As the text underneath the photograph states, it was the ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
Yes, you did. In fact, here you are admitting that you did.
You still don’t seem to grasp that making an offensive comparison between Nazis and Orthodox Jews tends to undermine any other points concerning Jews and their history you may have.
Newsflash: most people do not consider Orthodox Jews and Nazis to be morally equivalent. To state as much is startling at best.
And here you go again - doing it all over again. :rolleyes:
Huh?
I don’t thing Jews are a “single entity”, like the Borg in Star Trek. In fact, I have no idea what you mean. Are you upset that Jews call themselves Jews, or something?
I certainly think they are “entitled to their beliefs”. It frankly disgusts me that anyone would not, given that no aspect of “their beliefs” as I have heard them appears to harm anyone. I exend that reasoning, BTW, to any other religion or ethnicity - they can believe what they want, as long as they don’t cause harm thereby. If you want to critisize the beliefs of any group of people, in my opinion the onus is on you to demonstrate the harm that those beliefs lead to.
Orthodox Jews may keep Kosher; I may find this absurd; but who cares? It doesn’t hurt me or anyone else if they won’t eat pork. That is their business. Similarly, their beliefs about who is or is not an Orthodox Jew may be silly - according to me - but so what? That is their business. Their notion of being a “chosen people” may be absurd [although I bet you don’t know what, exactly, they mean by it] - but once again, why would anyone care?
As far as I can see, my “hidden agenda” consists in - not being a bigot. I can live with that. ;j
I think we need more than one brief, anonymous photo caption from an obscure newspaper to know what this was all about…i.e. was the event from which gypsies were supposedly excluded a specific religious ceremony, or part of an order (by whom?) to keep them excluded from any part in the 50th anniversary commemoration? I can’t find anything about this online.
What I do find via Google are references to Roma exhibit(s) at the Auschwitz museum, Roma participation in commemorative events at Buchenwald, and discussion of lack of recognition of their internment and killing which lays blame on the East German Communist government, Hungary and even French historians. I don’t see anything that would allow one to reasonably conclude that one group of Holocaust victims is responsible for ignoring another group.
A bit OT, but I have a general question:
For the ethnic group traditionally known as “gypsies”, I have heard that the term “gypsy” is somewhat insulting (akin to calling Innuit “Eskimos”).
I have heard, and use, the term “Roma” instead. I see in this thread and elsewhere the terms “Romany”, “Romani” and “Sinti” used.
Are these all synonomous, equally valid, or are some terms preferable/refer to different groups?
Sinti = German Roma.
Romani = adjectival version of Roma.
Romany = Anglicized version of Romani, sometimes used as a noun.
In regards to the Holocaust, the terms Roma and Sinti are preferred, with Romani being used as the correct adjective.
Before you criticize the Jewish concept of the Chosen People, you should at least have an understanding of what it means. Jewish theology does not say that Jews were chosen to present certain ideas to the world, it says that they were chosen to obey certain laws. Jews are not on a mission of conversion, in fact, conversion to Judaism is deliberately complicated and difficult.
As for the OP, it is one of the most upsetting and depressing that I have ever read on this message board. ammo, your primary responsibility is to your daughter. You need to make sure that she learns the truth, and that she understands that her friend’s parents have ideas that are bigoted and wrong. But I don’t think it’s going to be possible to change these people’s minds.
Wow, was a splinter of different debates being carried on at the same time.
Back to the OP:
If A. is a good friend of your daughters and likely will be for some time, instead of confronting her or her family which will only result in insane/illogical/delusional conversation and hurt feelings, and the girls probably not seeing each other except at school anymore. These people cannot be saved. Their child,however, can.
Why not use age-appropriate books for you to read with your daughter in a self assigned reading program. Don’t brag about it, just casually mention to A. that “This month’s theme for our read-together book is Farewell to Manzanar.” Or better yet, have your daughter drop it into conversation. Maybe keeping a book journal/diary of her thoughts and feelings for it might help it more along. Mixing up the books and themed matters would make it less obvious and more interesting overall for everyone.
When she is about 14 or so, I heartily recommend Donbas by Jacques Sandelesque and a little older than that ** Night** by Elie Weisel. One is soviet interment, the other Nazi. Terrible, terrible, terriblely eye opening books brilliantly done in a narrative that can only be described as gripping.( IMHO) opinion.
Just plant the seeds in A.'s mind of truth. give a little encouragement and possibly, one day, she may thank you for it, if only mentally. Do your best, but don’t get attached to the outcome. If her parents are so far gone as to pull their child from a class like this, it can only lead to wondering just what in the hell they are discussing at home.
You don’t want to push this girl away because of her parents strong views or have her go back home say that the Jones were discussing the Holocaust again. Find out in advance when specific shows regarding this theme will be on TV. Then have the set on if she is over. Gently coaxing the deer out of the headlights of an oncoming train. The deer just might come to you or it just might opt to join the blinding white light of ignorance and bliss. Just try not to get hit by a flying chuck of bloody scrapnel, eh?
** I realize that technically being the Chosen of God only mandates that you follow certain rules.
But as cmkeller and other Orthodox Jews have expressed on these boards several times before (and it’s a sentiment I’ve heard frequently in RL), it’s common to assert that the Jews were intended to be an example or guide to the rest of the world in some manner.
And since this is a relatively widespread concept among quite a few religions, including some sects of Christianity…
Here, here.
No. There are no “Jews as a people”, there are only “Jews as in ideological affiliation”. Part of the problem is that the cultural criteria for being Jewish are illogical.
** Translation: the comparison you make is reflexively offensive to me, so I will conclude that you are wrong and ignore anything you say.
If I said that Jews and Nazis shared most of their genes, I’m sure there are people who would be shocked and offended at that, too. It’s still true – and obviously true.
** Well, since most people don’t believe it, it’s obviously mistaken and wrong. I will report to the nearest re-education camp at the earliest opportunity.
** I am not suggesting that Jewish people are some kind of hive mind. :rolleyes: My point is that they are not a clearly definable group, nor do they necessarily share any meaningful traits. The label is not a useful one.
** Ah yes, the great dogma of our time: anyone can say or believe anything as long as it doesn’t injure anyone, and anything that injures someone in any way is necessarily wrong.
** There is no “they”. There is no group that corresponds with the label of “Jewish”. That is precisely the problem.
You have a distorted idea of what bigotry is. Moreover, you are attempting to spread the concept that you were infected with. We will not live with that.
Speaking of Star Trek - how very Spockian.**
Alright, let’s review TVAA’s statements in this thread.
TVAA thinks Jews are a “subculture” and do not have a right to be viewed as an ethnic group.
TVAA has expressed his abhorrence of Orthodox Jews, likening them to “the most bigoted” skinheads. A poster who objects to this characterization is spreading an “infected” idea.
TVAA implies Jews are monopolizing the Holocaust for their own selfish ends.
Yes, we have a very clear example of what bigotry is.
Ethnic groups are defined by ethnicity. Judaism stretches across many different ethnic groups.
The idea that a person falls into a certain category solely because of the way he is born, not because of any characteristics he might have, that a person is inherently Jewish regardless of their upbringing, genetics, personal beliefs, or choices – gee, I guess you’re right, there’s really no similarity between Orthodox Jewish and Nazi ideology.
And no, I’m suggesting that some people who are Jewish emphasize the aspects of the Holocaust that they’re personally concerned about and ignore the rest. That’s not exactly a phenomenon limited to Judaism, y’know.
It seems your idea of bigotry is saying something negative about a group you’ve declared off-limits from all criticism.
By the general definition of the term, Malcolm X was a bigot. So are the people who continued the ethnic hatreds between the different “groups” of people. I argue that those who claim – in defiance of all existing evidence – that Jews are an inherently distinct group who need their own homeland are also bigots.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Every ethnic, religious or cultural self-identification is based on … self-identification. It is, I am afraid, your singling out of “the Jews” for moral opprobrium based on them doing what everyone else in the world does which is “illogical”.
Proper translation: if you make a startlingly bigoted statement demonstrating quite irrational hatred of the group under discussion, people will conclude that everything else you say on the topic of that group is motivated by the irrational dislike you have admitted to.
Delusions of paranoia, or limp attempt at sarcasm?
They are a clearly identifiable group because they all call themselves “Jews”. They share the meaningful trait of being Jewish. The label is a useful one because they think it is.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Please explain to me why anyone should find some moral problem with someone else believing something that doesn’t injure someone.
Injuring someone may be wrong or it may be right - depending on the justification for it. Believing something that does not injure someone requires no justification whatsoever. That is what freedom means.
Yes there is. They call themselves “Jews”. They don’t give a shit whether you find this a “problem” or not.
You won’t? What, exactly, are you going to do about it? And who is this “we” you are alluding to?
Here is my dictionary definition of “Bigot” from a handy Oxford dictionary: “bigot/n. a person intolerant of another’s beliefs, religion, race, politics, etc.”
You not only have admitted you are intollerant of Orthodox Jews, you have compared them, morally, to Nazis; you won’t even admit that Jews exist!
I rest my case.
** Uh, not quite. People with a Caucasian background aren’t accepted as being “black”, no matter how they identify themselves.
In some cases, people are concerned only with appearance. I know a person who’s from a mixed-marriage from a Latino background. He looks Eastern European (sort of Polish, actually). Guess how he was accepted as Latino, even though he had both the genetics AND the culture.
Ethnicity is not a matter of self-identification. You’re referring to a completely different matter of perceived culture.
** Let’s see: there’s several errors in these sentences.
First, the statement was not startlingly bigoted – go ahead, try constructing an argument demonstrating that it was. All you can go is apply the label “bigot” because you saw a group that in your mind should not be criticized compared to a group that in your mind should always be criticized.
Secondly, I do not hate people from specific ethnic backgrounds because being from an ethnic background has little, if anything, to do with the qualities I value (and dislike) in people. Individual characteristics are everything.
Thirdly, it is certainly not an irrational dislike. I hate the Nazi ideology because it is irrational and evil, and I hate Orthodox Jewish ideology for the same reasons. Utterly logical and rational.
** I don’t think you’re particularly good at detecting sarcasm, so I suggest you go with the “paranoia” explanation. Nothing like suggesting that a person you disagree with is mentally ill to further an argument…
** What utter nonsense. They belong in a group because they all use the same label, and they use the label because they’re in the same group? Forget circular reasoning – this is more like a moebius strip.
If a person is truly Jewish because they call themselves Jewish, then there’s no logical way for a person not to be “truly” Jewish as long as they use the label. Hmmm… what’s Israel’s policy on granting citizenship, again?
Because you’re not actually thinking about what you’re saying, merely repeating ideas you’ve been given, and so you don’t recognize how ridiculous they are. If we apply your claims, we quickly see that they do not match the ways people use the terms in real life. Ergo, your claimed understanding has absolutely nothing to do with the general understanding, and you have not presented any reasoning to suggest that yours is superior or objectively correct.
** My believing that doesn’t hurt anyone – why do you care? By your own espoused beliefs, you should have no problem with my believing whatever I want, so why are you concerned? (The answer, of course, is that you don’t really believe anything you’re saying. You believe that you believe, but you don’t believe.)
** No, because the concept of freedom does not reference injury. I am free to do something if I am not restrained from doing it.
** And I do not care whether or not they care.
** I will prevent your ignorance from spreading by speaking the truth – which is precisely what this website claims to be about.
** How ridiculous. Everyone is intolerant of something – particularly those people who claim to be tolerant. I’ve noticed that people who say they are open to any and all viewpoints often violently reject the idea that we shouldn’t be open to any and all viewpoints – they’re extremely intolerant of the concept that complete tolerance is a bad thing, even as their actions show that they actually agree with this principle.
** Their moral position on some issues is equivalent to the Nazi’s. This is a fact; the ways in which we interpret this are subjective. If you claim their beliefs about those points is valid, you really have no reason to claim that the Nazis were invalid in their beliefs, although you can still disagree with the actions each group took based on their beliefs.
As an ethnicity, “Jews” do not exist. Jewish people of Middle Eastern descent are not genetically or phenotypically distinguishable from other people from the Middle East. They are, however, distinguishable from Eastern European Jews, or Ethiopian Jews, etc. There are plenty of Jewish people that don’t fit the stereotypes as to how they appear.
What position are you actually supporting – that a Jew is anyone who says they’re a Jew, or that Jews are a distinct ethnicity? The first position negates your later position that I’m a bigot for not claiming Jews are an ethnicity, because you yourself claim that they’re not. The second negates your position that ethnicity is determined by self-identification.
[sigh]
Oooo, Orthodox Jews are evil. I sense the genesis of a Dana Carvey routine.
**
In the sense that dementia is “logical and rational”, yes.
**
Um, cite?
I thought the cite titled Jewish Responses to the Porrajmos (The Romani Holocaust) mentioned this event, but it seems I was mistaken. A longer, updated version of that paper, less contentiously named Responses to the Porrajmos (The Romani Holocaust) was available online, but is now down. I’ve just managed to access the computer with a copy of this stored on the hard drive (I’d be happy to email you a copy, if you wish). From that version:
I suppose the Romani representatives not being allowed to participate could be considered reasonable in a twisted logic way. It was, after all, the anniversary of the camp’s liberation and only one Romani survivor had been liberated.
Before I begin to respond to this, I’d just like to note that some of the greatest support that the Romani people have received (in regards to obtaining compensation for Holocaust survivors, Romani rights in general and so on) has come from Jewish people and Jewish groups. Also, as you’ve read, there are many reasons for the lack of awareness, and lack of interest, as to what happened to the Roma and Sinti. One of the main reasons, I suppose, is that Romanies are pretty much the most despised ethnic groups in Europe.
Sadly, there are some scholars who hold an exclusivist position and who also appear to be resorting to revisionist tactics in order to downplay the Romani experience under the Nazis.
Thanks for the response, Kal.
It appears the circumstances surrounding the photo you linked are still quite hazy.
An exclusion of Romani representatives from the entire commemorative events at Auschwitz would of course have been inexcusable. Based on what’s been presented here, we don’t know what actually did occur.
So, in your opinion, people like Powell (and most so-called Black Americans) aren’t “Black” - because they obviously have a bunch of White ancestors?
Ethnicity is indeed a complex matter, but it is only partly and in some cases based on external appearences.
There is no such thing as “race” based on some immutable laws of nature. Race, ethnicity and cultural identity are always and in every case a matter of human invention.
People are “black” because those people, and others in the society in which they live, consider that having some genes for black skin important to their self-identity. If they did not, it would not matter, and they would call themselves something else.
Simple, really. Too simple for you, though.
-
Finding Orthodox Jews morally equivalent to Nazis is startlingly bigoted. The reason is that Nazis are universally hated because they killed millions of people; modern Nazis would also like to do the same, if they could. Orthodox Jews have not and do not.
-
I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that you hate Orthodox Jews, but not as individuals? That is the equivalent of any racist, who says to someone “I hate Blacks, but not you personally”.
-
Why are Orthodox Jews “evil”? Please eludicate. Should prove instructive.
Even more limp that the first.
All ethnic identification is circular. Get used to it.
Why are people with black skin called “Blacks” again? Because they have black skin … which of course begs the question of why black skin is determinative of identity, doesn’t it?
The policies of the state of Israel have nothing to do with who is Jewish - just who is “jewish” for the purposes of citizenship applications.
You spent a whole paragraph saying “I don’t agree”.
Because I think spreading hatred towards an identifiable group is, in fact, harmful, and something that should be countered with rational argument whenever practical.
Someone choosing to not eat pork may be illogical, but it is not harmful.
Understand?
You are free to swing your fist wherever you want, unless it is in danger of connecting with someone’s nose.
Obviously.
Right back at ya.
So, now the dictionary is “ridiculous”?
Go email the guys who put out the Oxford pocket edition, and tell them to make a special exception to “Orthodox Jew Hatred” in their definition of “bigotry”. You explain to them how “ridiculous” it is that people are finding you a bigot.
I never claimed to be tolerant of “any and all viewpoints”. That “…which don’t seek activly to do harm to people” bit isn’t just on there for decoration, you know.
This makes no sense at all. So the Nazis agreed with the Jews that Jews were Jews - doesn’t add up to any moral equivalency in their behaviour.
Once again, the reasons that Nazis were bad was that they killed people based on this definition, not that they had a definition! :rolleyes:
No ethnicities “exist”. Nor are ethnicities based on genetics.
They may, in part, be based on the importance people place on
some genetic characteristics. Or they may not.
Who cares whether or not “There are plenty of Jewish people that don’t fit the stereotypes as to how they appear”? I don’t think that Powell looks particularly black. Does that, somehow, matter?
You quite fail to see that the two are the exact same thing, and not contradictory in any way. Ethnicity is a human construct. Hating someone based on it is bigotry. Bigotry is both irrational and harmful to others.
Oh, and Kal - I forgot to thank you for those definitions; I will keep them in mind.
** What gave you that idea?
Being “Black” indicates that one is a descendent of the African slaves and has has a predominance of phenotypic traits. There are plenty of people who are descended from those individuals who would not be considered black.
** External appearances should be irrelevant. Some people use them, incorrectly. Blacks, while not truly genetically distinguishable from other people, can meaningfully be said to be defined by a genetic (“racial”) heritage. There is also a significant cultural identification; while it is sometimes the case that people who are not physically black are considered culturally black, the phenotypical definition is usually primary. I hope to eventually eliminate this category, making it possible for people to simply be viewed as people who happen to have a certain background. We don’t divide people into categories based on their hair color, although we have such categories for hair color itself – we shouldn’t do so for skin color, hair type, facial structure, and so on.
** Somewhat true, and somewhat false.
** But at least the category is based on a trait of the people involved.
** That’s what you consider an argument? That doesn’t even follow coherently.
-
The ancient Jews, according to their religious texts, had no problems with genocide. As Orthodox Jews consider themselves to be the continuation of those ancient people, and hold those texts in high esteem, I see no reason to except them from the history they claim for themselves.
-
Your above argument might favor the position that my comparison is invalid; you really haven’t demonstrated that it’s “startingly bigoted”. I don’t think you understand what ‘bigoted’ means: it refers to negatively prejudging and hating people because they belong to a certain ethnicity, race, or culture. I don’t do this: I hate people because of their individual beliefs and traits.
** You have it completely backwards. I don’t hate groups – I hate individuals who hold evil opinions and ideas.
** Those Orthodox Jews who believe that God ordered them to commit genocide further the concept that such behavior is acceptable. Those Orthodox Jews who suggest that an ancient coventant is binding on people merely because of an accident of birth further the idea that lineage is important. Those Orthodox Jews who consider that lineage to be among the most important aspects of a person compound this problem.
There are plenty of Jews who consider that tradition to be the most important aspect of their identity. There are plenty of Neo-Nazis who would do likewise. The fact that one group sees it as positive and the other negative is irrelevant.
** Then it’s all meaningless, and the Orthodox Jews are still wrong.
** Since those policies happen to match the traditional religious criteria that define “Jewishness”, I am reasonably certain that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
** So you’re against hating Neo-Nazis?
[laughs]
Silly little man, you’re not even consistent.
** I think that’s stupid, but I don’t particularly care. I do care about the unwilling mutilation of children.
** No, you’re confusing the concept of social rights with the concept of freedom. :rolleyes:
** Again, you don’t understand the definition of bigotry.
** What’s wrong with actively seeking to do harm to people? Our society does that all the time – it’s which people are being harmed that matters. Should we cease placing people in prison?
** No, they agreed with an interpretation of who the Jews were. That interpretation was an evil one – that’s why there’s a moral equivalency, not in their behavior but in their beliefs.
** So if they hadn’t killed people, you wouldn’t mind? If they had just considered people who fit that definition to be subhuman filth, you wouldn’t object?
** Actually, quite a few are. Not that such a fact would penetrate your immense ignorance.
** There are plenty of people who don’t fit the cultural or religious definitions of Jewishness either, but they’re still considered Jews by the Orthodox. What’s your point?
** Thus, you reveal your ignorance. You’ve gotten the definitions of “ethnicity” AND “bigotry” wrong. You’ve also failed to actually present an argument as to why it’s irrational, and merely being harmful is not the point.
Yeesh. What a maroon.
All those in favor of offering Collounsbury a special day-pass say, “Aye”.
Hmmm… Interesting. TVAA’s last line of defense was to invoke a claim that the Jews killed a bunch of people several millenia ago.
Everyone wave bye.