil from the Nazi advance. Are these hundreds of thousands of equally dead and persecuted people not worthy even of a passing mention?
No, actually, the frigging initial quote that you pulled from Mel Gibson’s interview on p. 2 of this thread mentions the Ukrainian famine and Stalinist purges. That’s why I addressed them.
Funny, I’d have thought you’d be a fan of me dragging in the Spanish Inquisition, since it would show the long-standing worldwide historical pattern of persecution of Jews.
Well, other posters on this thread seem to understand that it’s possible for reasonable people to have differences of opinion, even operating with the same information, and that it doesn’t necessarily mean that one of them is either objectively wrong or stupid. Why can’t you do that?
See above.
You know, normally I’m an extremely nonconfrontational, live-and-let-live kind of person. I really detest bickering, especially when it seems there is no longer any useful exchange of ideas and opinions going on. There are all sorts of ways to share your opinions in a respectful manner; *DSeid’s method is a prime example. He has managed to bring across that he disagrees with my views, and propose alternate ones in a clear and cogent way, without the veiled insults that you keep spewing. He and others have acknowledged that although they interpret the same facts differently, other reasonable people may have their own views.
In contrast, it’s really irking me that you can’t accept that just because I’m not as offended by a single out-of-context quote as you are, that it automatically follows that I’m either misinterpreting something, or that I have some nefarious motive, or that I somehow am too stupid to see that someone else has a nefarious motive.
If you want to interpret Mel Gibson’s statement differently than I do, that’s absolutely your prerogative. But don’t you dare insinuate that because I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, that I am either stupid or bigoted. If you want to insinuate something along these lines, I’d much rather you did it directly. I’m really tired of this pansy-ass beating around the bush.
This has gotten truly bizarre, Eva. Unfortunately, it is necessary to refute some of this foolishness.
Huh? If this is intelligible at all, it states that even if Gibson’s statement contains the same sentiments as those of Hamas, it is not Holocaust minimization, because, well, because Mel said it.
In case you haven’t noticed, Eva, the vast majority of my comments have dealt with Holocaust denial/minimalization in general, and with what I feel are your misguided views of the subject in particular. You are the one who keeps returning to your defense of Mel Gibson, the poor, misunderstood, taken-out-of-context* one.
I have already said that I find your position illogical and offensive (and quite obviously I am not the only one who thinks so). That is plenty clear. I have not called you a bigot. As I indicated before, I am at a loss to explain your blind spots on this issue. Taken with your comments in a recent related thread, I think you are far too quick to cope with disagreement by screaming that you are being accused of bigotry.
So it’s my fault that I cited an illogical association that you agree with Mel on. OK.
Eva, I don’t know if that last part just slipped out accidentally, but get this: the pejorative term “pansy-ass” is highly offensive, to many gay and non-gay people alike. I suggest that you delete it from your repertoire of insults.
*“Out-of-context” is really a scream. He was asked a direct, softball question - and there is nothing to indicate that his rambling response was incompletely quoted or taken out of context.
I will have to deal with the rest of this later, because at the moment I am really up to my neck in Canadians, but I just want to clarify briefly that I meant the term “pansy-ass” in the sense of “cowardly” or “wimpy” (flowers being delicate and all) and the word was in no way meant as a remark on anyone’s sexual orientation, which obviously has nothing to do with debating ability or anything else of any relevance in this thread in any case. If anyone was offended by the term, I apologize. Please feel free to substitute “chickenshitted,” unless you think that would be a slur against chickens, or another preferred word of your choice.
I really should have more self-control than to engage with Alde again, but here goes …
Alde,
I’ll keep this very simple and straightforward.
The op asked whether or not Jewish concerns about Gibson’s movie were justified or not. A very specific item. A movie that allegedly plays up the Christ-killer myth that has been used to stoke Jew hatred for many hundreds of years. Tell me please what the relevance to that specific there is to the early rant about how Jews “abuse” the Holocaust for political purposes (?!), if not to state that Jewish concerns about antisemitism should be dismissed in general because Jews always “scream” antisemitism? What exactly does your slanderous fantasy about Jewish abuse of the Holocaust have to do with concerns of this particular movie and whether or not they have any just cause?
And yes, please give some examples of what you precisely mean by that offensive statement about Jews abusing the Holocaust for political ends? Are you referencing over fifty years ago when the Holocaust was part of the justification for European acquiesence to a partition plan? Because honestly, I hardly ever hear about the Holocaust in particular mentioned in debates currently about Israel other than used by antisemites making slurs about Zionist being Nazis. Or do you reference people like me, who when discussing why I believe that Israel needs to exist for the sake of Jews all over the world will discuss the long, repetitive, horrific history of antisemitism (including HaShoah) as explanation for why many of us Jews are less than willing to just trust ourselves to the world’s good graces? Am I engaged in “cheap PR” that makes you “want to vomit” when I explain why I feel the way I do?
And my previous question to you remains: what actions or statements would you believe cross the line into antisemitism? The Christ-killer slur doesn’t do it, obviously. Does bombing of Temples in Europe by angry Arabs cross the line? Or is that just an understandable extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Does broadcast of The Protocals of Zion by state sponsored media in Arab countries cross the line? Where do you draw it? Is that a clear enough question for you to answer?
Since this thread has been totally hijacked with nary a ransom note in sight…
Eva - I normally enjoy reading your posts very much. I also think that your notion that the Holocaust is not the be-all-and-end-all of Jewish or General History is right on the money (As evidenced in only the past few years in Ruanda, for example).
But I just don’t understand why you won’t bite the bullet and admit that Mel Gibson decided to waffle on an extremely straightforward question, that was lobbed up for him to get some good PR on. He failed to smash the ball, fell all over himself trying to run after it once it hit the ground, and sent it sailing over the umpire’s head…
The question is “Why?”
I think there are three possibilities:
He’s incredibly stupid.
He honestly believed that in the name of some Universal Humanitarianism, he had to sound off on other evils and attrocities when asked about the holocaust, even at the expense of being badly misunderstood - especially given the context of the interview and the question (interviewer trying to get him off hook in dicey situation with the new movie frightening Jews)
He refuses to come straight out and say “Yes, the holocaust happened”.
I don’t think he’s stupid. Cross out option 1.
I don’t think he’s such a crusader for Human Rights in general that he’d choose option 2 even if he believes it. And if he did, then I think it includes option 1…
That leaves option 3 - Mel Gibson is uncomfortable just coming out and saying “Yes, the Holocaust happened”. Why? Maybe to appease his father. Maybe he does harbor some anti-semitism - I don’t know and I’m not going so far as actually to accuse him of anything.
What I don’t understand is why you continue insisting that he was excercising option 2 - Human Right/Human Situation Crusade.
It just sure doesn’t sound that way to this particular Jew… if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck…
OK - I’ve tried very hard to keep it toned down. I’m trying to avoid accusing you of anything or being confrontational. I even agree with you on the general principles and points you’ve raised throughout the discussion. I’m really just trying to understand why you’re so certain Mel Gibson said what he said for the same reasons you are saying what you are saying, and not because maybe (:gasp! he isn’t such a great Jew-lover as one might think…
I’m still up to my neck in Canadians, so this will be brief; I hope to have things more under control by this afternoon.
As I stated before in various pieces, I don’t know Mel Gibson and don’t generally follow his public pronouncements. I believe that most human beings are basically good most of the time, and so I am much more inclined to believe #1 and/or #2, without some very concrete and clear evidence of #3, because #3 is a pretty hefty, hardcore thing of which to accuse a total stranger (as it essentially means he is an anti-Semite and/or Holocaust denier, or at the very least, unwilling to disassociate himself from the opinions of his father, who is possibly one of the foregoing; I pay even less attention to his father than I do to him).
I just don’t believe that the single statement of his that has been quoted in this thread is clear enough evidence of #3. Others may disagree, and that’s certainly their (or your) prerogative. And I never said I was positive Mel Gibson is not biased, bigoted, anti-Semitic, or whatever; I just said I was reluctant to judge him n the basis of the evidence presented, because to me it was rather weak and ambiguous.
However, it pisses me off to no end when people get nasty toward me because I hold a different opinion than they do. There is a way to disagree respectfully, as you and Dseid have done, but some people in this thread seem unwilling or incapable of doing so.
Either you’re very tall, or Canadians are shorter than I thought…
No cite - I’m busy too - but I have heard his name before, in similarly suggestive cases. OK - this still isn’t proof. But when a guy is suspected of something more than once, I will tend to get suspicious… this isn’t a Court of Law, after all!
Completely agreed. I’m just trying to understand why you seem to be going so far out of the way to give him the benefit of doubt…
Well, until this thread I’d seen nothing at all on the subject, and quite frankly, digging for negative information on the opinions of someone whose opinions bear next to no significance for me is not a terribly high priority. If you want to be suspicious yourself, go right ahead, but don’t get pissed off at me because I’m not as suspicious as you think I should be. I get quite disgusted with people who tell me what my opinions should be without offering any additional factual evidence.
Precisely because of the severity of the accusation.
Read my posts again please and tell me exactly what you don’t understand.
Then, when you manage to keep silly, but nevertheless intended to come across as denigrating and insulting comments out of “title” and last sentence of your post, I shall try to explain - once again - what I wrote and meant by writing it.
I shall try to answer questions whenever they are asked in a decent manner.
The questions again, without the header and closer …The op asked whether or not Jewish concerns about Gibson’s movie were justified or not. A very specific item. A movie that allegedly plays up the Christ-killer myth that has been used to stoke Jew hatred for many hundreds of years. Tell me please what the relevance to that specific there is to the early rant about how Jews “abuse” the Holocaust for political purposes (?!), if not to state that Jewish concerns about antisemitism should be dismissed in general because Jews always “scream” antisemitism? What exactly does your slanderous fantasy about Jewish abuse of the Holocaust have to do with concerns of this particular movie and whether or not they have any just cause?
And yes, please give some examples of what you precisely mean by that offensive statement about Jews abusing the Holocaust for political ends? Are you referencing over fifty years ago when the Holocaust was part of the justification for European acquiesence to a partition plan? Because honestly, I hardly ever hear about the Holocaust in particular mentioned in debates currently about Israel other than used by antisemites making slurs about Zionist being Nazis. Or do you reference people like me, who when discussing why I believe that Israel needs to exist for the sake of Jews all over the world will discuss the long, repetitive, horrific history of antisemitism (including HaShoah) as explanation for why many of us Jews are less than willing to just trust ourselves to the world’s good graces? Am I engaged in “cheap PR” that makes you “want to vomit” when I explain why I feel the way I do?
And my previous question to you remains: what actions or statements would you believe cross the line into antisemitism? The Christ-killer slur doesn’t do it, obviously. Does bombing of Temples in Europe by angry Arabs cross the line? Or is that just an understandable extension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Does broadcast of The Protocals of Zion by state sponsored media in Arab countries cross the line? Where do you draw it? Is that a clear enough question for you to answer?
Answer by answering or continue to answer by not answering. Your choice.
he isn’t such a great Jew-lover as one might think…