Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

Well, I'm not so sure that being "highly-educated" and "well-read" will necessarily innoculate one against Nazism:

"Goebbels was the best educated of all the Nazi leaders becoming a doctor of philology."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2654778

"Notable Holocaust deniers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers

and another list (starting on page 27)

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres8/denialreport.pdf

"The Institute for Historical Review was set up by the long-time anti-Semite and millionaire, Willis Carto, and run by the British neo-fascist, David McCalden. The IHR strives to present itself as an academic and scholarly body, holds annual conferences, and publishes the Journal for Historical Review, which has every appearance of a standard academic journal.
The IHR tends to recruit a well-educated membership, including university professors, and wealthy supporters."

Regarding this: "The Norwegian mass murderer is able to consider similar methods to Hitler's (violence towards political opponents, racial segregation, etc) without being seen, or considering himself, to be of the same realm of political thought."

Well, Hitler did not invent genocide or the murder of thousands/millions of people. Nor did he invent racial segregation. So, you're using the fact that Anders Behring Breivik DIDN'T consider himself to be "of the same realm of political thought" as Hitler as an example of how Nazism has been "diluted"??? Why wouldn't it be an example of how Communism (Stalin, Mao) has been diluted? In fact, one jerk, Glen Beck, compared the VICTIMS to "Hitler Youth" : "In his national radio broadcast, radio personality Glenn Beck set off a firestorm of criticism when he compared the Norway mass murder victims to the Hitler Youth, the paramilitary organization of Hitler's Nazi party comprised of teens and preteens that existed during WWII."

Moreover, "In the wake of this weekend's attacks in Oslo, it was Expo that once again was at the forefront, exposing what is so far suspect Anders Behring Breivik's most direct link to the contemporary neo-Nazi scene in Scandinavia. In his manifesto and on the website where he regularly posted, Breivik portrays himself as a conservative Christian and heir to the Knights Templar crusaders. At the same time, Breivik's ideology was reportedly influenced by the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, racist Norwegian Defence League and its inspiration, the English Defense League. He also appears sympathetic to the established racist line of the British National Party and National Front. And he has been a member of the anti-immigration Progress Party, the second-largest political party in Norway.

Expo revealed that since 2009 Breivik has also been part of the forum Nordisk (Nordic), whose 22,000 members, according to Expo (in a translation provided by Searchlight), range "from high-ranking members of the Sweden Democrats, a nationalist party with seats in the Swedish parliament, to leading members of the Nazi movement and to unhinged psychopaths. What unites the whole lot is a hatred of immigration and immigrants."

"The British "Hope not Hate" campaign, which is organized by the anti-fascist UK periodical Searchlight, has been posting online comments that they believe were written by Anders Behring Breivik. The comments were originally posted on various right-wing, anti-Muslim websites such as Gates of Vienna and Stormfront, an online forum for white "racial realists."

So, it would seem that this whacko WAS, at the very least, attracted by the Nazi ideology.

Are you aware of any studies/research which suggest that " the likely perceptions of the average person" regarding Nazism have been "diluted" by what you consider to be the improper use of the word?

One comic genius certainly knew that ridicule is often the sharpest weapon against evil:

"Besides being an essential film, The Great Dictator is also instructive as an example of brave filmmaking. In our oversensitive, politically-correct times, too many purveyors of entertainment consider it the height of bravery and edgy comedy to repeat stale, uninspired insults and misconceptions about political opponents, former presidents or long-defeated dictators (Hitler is still a popular target nearly 70 years after his death) and are reluctant to confront and earn the ire of far more dangerous figures."

Hitler was not amused.

The not well-read, not highly-educated "average person" you describe might be more likely, I'd say, to BECOME a neo-Nazi rather than one who finds Nazis to be ridiculous (as the "Nazi" in the "grammar Nazi" video is.)

In fact, such a depiction would probably make neo-Nazis VERY angry.

Language does what it does. And if you try to discourage analogies in order to 'preserve their power', you end up with taboos that are asking to be broken.


Regards,
John

[coledavis]

Well, this may make neonazis out there angry, but you will find that for every leader who is well-educated, most of the followers - in Hitler's time and now - are not.

I did not say that Hitler invented genocide, let alone mass murder. This is not strictly relevant. If one must add Stalin to the mix, then again, you will find that only the ignorant find him a joke.

I do not see your point about Breitvik. The likes of Hitler rose to power with similar prejudices, about the country going to the dogs because of ....... Whether or not he was a bit nazi as well as a bit Christian and a bit of a Da Vinci Code fan is a little beside the point. My citing of him was as the type of subject of debate which at least merits comparison with nazism. It is related and hence not a complete category error.

Your point about Chaplin and Hitler is not relevant. Chaplin's film as you say criticised Hitler, to say the least. This parrotting of a once (presumably) funny joke does nothing of the sort; it merely downplays the issue. 'Oh, you corrected my English. What an oppressor. Like Hitler.' It does not criticise nazism, it just plays up self-dramaticisation. The speaker is a victim; his oppressor is like Hitler.

A joke is one thing. The disparity of subject is a technique in the creation of comedy. The carrying on into 'part of the language' is another thing. I can't stop it and don't believe in bans, but I think it reasonable to criticise its stupidity.

"Language does what it does." No, language does as people do with it. We have a choice.

[johnslat]

Dear coledavis,

"Well, this may make neonazis out there angry, but you will find that for every leader who is well-educated, most of the followers - in Hitler's time and now - are not."

I agree - which is why I wrote this: The not well-read, not highly-educated "average person" you describe might be more likely, I'd say, to BECOME a neo-Nazi rather than one who finds Nazis to be ridiculous (as the "Nazi" in the "grammar Nazi" video is.)

I used the examples of "well-read," educated" Nazis and neo-Nazis because of what you wrote: "I am well-read and am highly educated. Your question should really be about the likely perceptions of the average person."

Perhaps I was wrong, but that seemed to me to imply that "well-read, educated" people are not going to be duped by language use into diluting the horrors of Nazism. Yet, there are, unfortunately, some "well-read, educated" people who not only don't think Nazism evil, they actually think it right. Being "well-read" and "educated" is no guarantee that one will have the correct perceptions about Nazism.

"I did not say that Hitler invented genocide, let alone mass murder. This is not strictly relevant. If one must add Stalin to the mix, then again, you will find that only the ignorant find him a joke.

I do not see your point about Breitvik. The likes of Hitler rose to power with similar prejudices, about the country going to the dogs because of ....... Whether or not he was a bit nazi as well as a bit Christian and a bit of a Da Vinci Code fan is a little beside the point. My citing of him was as the type of subject of debate which at least merits comparison with nazism. It is related and hence not a complete category error."

Actually, I was puzzled by why you brought him up at all. Your statement: ". . . yes, the apparently primarily Christian-oriented Norwegian mass murderer is able to consider similar methods to Hitler's (violence towards political opponents, racial segregation, etc) without being seen, or considering himself, to be of the same realm of political thought."

seemed to say that Breitvik didn't consider" himself to be of the same realm of political thought" as the Nazis. Yet, from all indications, he was extremely "right-wing" and identified with the neo-Nazi ideology.

I don't see the relevance myself - but then, I didn't cite him as an example of someone who could be described in this way: " . . .without being seen, or considering himself, to be of the same realm of political thought."

"Your point about Chaplin and Hitler is not relevant." Actually, it is (unfortunately just saying something " . . is not relevant" doesn't make it so. ) You see my point was not that the video clip " . . . does not criticise nazism," it was that, like Chaplin's film, it ridicules Nazism. Evil thrives on opposition, but is defenseless against ridicule. Chaplin knew that.

I can see that we are never going to agree about this - and that's fine. I can see your point of view; I think it has validity, but that it isn't a sound argument.

Thanks for the discussion, though. It made for a good mental workout.

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

Yes, I agree about not agreeing and also that the discussion has probably gone as far it can. Thanks John. Cole.

[AGoodStory]

Dear Cole and John,

I've been following this discussion with great interest, and just want to mention how much I have appreciated the respectful tone you have both maintained throughout your disagreement. I am often frustrated by the speed with which intelligent, grown-up discussions can degenerate into food fights on this forum.

Anyway--thanks to you both.

Best regards,
AGS

[johnslat]

Dear AGoodStory,

Thank you - in my experience, "food fights" happen when posters let their (baser) emotions overrule their minds (and, Lord knows, I used to be guilty of that all too often in my younger days.) But I think coledavis and I apparently both have enough maturity (in my case, anyway, I've been a resident of Geezer City for a while now) to respect each other's viewpoints (and each other) even though we disagree.

It seems to me that posters who can't abide anyone's having an opinion different from theirs must not be very secure regarding their own viewpoint.
Emotion reigns when reason is deficient (or absent.)

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that the Mods (thank you, Mods) let us go on for as long as they did (one reason I kept throwing the word "language" into my posts - I figured maybe that'd give our discussion a defense against this:

"Threads and Comments Must Directly Relate to Teaching/Jobs
Only comments and threads DIRECTLY related to teaching and jobs will be permitted. Any other comments and threads will be summarily deleted."

Regards,
John

[coledavis]

Thanks AGoodStory. I have also been intemperate in my time and still have to work hard at times with some people. In this case, however, there was not a problem.

It was a debate about language, but I guess not one that was particularly pertinent to language teaching.

[gaijinalways]

[coledavis]

Yes, a good point. I try to ensure that any up to date language I teach is reasonably embedded. For example, whether I like it or not, 'try and' has superceded 'try to' even within publishing. However, this may not be so in many other cases and I question the usefulness to the students of spending time teaching ephemeral lexis.

[AGoodStory]