The Holocaust - do we need to know? (page 10)

z

the jews themselfs contributed to it by segregating themselfs from the rest of the population

did the or the were forced to?

Realist

little toe,

not really as it depends on how they are recognized. if they view themselves as jewish then the argument is valid (similar to fraternity members).

btw the 30% is not meant to be the 'blood' percentage just the amount of people with german decent (it is unknown to me to what extend they are mixtures with other ethnic groups).

LittleToe

Now now, don't be obtuse. I'm not talking about blood-percentage. I'm talking about percentage of leadership who are of German (etc.) descent.

If their President was Arnold Schwarzenegger they'd have 100% Austrian Presidency - would THAT be fair, by your defined standard, as evidenced in this thread?

Realist

little toe,

sorry i misunderstood you statement then:

The premise is also moot if they are of Germanic descent to a greater quantity than 30%

the president is a single figure and thus cannot be - from an ethnic or religious point of view - representative of the population.

if you have a group of lets say 100 people the situation is different...the prob that a minority of say 5% contributes 50 people in this group is minute.

LittleToe

But I'm guessing the Germanic descendants are likely disproportionate, too

Getting back to your "Jewish" concern, how many of them are actually pure-blooded Jews, regardless of their claims and surname? To declare that ""just because they have a drop of Jewish blood makes them 100% Jewish and hence not eligible to be in leadership for their country is not a million miles from Hitlers position.

I'm surprised you cannot see this, especially faced with the outrage of the other posters' comments on this thread. But truth be told, you can see that, can't you?

Btw, Gyles (Abaddon) asked you some pretty reasonable questions back there...

fleaman uk

United Kingdom Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex

Bloody hell,are we really sending a completely clueless no-body to such an important Commemoration?

Realist

little toe,

But I'm guessing the Germanic descendants are likely disproportionate, too

i stated that before.

how many of them are actually pure-blooded Jews, regardless of their claims and surname?

this is irrelevant as the only important feature is the association with the group. "pure blooded" as you state is in this context nonesensical anyway as jews do not form a homogenous genetic group.

I'm surprised you cannot see this

i am not stating what you try to reject.

Narkissos

Realist,

I for one don't think you have Nazi leanings (I may be mistaken) but you do belong to a country which took an active part in the 3rd Reich yet deemed itself collectively innocent for that because of the Anschluss ("we did not decide"). We have, to a lesser extent, the same kind of problem with the post-war myth that the "true France" was the Résistance, as if the collaborationist Vichy French State didn't count. The problem of such myths is that they postpone a necessary memory work, and the coping with the resulting guilt.

This being said, from a "realistic" point of view, I think most of your argument is counter-productive. Perhaps the shoah should not have become a historical taboo. Certainly it should not be used as a cover-up for the current Israeli policy. But here we are, and perhaps only a Jew can make effective political criticism regarding the "exploitation of the Shoah" (as Yehudi Menuhin did). Certainly not an Austrian or even a French. Thinking of it, that's a very little price to pay for the awful history which brought us to life.

The only sure fact now is that any argument which criticises the Israeli State with revisionist, antisemitic or even antijudaic overtones is absolutely sure to serve the current Israeli policy, which thrives on this confusion and is only too happy to dismiss any criticism as revisionist, antisemitic or antijudaic. Which means that you should absolutely separate (1) historical, (2) ethnic and (3) religious issues from the current political one. Unless you are actually an Israeli agent of course...

frenchbabyface

Narkissos : The only sure fact now is that any argument which criticises the Israeli State with revisionist, antisemitic or even antijudaic overtones is absolutely sure to serve the current Israeli policy, which thrives on this confusion and is only too happy to dismiss any criticism as revisionist, antisemitic or antijudaic. Which means that you should absolutely separate (1) historical, (2) ethnic and (3) religious issues from the current political one. Unless you are actually an Israeli agent of course...

Perfect answer !

Realist

Narkissos,

great post.

I for one don't think you have Nazi leanings (I may be mistaken) but you do belong to a country which took an active part in the 3rd Reich yet deemed itself collectively innocent for that because of the Anschluss

absolutely correct. i critisised this about austria in a previous thread.

Perhaps the shoah should not have become a historical taboo.

it is one without question.

But here we are, and perhaps only a Jew can make effective political criticism regarding the "exploitation of the Shoah" (as Yehudi Menuhin did).

finkelstein wrote an excellent book about the holocaust industry and the exploitation of the topic. had this been written by a none jew it would probably have caused an outcry.

Certainly not an Austrian or even a French.

the problem is that by silencing ourselves we allow the exploitation of the topic (which aside from the fact that it is expensive financially due to still running reparations it also allows israeli human rights violations).

I fully understand that this is a sensitive topic with people who lost relatives due to nazi murders. however some 50 to 60 million people were killed in the war and it is absolutely legitimate to debate these numbers and aspects of their death. for instance the number of russian victims can be discussed without moral outcry so can be the number of victims from carped bombings.

sensitivity is ok ... banning any debate about the subject and calling everyone who dares to state legitimate doubts about some aspects as nazis is not.

The Holocaust - do we need to know?

Share this