Anti-sematism on ATS should not be tolerated.

Originally posted by LogicalSolutionYou have to realize that the vast majority of holocaust survivors that are sharing their stories, were only 2-5 years old when the holocaust happened! Little kids have a very vivid imagination, and do you really trust them to be able to remember what accurately happened?

Don't worry, I'll be sure to explain to my partner's 72-year-old father how he's simply confused about where half of his family went during wartime Hungary when I see him tonight. I'm certain he'll appreciate your clarification; thanks for helping him out with this.

Originally posted by LogicalSolution
One of the first things Professor Meredith Cantor taught me in the photojournalism class I took in college, is that it doesn't matter what's in the photo, all that matters is what you say is in the photo.

I wonder what she'd think if she knew you were stretching that to try and fit the Holocaust?

I too covered photojournalism at university and I think my own lecturers would have been curious as to my motivation in trying to take the point to these particular lengths.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

I think most intelligent people are not anti-semitic as to their views about Jews. Yes, there have been lots of discussions about the role of zionist and Jews in banking, NWO etc, and thus, sometimes the Jewish people are looked upon unfavourably, but I don't believe that the vast majority think ALL Jews are bad.

It's like saying that, when a terrorist bomb goes off, that everyone will say that ALL muslims are like that, or when Christian nations are bombing muslim countries, that ALL Christians are blood-thirsty barbarians. It's nearly always the minority that have been corrupted by power. And unfortunately, everyone else gave power to those who can't handle it responsibly.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


I dont hate jews or would I put them down I just cant understand though that the Jews that I have ever dealt with treated me as if I did'nt have the right to talk to them

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Excellent observations

I've tried many times (not on ATS) to find out answers to your questions and answers to questions about Israel,but i get the inevitable,"you hate Jews...you're anti-semitic."

Its frustrating.But it doesn't stop me.

reply to post by jakyll


I think many of those who discuss the holocaust are Anti-Polish. Polish holocaust deniers.

After all;

en.wikipedia.org...

Other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime, including the Gypsies; Soviets, particularly prisoners of war; Communists; ethnic Poles; In total, 2.5 million non-Jewish Polish citizens perished during the course of the war. Over two million were ethnic Poles (the remaining 500,000 were mainly ethnic minority Ukrainians and Belarusians living in Poland). The majority of those killed by Nazi Germany were civilians (exceeding military deaths nearly 10:1).[3][4], In Heinrich Himmler's view, "The great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles." Any Pole with a high-school education was a likely candidate for public execution or sentencing to a death camp, because the educated would be able to keep alive a sense of Polish nationhood.

Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,[8] or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the total number of victims is estimated to be nine to 11 million.

So why is it anti-Semitic to deny the Jewish holocaust, but not anti Polish, or anti Soviet, or anti Romani, or anti Freemason, ( I just found out there was a Freemason persecution too in this article) to continually make it a Jewish issue only and ignore the other several million victims?

I think the reason it is so difficult to avoid making any statements that are "Anti-Semitic" is that there is an implied specialness to their persecution. It is "more wrong" to criticize or stand against something the country of Israel is doing, or the religion holds as true, or some cultural element that originated in the middle east and spread around the world, etc.

If some of the things said against America on this website were said about Israel, what would we call it?

In my mind, despite the centuries of persecution, there should be no special "off limits" quality extended to the Jewish religion, culture, or state. Why should there be? They are not the only group to have a centuries long "persecution" and denial of their rights.

I think the "problem" of Antisemitism on the boards is as much over zealous application of the term as it is truly racist statements being made. Not that I havent seem truly racist statements made about the Jews, I have, but I have also seen just the most minor criticism of Zionism deemed Anti-Semitic.

reply to post by titorite


iranians are not semitic, they are indo-european (as evidenced by a close examination of their language).

Originally posted by LogicalSolution

Originally posted by jakyll
There's plenty of pictures of dead bodies to prove such a stupid bloody question wrong.

One of the first things Professor Meredith Cantor taught me in the photojournalism class I took in college, is that it doesn't matter what's in the photo, all that matters is what you say is in the photo.

-LS

the father of a friend of mine was one of the very first American soldiers to enter a concentration camp at a point during the war where that became possible

he, unfortunately, did not get to see just a photograph

that gentleman has passed on, as have so many that bore witness to a nightmare from which they could never wake up or shake off

you might as well say that history itself has no meaning past the point where there's no one left alive that has survived to remember it first hand

dismissing history is a lazy man's way of supporting his argument

and what would your argument be exactly? that if it didn't really happen then it would be OK if it happened now?

because any time people start condemning an entire group - or even questioning an entire group of people as if they were one solitary accountable person - I get suspicious

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Here is the rub here however:

Anti Sematism should NEVER be tolerated, nor any other kind of racial or religious hate period.

However, nor should the charge of Anti Sematism used to defelect critisim of a nation whos policies sometimes mirror those that they decry.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I think the reason it is so difficult to avoid making any statements that are "Anti-Semitic" is that there is an implied specialness to their persecution. It is "more wrong" to criticize or stand against something the country of Israel is doing, or the religion holds as true, or some cultural element that originated in the middle east and spread around the world, etc.

It certainly does appear that way.There are many Jews who do not agree
with it,but their voices are usually drowned out.

Talking about Jews or Israel is a bit like walking on egg shells.Sometimes you can be accused of being anti-semitic without even knowing you've said something wrong.


To me,racism is racism.It shouldn't be tolerated,but neither should one case be made out to be more important than other.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
and, there may be people who deny the holocaust, but YES, 6 million people did die, and they are Hitler sympathizers, we know Hitler was bad. This act of denial shouldn't be allowed on the internet. ........... There needs to be a rule against this. I'm getting sick of these denial threads.

But this post is a denial of the truth about the Holocaust too.

en.wikipedia.org...

If Jews are considered to be the sole victims of the Holocaust, then the number of victims is estimated to be around 6.0 million. If the three million Soviet POWs, 150,000 disabled and mentally ill people, 130,000 to 285,000 Roma and Sinti, 5-15,000 homosexuals, political prisoners and religious dissenters are included as victims of the Holocaust, then the death toll is estimated to be around nine million people. Including the deaths of two million ethnic Poles as victims of the Holocaust brings the number of victims to around 11 million. The broadest definition of the Holocaust would also include Soviet civilian victims, raising the death toll to 17 million people.

Which figure is correct? Why should some be included and the others not?

German planners in November 1939 called for nothing less than ‘the complete destruction’ of the Polish people.[61] "All Poles", Heinrich Himmler swore, "will disappear from the world". The Polish state under German occupation was to be cleared of ethnic Poles and settled by German colonists.[62] Of the Poles, by 1952 only about 3-4 million of them were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland, and then only to serve as slaves for German settlers.

Again, why isnt it anti-some other group that there is so little recognition of the others who were killed? Granted, the Jewish people formed the single largest group, but still, this was a human Holocaust, not only a Jewish one. How is any one served by discriminating in favor of or against any group of people in that case?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I couldn't agree with you more Illusions

I've wondered the exact same thing -

I also wonder why we need the numbers at all - persecution and genocide are either wrong or they're not - whether it's 2 people or 6 million

and the who isn't important at all - which I guess is the whole point

but, I know - we just don't think that way - and the numbers do make a difference

I think any honest and accurate attempt to recount what went on during that war does include all of those that suffered - I was taught all of that even in Junior High

I think in this thread - we're focusing on the Jews because - at the beginning - that's what this was about

bigotry and persecution I think most people agree is wrong across the board

and I absolutely agree with everyone who thinks it's not wrong to call out Israel on some of it's policies - anymore than it's wrong to criticize and reexamine our own

but if we can't agree where and when a line has been crossed - I have no problem with calling someone out and asking them to explain

regardless of what group we're talking about - that kind of back and forth is nothing but necessary

sometimes you learn it's nothing more than an inability to form a question in a way that won't offend people

sometimes it is what it is

it doesn't explain or excuse anything, but the Nazis made it impossible for people to have this kind of ugly argument

Originally posted by IllusionsaregranderSo why is it anti-Semitic to deny the Jewish holocaust, but not anti Polish, or anti Soviet, or anti Romani, or anti Freemason, ( I just found out there was a Freemason persecution too in this article) to continually make it a Jewish issue only and ignore the other several million victims?

Quite simply because some groups have a lot of lobbyists and other high profile organizations that exist simply to "root out" those that aren't fond of them and some don't. These days you can't even breath wrong when referring to "certain groups" because the moment you do they will turn the tiniest incident into a media frenzy and heads will roll.

But of course if you don't happen to be part of a "special group" people can say whatever they like about "you and your kind" and no one will care.

I think we also need to be a lot more selective when we use the word "racism". I am white, Jews are white, as are Italians, Persians, Germans, etc... As a white person I can criticize other white people all day long until the cows come home and that does NOT equate to racism.

I get quite annoyed by people trying to clamp down on freedom of speech, I live in the UK, and we are getting more and more strict on it with the race hate laws, and our country executing warrants on holocaust deniers, even when that is not illegal here.

My personal view is let the racists/bigots/idiots have their say. If their ideas are as ridiculous as we are told, then this should be painfully obvious to any listener, and it will be simple for people from the mainstream to debunk their ideas.

when most of our laws are originally created through religion i feel that it should be heavily scrutinised, i am fed up with other peoples faiths and beliefs being thrust upon me on a daily basis, religion is a personal thing and should remain private to the individual, if you follow a religion (imo a cult) its your choice, while i respect you as an individual you cannot expect me to respect your ludicrus beliefs, sorry if this offends, but the church's offend me, take off your blinkers and learn to make judgements for yourselves and stop depending and sacrificing your life on a book or pieces of paper that you honestly have no idea where they came from, if you can feel god inside you it is because you are god, we all are.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I get quite annoyed by people trying to clamp down on freedom of speech, I live in the UK, and we are getting more and more strict on it with the race hate laws, and our country executing warrants on holocaust deniers, even when that is not illegal here.

My personal view is let the racists/bigots/idiots have their say. If their ideas are as ridiculous as we are told, then this should be painfully obvious to any listener, and it will be simple for people from the mainstream to debunk their ideas.

Anon, why are you waiting to be told their views are "ridiculous"? Surely you must have heard these arguments yourself and come to a similar conclusion?

Also, the people from the mainstream (and the not-so mainstream) regularly "debunk" their ideas, but that doesn't stop them. Bigotry is illogical and doesn't make sense as it's based on ridiculous generalisations; arguments such as one race is somehow 'less' than another. How does this work?

It's like the stereotypical 'dumb 'n-word''. If blacks are really stupid as a race, then why are there blacks a hell of a lot smarter than me, a white man? Surely, all white men would be smarter than all black men if this division was on racial lines? What racists really mean is that some blacks are really stupid. However, some whites are really #ing stupid too, a lot dumber than some incredibly smart black men which undermines their argument of a superior white race somewhat.

If all Muslims are terrorists, why aren't there suicide bombings on the hour, every hour, every day of the week in every city in the world? Surely they'd be have to have a queueing system to get a chance to bomb the non-Muslim population? What bigots mean is some Muslims are terrorists but when I consider that I grew-up fearful of Christian IRA terrorists and was actually in the centre of Manchester when the IRA flattened a lot of it 12 years ago, it makes me wonder why their argument is so selective and skewed against Muslims. Don't other terrorists count or something? Isn't there a score sheet for white terrorists?

Similarly, if the banking conspiracy is a Jewish cabal, surely this means that all Jews are in on it then? How likely is that? All the Jewish population in the world on a sinister scheme to rob the goyim clean! What kind of organisational structure would that entail? How efficient must that enormous cabal be? This gets adjusted to 'of course, not all the Jews, just some of the them, the ones that do blah, blah, blah or work for blah, blah, blah'. So although it's not all the Jews that are apparently in on it, it's somehow a Jewish conspiracy.

I've said this before, but most of the banking elite are also white men over 50 years of age. So, why not prejudice against all the middle-aged white men in the world?

Yet bigotry is built on false logic like all this. The flaws in racist 'logic' can be pointed out time-and-again but if someone doesn't want to face up to that, they never will and therefore it's going to be continually perpetuated.

I appreciate the sentiment behind 'giving them rope to hang themselves with' if their arguments are ridiculous, but, after so much of it, it's getting frankly tedious.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

hmm, you say other people use false logic, and then continue to making easily as big a fallacy concerning the 'Jewish Cabal'.

It's like saying if there is a flock of ravens in my yard, and I can't prove it's every raven in existence, therefore it cannot be ravens ?

Originally posted by Phatcat
hmm, you say other people use false logic, and then continue to making easily as big a fallacy concerning the 'Jewish Cabal'.

It's like saying if there is a flock of ravens in my yard, and I can't prove it's every raven in existence, therefore it cannot be ravens ?

No, that's not it at all. You can safely say they're ravens. Ravens, and Jews for that matter, have things that identify them as what they are. However, how likely is it that every raven in existence is in your yard? Really, every raven in existence just happens to be in your yard. How feasible is that? What kind of logistics does that involve, for every raven in existence to be in your yard? How, never mind why?

Also, the key issue here, is that as you've admitted, you can't prove that it's every raven in existence, so why even think it? Why build on the idea that it's every raven in existence when you don't know it and can't actually prove it?

Sure, some ravens are in your yard - and we can both identify a raven - but is that really a raven thing these ravens in your yard are doing, or just the doing of some ravens?

reply to post by Merriman Weir


well, to quote your words, you said:

Similarly, if the banking conspiracy is a Jewish cabal, surely this means that all Jews are in on it then? How likely is that?

How does believing a small percentage of Jewish bankers to be at the heart of a banking conspiracy entail the belief that all Jews must be in on it ?

Originally posted by Phatcat
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

well, to quote your words, you said:

Similarly, if the banking conspiracy is a Jewish cabal, surely this means that all Jews are in on it then? How likely is that?

How does believing a small percentage of Jewish bankers to be at the heart of a banking conspiracy entail the belief that all Jews must be in on it ?

Because these kinds of things are typically defined as a Jewish conspiracy by bigots. Not 'middle-aged men' conspiracy, not a 'bi-pedal' conspiracy, not a 'living person' conspiracy, not a 'literate people' conspiracy and so on. Yes, these people might share a religion, but they also share other factors too but these other factors are never picked out as factors.

Most pertinently, they also share a religion with people who logistically aren't in the conspiracy (unless you fantasise about unbelievably massive secret meeting places, dreydl-shaped decoder rings, and the biggest forwarded set of agenda memos and faxes known to man) therefore the conspiracy has no innate relationship to the actual religion itself. That means it's not a Jewish conspiracy per se.

It's like saying there's some men in your home town that raped a woman; I think all the men in your home town are rapists. There's a whole world of difference.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]