|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I have a problem with ommitting unsavoury parts of history. It is an exercice in brainwashing. Regarding the holocaust, I frankly think there is not enough of an emphasis on the death of the millions of gentiles during the holocaust. There was a total of 11 million deaths. Of the 11, the majority were Jews as Hitler was trying to make Europe Juden frei or Jew free by exterminating them, but the millions of Christians, the gypsies, and political prisoners, I feel, don't get enough of an emphasis unless I am mistaken. For the longest I didn't know several million gentiles also died. I was surprised, actually. I am not for removing Christmas trees, because it may offend a Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or Jehovah's Witness. I think political correctness has gone too far in some cases. |
To say one genocide is worse than another is a useless conversation. However there are some defining characteristics of the holocaust.
Hitler wanted Jews who fled to be returned to be killed even if they fled to Asia.
Hitler had preplans to extend the holocaust to the UK and Ireland and even the US .
In the Armenian genocide one was not killed if they changed their religion.
Hitler killed anyone who had two Jewish grand parents and even one Jewish grand parent meant sterilization.
Was this the case in other mass killings or genocides - I don�t know.
Hitler diverted industry that could have used for war in order to complete the holocaust. In could be said that the holocaust was as important or even more important than winning war was to the Nazis
| Quote: |
The Nazis also annihilated a minimum of 300,000 Gypsies and many thousands of others: the physically and mentally disabled, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, communists, trade unionists, and political and religious dissidents.
None of these groups, however, were the primary target of the Nazis-not the mentally disabled, who were killed in the euthanasia centers in Germany (here it is to be noted that the Nazis did not export this program to the civilian populations outside the Reich); not the homosexuals, who were regarded as social deviants but for whom the Nazis did not have a consistent policy (homosexuals were persecuted only in the Reich and in areas annexed to it but not in countries the Germans occupied); not the Gypsies, who were partly seen as "asocial" aliens and Aryans within society and therefore did not have to be annihilated completely; and not the Jehovah's Witnesses, who had refused to swear allegiance to Hitler and who declined to serve in the German army, but who were not marked for extinction; in fact, only a small number were incarcerated in the camps, and most of them were German nationals. The Nazis also did not single out every socialist, communist, trade unionist, or dissident-just those they perceived as a threat to the Reich. The Jews alone were the primary target of the Nazis. (14)
|
http://www.holocaust-trc.org/uniqueness.htm
| Quote: |
The eminent Jewish philosopher, Emil Fackenheim, offers a concise outline of the distinguishing characteristics of the Holocaust in his book, To Mend the World, (IN: Indiana University Press, 1994).
The "Final Solution" was designed to exterminate every single Jewish man, woman and child. The only Jews who would have conceivably survived had Hitler been victorious were those who somehow escaped discovery by the Nazis.
Jewish birth (actually mere evidence of "Jewish blood") was sufficient to warrant the punishment of death. Fackenheim notes that this feature distinguished Jews from Poles and Russians who were killed because there were too many of them, and from "Aryans" who were not singled out unless they chose to single themselves out. With the possible exception of Gypsies, he adds, Jews were the only people killed for the "crime" of existing.
The extermination of the Jews had no political or economic justification. It was not a means to any end; it was an end in itself. The killing of Jews was not considered just a part of the war effort, but equal to it; thus, resources that could have been used in the war were diverted instead to the program of extermination.
The people who carried out the "Final Solution" were primarily average citizens. Fackenheim calls them "ordinary job holders with an extraordinary job." They were not perverts or sadists. "The tone-setters," he says, "were ordinary idealists, except that their ideals were torture and murder." Someone else once wrote that Germany was the model of civilized society. What was perverse, then, was that the Germans could work all day in the concentration camps and then go home and read Schiller and Goethe while listening to Beethoven.
Other examples of mass murder exist in human history, such as the atrocities committed by Pol Pot in Cambodia and the Turkish annihilation of the Armenians. But none of those other catastrophes, Fackenheim argues, contain more than one of the characteristics described above.
|
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/What_makes_the_Holocaust_unique.html
| Quote: |
OTHER GENOCIDES
WRITTEN by ALEXANDER KIMEL
During WWII, about 6.5 million of Jew lost their lives, in a tragedy that we call Holocaust. What makes this tragedy different from other mass killings that occurred is the totality of the devastation that the Holocaust brought to the Jewish communities. In most communities in Poland, Russia, Lithuania, the rate of survival was below 1%. Out of a hundred people, one survived. Had the war last a year longer, the destruction would have been complete.
In the Holocaust is unique, because it was a state planned and organized annihilation of people, using modern industrial methods, conducted with extreme cruelty in a organized bureaucratic manner.
THE GYPSIES
Besides the Jews, about 200,000 to 500,000 Gypsies were also murdered by the Nazis. Thousands of Roma people were gassed in Auschwitz or killed by the Einsatzgrouppen . Originally only the so-called asocial Roma were destined for destruction. Gypsies found to be of pure Aryan blood were exempted. In December of 1942, Himmler decreed that all Gypsies to be send to Auschwitz and in 1944 he authorized their extermination.
Similarly to the Jews the Gypsies were easily identified by their non-conventional behavior, culture and language. The difference between the extermination of the Gypsies and the Jews, lies in the fact that they were considered Aryans, and those married to Aryan spouses were exempted.
THE HOMOSEXUALS
In Germany there were about a million homosexuals, from which only 50,000 were convicted of homosexual crimes and sent to concentration camps. From the 50,000 about 40,000 survived the war.
THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
During WWI, about 1.5 million of Armenians, men women and children, were brutally murdered by the Turks. The atrocities were instigated by the Turkish government, but were not conducted on an organized scale. The Armenian, being Christians, were perceived as being in league with Russia, fighting to destroy the Ottoman Empire. Conversion to Islam, was an accepted escape route.
It is interesting to note that Hitler knew about the Armenian Genocide and the indifference and silence of the world community of nations. He rightly perceived that the world will be silently indifferent to the Holocaust. |
http://www.kimel.net/other.html
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:40 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not criticizing anything in this post but this sentence should NEVER, EVER be uttered or typed:
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee:
| Quote: |
| You can confirm this on on Wikipedia |
Adventurer makes a legit point, though. Everyone knows who Hitler is, everyone knows what "the holocaust" was, but few people know about holocausts prior to Hitler. How many people know about King Leopold and the Belgian Congo? Ten million people were worked to death intentionally. Why isn't that taught in school's? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I corrected the post as you advised.
The details of every genocide out to be taught |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack4289 wrote: |
So, to take one example, St. John's (an American university in New York City) changing their name from the Redmen to the Red Storm really compares to neglecting to teach a genocide or to teaching a thoroughly discredited pseudo-science as if it might have some basis in fact? Really? |
If you read my response to BJWD above, I said that in severity, changing a mascot is not as bad as neglecting the Holocaust because of Muslim pressure (although I'd concur with several of the posters above who have said that the Holocaust (and numerous other genocides) isn't covered very well, or at all, in many school). In scope, i.e. how widespread it is, changing mascot names is much more prevalent. If hundreds of schools were changing their mascot names because of Muslim pressure, you could bet your bottom dollar that BJWD and the rest of the Islamphobes, aka bigots, would be doing their Chicken Little dance day and night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Panicking. Look. Ideas matter. islam is just an idea. In the same way that the idea of communism must be exposed for the nonsense that it is, islam must be exposed. It is just an idea. To say that ideas influence the way that we act is elementary, but if we apply this idea to a "religion", which is just institutionalized schizophrenia, all of a sudden one is a "phobe" of that idea.
Would it have been panicking to show concern about the creeping spread of the idea of communism in China 70 years ago? An idea can change the world, and we have to be damn sure that we oppose, full stop, those ideas that threaten our way of life. I'm afraid that all the mulitcult PC nonsense will not change the very real historical fact that islam tends to dominate those regions that its followers settle unless fully opposed.
From a strictly structural perspective, all the defending of an idea that happens by those who do not believe in the idea is very, very strange. If we were at all consistent, and by we, gaj, I mean people who value liberalism (which I think you would count yourself as one) would defend liberal values as universal and not tolerate barbaric ideas from wherever they come.
I am the most vocal defender of liberal values on this stupid site. |
I figured this might be a better place for this than sundubuman's "It's cold outside so global warming is a commie plot" thread.
Ok, so Islam is an idea. Is it a particularly dangerous idea? I mean, are you finding yourself tempted to convert? Do you have to put your hands over your ears whenever Muslims tell you that there is no god but god and Muhammed is his prophet? Do you sometimes catch yourself humming the call to prayer? Do you find their logic convincing, their way of life compelling? Well?
On the flipside, the secularised West is a much, much greater temptation to young Muslims. Thjs is one of the main reasons for the radicalisation of Islam in the second half of the 20th century - like fundamentalist Christianity, it's an attempt to circle the wagons and to block out the enticing treasures and liberties of Western civilisation.
So given that Western civilisation is at its heart orders of magnitude more inviting than Islam - without even trying! - what's our best choice for getting young Muslims to come around to our way of thinking? Going around telling people that it's a mistake to tolerate their kind in our countries probably isn't the way to do it. Associating all Muslims with terrorists and murderers as a matter of course is also a bad move. Invading Muslim countries doesn't help either, especially since it's very easy for Muslims to buy into the narrative that the Jews and the Christians are trying to steal their resources, dignity and independence. We've somehow managed to get a bit of a reputation for doing that. Basically, if we want to get people on our side we should be kind and fair to them. Treating them like dangerous barbarians isn't going to do it.
The best thing we can do is maintain the ideals of the enlightenment and secularism as best we can. We should not allow any legislation that allows for increased levels of discrimination against any groups. This precludes any form of sharia. And we have ensure that all religion is firmly out of all schools, and that all children recieve a good science education. I mean, look at this map:
Not teaching science properly because it upsets Christians provides just as much support for Allah's Fellas as it does for the God Squad. This kind of anti-sciencism is a much greater threat to our values than anything talked about in that British report.
So yeah, you're a vocal defender of something, I'm just not sure if it's 'liberal values'. You don't seem to understand why I would defend the right of people to hold ideas with which I disagree, and it seems that you would have few problems with laws that were intended to discriminate against Muslims. I think you would be prepared to support measures to deport or deny citizenship to people on the basis of their religion, and you seem to advocate some kind of overt kulturkampf. These are not liberal values as I know them; the very opposite in fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So yeah, you're a vocal defender of something, I'm just not sure if it's 'liberal values'. You don't seem to understand why I would defend the right of people to hold ideas with which I disagree, |
Wow. Talk about something that went right over your head. They are as entitled to have those stupid ideas as I am to call them stupid. That is freedom. We are heading towards (with the pu*sy liberal cry of islamophobia as racism) the criminalization of criticism of islam. The UN even suggested press freedom needs to be limited to avoid offending crazy muslims (though, the crazy part is my editorializing).
| Quote: |
and it seems that you would have few problems with laws that were intended to discriminate against Muslims. |
Like what? I would like my country to not import religious nuts, especially but not exclusively muslims. Once they are there, you must enforce equality under the law (which will offend many of them anyways).
| Quote: |
I think you would be prepared to support measures to deport or deny citizenship to people on the basis of their religion, and you seem to advocate some kind of overt kulturkampf. |
If someone breaks our laws when not a PR or citizen I support deporting them. Yes. If they stand in front of a group of people and reference pigs and Jews, well, back to Pakistan they go. Once citizens, there is nothing that you can do other than treat them the same (meaning, no kid gloves) as you would anybody else.
I also support the total halting of all foreign money supporting madrassas and mosques etc etc. Whabbism is a cancer making an already illiberal idea more illiberal.
About the rest of your post. I don't think you have actually thought about what my position is, have you? I have said time and time again that invading them is sticking your head in a hornets nest and I do not support it at all. I do support letting lesser cultures fight it out as we did and we will deal with the winner in a few decades. I am an isolationist in regards to Western military action.
About the America stuff. Jesus H. Christ. This is such a circle. Yes. I know. I've said that time and time and time and time and time again. I do not have to mention crazy American Christians when I mention crazy European muslims. Funny, that you don't point to wacko Hindus or fundamentalist communists (the second most violent people on earth). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, first of all I wasn't suggesting that you're pro-war in the Middle East or that teaching creationism doesn't piss you off. I meant more that these are factors that exacerbate current and potential problems vis-a-vis Islam. In that part of my post I wasn't attacking your position so much as outlining my own - which is basically that this isn't all about them.
| BJWD wrote: |
| Wow. Talk about something that went right over your head. They are as entitled to have those stupid ideas as I am to call them stupid. That is freedom. We are heading towards (with the pu*sy liberal cry of islamophobia as racism) the criminalization of criticism of islam. The UN even suggested press freedom needs to be limited to avoid offending crazy muslims (though, the crazy part is my editorializing). |
Yes, that UN resolution was interesting. Notice that all the pu*sy countries (Europe, Canada, SK) voted against it based on concerns for freedom of speech. The countries that allowed it to be passed were China and the African allies to the Arab nations, none of which care about free speech. I'd say that the worst thing about it was that Pope Ratzinger gave full approval! He's presumably keen to get some of the same protections for his own brand of superstitious nonsense.
Argh, you've posted the beating a dead horse picture, and I don't have the energy, so *beep* it. I'll just say this. You might think you're just criticising an idea but you sound like you're trying to incite some kind of cultural struggle against Muslims. That seems crazy to me - I don't think that bigotry is really the best way to deal with bigotry. So let's say that we agree then that all human rights should be protected. You think stronger hate-speech laws? Possibly. I'm down with halting overseas religious funding, though not sure about how easy that would be politically in a lot of countries. As far as immigration goes, I think the most important thing is that they're very well-educated and have the language skills to integrate. Refugees should get enough support to make sure they don't end up ghettoised.
Oh, and you should watch this if you haven't already: http://www.allsp.com/l.php?id=e157 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just two comments on my part about this dialogue....
Joo, you are to be commended for your intelligent observations about the holocaust.
Gang ah jee,
Thanks for taking the time to address this........... we should always look very much within when we seek to strike out at notions/ideas/emotions that creep upon us from the netherland (not the country...but that low down place.)
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You might think you're just criticising an idea but you sound like you're trying to incite some kind of cultural struggle against Muslims. That seems crazy to me - I don't think that bigotry is really the best way to deal with bigotry. So let's say that we agree then that all human rights should be protected. You think stronger hate-speech laws? P |
ohhh no a cultural struggle..run for the hills...why always the use of bigotry against ideas....I'm bigoted against ideas like executing homosexuals and putting polytheists to death.....Is that wrong for somebody to feel so strongly against such horrid ideas.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| I'm bigoted against ideas like executing homosexuals and putting polytheists to death.....Is that wrong for somebody to feel so strongly against such horrid ideas.. |
No. But those ideas are neither universally Muslim nor exclusively Muslim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
No. But those ideas are neither universally Muslim nor exclusively Muslim.
|
or really smarty pants...what did the Prophet Muhammed say about homosexuals? And what has happened to homosexuals once they discovered and shown to be guilty? (please no anectdotal evidence about the tons of gay sex happening in the middle east) Also you've heard of people of the book haven't you?????? Well guess what that doesn't include polytheists...what happened to them when Islam so graciously "expanded"??
Huffdaddy I don't hate Muslims..and I know how devisive religious arguments can be..I've had plenty with my sometimes over the top Evangelical parents..but Gord dammm anyone who can't stand up to oppresive religious thought |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In my 10th grade European History class, near the end of the year, one girl began seriously claiming that the Holocaust had been engineered by Jews as a way to punish those who married Christians. Did the teacher put her right? No. Instead he gave a lecture to the rest of the students, who were outraged and mocking her, about how history has room for many perspectives and we should be more tolerant of differing viewpoints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| this type of attitude is telling....i can respect the need for the teacher saying there should be differing viewpoints that need consideration but it all falls apart if he doesn't heap ridicule on those that students horrendous beliefs.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Dunno much about history ..." 
EU Aims To "Criminalise" Holocaust "Denial"
By Tobias Buck in Brussels
Published: April 17 2007 19:56 | Last updated: April 17 2007 19:56
Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.
Offenders will face up to three years in jail under the proposed legislation, which will also apply to inciting violence against ethnic, religious or national groups.
Diplomats in Brussels voiced confidence on Tuesday that the controversial plan, which has been the subject of heated debate for six years, will be endorsed by member states. However, the Baltic countries and Poland are still holding out for an inclusion of �Stalinist crimes� alongside the Holocaust in the text � a move that is being resisted by the majority of other EU countries.
The latest draft, seen by the Financial Times, will make it mandatory for all Union member states to punish public incitement �to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin�.
They will also have to criminalise �publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes� when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.
Diplomats stressed the provision had been carefully worded to include only denial of the Holocaust � the Nazi mass murder of Jews during the second world war � and the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
They also stressed that the wording was designed to avoid criminalising comical plays or films about the Holocaust such as the Italian comedian Roberto Benigni�s prize-winning Life is Beautiful . The text expressly upholds countries� constitutional traditions relating to the freedom of expression  
Holocaust denial is already a criminal offence in several European countries, including Germany and Austria. It is not a specific crime in Britain, though UK officials said it could already be tackled under existing legislation.
In an attempt to assuage Turkish fears, several EU diplomats said the provisions would NOT penalise the denial of mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman troops in the aftermath of the 1915 collapse of the Ottoman empire. Turkey strongly rejects claims that this episode amounted to genocide.
The proposal draws what is likely to be a controversial distinction between inciting violence against racial or ethnic groups and against religious groups. Attacks against Muslims, Jews or other faiths will only be penalised if they go on to incite violence against ethnic or racial groups, the draft text states.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
