Well, the last point is reasonable, to a point - after all, it is about European history, not that of Saudi Arabia. Not that many non-historians living in Europe are nearly as familiar with (say) the Rape of Nanking.
But what about all that strange stuff which I hear is published from time to time about the old medieval “blood libel” in Saudi Arabia?
Lumpy:
Because the Holocaust was what made it clear to the world that Jews could not be safe without a homeland of their own, leading to the U.N. Partition Plan. The less sense the international community has of the dangers of Anti-Semitism, the more favorable they will be to Middle East plans that favor the Palestinians at the expense of Isralie security.
Well, all the Saudis I work with are educated men, all are at least trilingual.
The blood libel came up in some backwoods paper a few months ago during Purim. The paper was forced to print a retraction of the story which claimed Jews used Muslim blood to prepare holiday treats.
In Islam, Jesus was not ‘killed by Jews,’ instead he escaped death through some slight-of-hand. The nearest thing to it in the Christian world would be the old book ‘The Passover Plot.’
By the way a few years ago in the local paper was a denunciation of Hitler in a letter to the editor. The write quite properly pointed out that if not for Hitler, Palestine would be free.
I believe you’re misreading jdbeatty’s post. He’s not saying that he won’t apologize for atrocities, he’s saying that he “won’t make apologies” for them. In other words, he won’t try to justify them or excuse them. Slippery language, ours!
I stand corrected.
Cheers.
I still have a hard time coming to grips with how antisemitism is any more or less dangerous that, say antiamericanism, antimuslimism, racism
(racism IMHO is the stupidest thing I can think of: prove the existance of race!?)
All of these anti-isms are attacks on belief (with the exception of Isreal vs Palestine where its definitely got alot to do with geography). I don’t undertand attacking anyone for their beliefs if they are not trying to force them on me - and I don’t mean Jehovah’s Witness force either.
As for the Holocost deniers, the burden of proof lies now with them : prove then that it DIDN’T happen, where’s the evidence that it was invented? As has been earlier stated, there are truckloads of proof that something in that general direction of attrocity did occur.
Plus, these Muslims are living in France, attempting to advance their belief / propaganda on people of an unlike mind, hence disruption of education falls into the relm of FORCE. Religious freedom is one thing, but trying to bring your culture with you into a foriegn land and throw it in the natives face is just plain wrong. I dare any westerner to go to Iran (especially a woman) and dress in shorts and a tshirt (common atire for hot weather). Yet in Frankfurt Germany I see Casper the somewhat-unfriendly black-wrapped ghost mummified head to toe everywhere. Perhaps the western cultures are TOO liberal…
Anti-Semitism has the dubious advantage of being hundreds of years old and directed specifically at an ethic group. An ethnic group specifically targeted by the pervasive religious institutions of an entire civilization.
As to you point about foreigner being disrespectful of local culture, I would say that the idea of a static, monolithic culture being tainted by foreign thoughts is indicative of a culture that is stagnating.
I agree in the case of Germany, the Immigrants have more rights than the citizens. But I seem to recall a lawsuit not too long ago involving a muslim woman who insisted on having her Drivers licence foto taken with her entire headgear on, basically looked like a ninja mask. She was refused the license and sued on the basis that another state had allowed it
http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/05/29/license.veil/index.html
Is American Culture stagnating too?
I have no idea what the point is that your trying to make with immigrant rights in Germany. Obviously German culture brought those into law, unless somehow the immigrants culture managed to overwhelm typical parliamentary procedure.
My point was that a culture that considers new cultural infusions as a taint on itself tends to stagnant. Perhaps its my Canadian view. Here there is no monolithic Canadian culture, there is no ethnically identifiedable Canadian. Heck we allow Sihk turbins now as standard RCMP head gear. While I can understand concern about the rate of cultural infusion, to state
implies that the incoming culture is distasteful.
Oh, and your link? It does nothing aside from detail how new cultural influences are integrated into the dominant culture. It says nothing about rejecting those influences, but then again I never said that it was easy.
These people are jerks, but I wouldn’t treat this like an Islamic plot.
I think you’re erroneously - and sort of offensively - making it sound like antisemitism is a tenet of Islam. The kids standing up and denying the Holocaust, I have a problem with. On the other hand, asking if you can dress as you want and display your religion is hardly “throwing it in the natives’ face.”
Great example. Iran is a murderous, dictatorial theocracy. Exactly what Western cultures SHOULDN’T be like, ever, for any reason. What’s unfriendly about the burqa, by the way?
Because I did not commit any and have no personal knowlege of any. I won’t apologize for things I personally had nothing to do with.
In our culture people who hide their faces are thought to do so for nefarious purposes. Notable exceptions include Halloween, the Lone Ranger, and various spandex clad superheroes. A lot of information can be gleaned from facial expressions and we use them when communicating. People who hide their faces are going to be viewed with some suspicion.
Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks I guess.
Marc
*I don’t think a burqa has to include a mask but Erasticity specifically mentioned the ones covered head to toe in every spot.
Erasticity:
It’s not inherently more dangerous. The difference is, though, whether the victims of the given form of anti-Xism in question would presumably be reasonably protected by laws in civilized society. In most such cases, there is a national entity that can be relied on for protection, or there are legal protections against anti-Xism becoming institutionalized, or at worst, it’s limited to economic discrimination, but not outright extermination. The Holocaust made it clear that no one was going to protect the lives of Jews, so the international community, by granting them a state of their own, gave them the ability - and responsibility - to protect themselves.
I think this post should be inserted into the ‘Why the prejudice against beards?’ thread. 
And why can’t I have a bearded smiley? I feel excluded!