babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Israel to include gays in Holocaust museum after politician presses issue

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Israel to include gays in Holocaust museum after politician presses issue
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 16 March 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
"After protests from a local politician, the Holocaust museum in Israel has grudgingly decided to include gay and lesbian victims, as well," reports queerday.com

Israel to remember gay Nazi victims

quote:
Israel will include a commemoration to the lesbian and gay people killed during the Nazi regime in its new museum dedicated to the Holocaust. According to press reports, Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Museum will contain a reference to the gays killed during the Holocaust after a local politician called for a change.

The Haaretz newspaper reports that City Council member Sa'ar Netanel asked the museum's organisers to be more inclusive after an initial tour of the museum.

"The Jewish people has a moral obligation to remember all the victims of World War II," Netanel told the newspaper. "I expect an organisation like Yad Vashem to relate in a prominent and suitable manner to all those killed in the Holocaust."

"The state of Israel should be the first country in the world to mention all the victims."

The museum is set to marry personal accounts of the tragedy with well know facts, and act as an educational centre to the state's Jewish people.

The museum's chairman said that, while gay victims would not be included in the sections devoted to Jewish victims, they would have their "relevant" place in the memorial.


[ 16 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 17 March 2005 02:18 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They make reflecting on the most horrible thing in the history of man sound so...cold. It is frightening. At least they understood that the times they are changing and that the changing has to occur EVERYWHERE and that the gays and lesbians who suffered during the Holocaust are remembered. Personally, I thinks that there shouldn't be "Jew""Slav""Communist""Gay" sections. I think that the people should be mixed together, that way the relevancy of what happened is more resounding. If people realize that TOGETHERNESS and LOVE of each other is what could prevent another Holocaust from happening. People should be drawn together in memory of what happened. Not attempting to repulse one group.

As a slight aside this is going to be fuel for the white supremist neo-nazi pigs that claim that the Jewish people are "Holocaust hogs". That just disgusts me...


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 March 2005 02:57 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is an old argument. The fact is that the Holocaust was first and foremost a Nazi attempt to eliminate every single solitary Jew off the face of the earth. No other group was persecuted in this way. Even gays were only persecuted if they were German - the Nazis encouraged homosexuality in the occupied Europe in the hopes of reducing the birthrate among non-Germans! Its interesting that anti-semitic regimes like the old Communist regimes in Eastern Europe always tried to water down the Jewish element of the Holocaust and juxtapose the attempted total genocide of the Jews with some Communist partisans being executed in prisoner of war camps as if they were all equally victims of fascism.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 17 March 2005 03:00 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Suffering is suffering.

It happened, if there is to be a singular memorial like a museum that is designated to commerorate the devestation that people were forced to endure during the most evil regime in history. It should be dedicated to all the dead. Inclusive.

And the NAZIs had a penchant for persecuting gays in Italy. And Vichy France. And other locales.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 17 March 2005 09:05 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are Jews not permitted to commemorate and educate about the slaughter of their people?

There have been and will sadly continue to be genocides and tragedies. Rwanda, Darfur to name 2 most recent. Indeed I understand the Rwandan community are putting together a memorial museum of their own to educate and commemorate the slaughter of almost 1 million Tutsis just 10 years ago. Must they then include other tragedies and slaughters? Are they not permitted to focus on their tragedy?


From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 March 2005 09:12 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lots of Jews were also leftist militants (Communists, Socialists, dissident factions of the above, Anarchists of various stripes, other groups and individuals ...). Such people were among the first to be persecuted, at camps such as Dachau.

The fact that certain Stalinist postwar régimes played down the systematic genocide against Jews and Roma for nationalist reasons does not detract from the fact that fascism existed first and foremost to physically crush the powerful workers' movement.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 17 March 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are Jews not permitted to commemorate and educate about the slaughter of their people?

Was the linked article about removing all references to Jewish victims of the Holocaust from the museum?

Nope.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 17 March 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, that is not my point. My point is this: Why cannot Jews or Rwandans or Bosnians or those groups who have faced huge tragedies not commemorate through museums their own specific tragedy?
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 17 March 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mac, you're starting to remind me of the Canadian Legion, I think it was -- y'know the fuss they kicked up about adding a Holocaust section to the war museum?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 17 March 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
No, that is not my point. My point is this: Why cannot Jews or Rwandans or Bosnians or those groups who have faced huge tragedies not commemorate through museums their own specific tragedy?

The point is its not a 'specific tragedy.' There were plenty of prisoners who wore both the pink and yellow triangles-- and were thus doubly damned.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 March 2005 12:10 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a touching site on discovering the Holocaust through art: http://art.holocaust-education.net/

Macabee, the problem with the orientation you present is that it does not help to explain the historical and social reasons for the spread of fascism in the 1930s (including the particularly lethally genocidal Nazi version). That is an important role of history and museology.

Every successive group "uses" the past in its own way - not talking about the lurid accusations by negationists - "Holocaust Hogs", indeed... - but the memory of Nazism over the decades has emphasised specific aspects inevitably coloured by the worldview of those doing the commemoration.

For example, Jewish religious groups have put an emphasis on Jewish religious rites not only for Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide, but the more recent Jewish victims of the Dirty War in Argentina - though the latter were mostly young leftists and I strongly doubt many of them were particularly religious. A large chunk of the Jewish population, especially in Western and Central Europe, was secular or only tenuously observant.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 17 March 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are Jews not permitted to commemorate and educate about the slaughter of their people?

The museum was not forced to add references to the other groups. By adding them, however, it has made possible a more full commemoration and advanced the cause of Holocaust education. As i understand it, Yad Vashem aspries to be the Holocaust museum, not a museum of only the Jewish Holocaust. Isn't that a worthy goal? Note that gay people are being included in a lesser role than the min victims, a simple acknowledement really. And Macabee, haven't you often pointed out that the Roma along with the Jewish people were the two groups targetted for elimination? Wasn't that an argument for remembering the Holocaust in its entirety? Maybe it depends what the goal of this museum is. If it is to be a private place of mourning and pilgrimage and remembrance for the Jewish people, well and good. If it is to educate, then a more universal appeal seems like a good idea.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 March 2005 02:34 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lots of Jews were also leftist militants (Communists, Socialists, dissident factions of the above, Anarchists of various stripes, other groups and individuals ...). Such people were among the first to be persecuted, at camps such as Dachau.

So what? If you were anything other than Jewish, all you had to do was be apolitical and you could be left alone. If you were Christian and you made the political choice to be rightwing instead of leftwing - you lived. If you were Jewish you were sentenced to death not for your political beliefs but because of how you were born period. Rightwing Jews who might have initially applauded Hitler were gassed just as quickly as Jewish Communists - they never even had the option of being collaborators.

There were two parallel horrors perpetarted by the Nazis. One was the jailing and killing of political dissidents - a practice that authoritarian regimes have engaged in throughout history. Another was the attempt to annhilated an entire nationality from the face of the earth. Hitler was willing to lose the war as long as he could get his hands on every last Jew to kill. In 1944 he left German soldiers to die on the Russian front because he was so desperate to commandeer trains to speed up the "transfer" of Jews to Auschwitz.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always understood the word "Holocaust" to be a word that was coined specifically to refer to the attempted extermination of every single Jew on the face of the earth. The fact that various other peoples were imprisoned and killed is something else.

Interestingly, the only people who typically try to DEJudaify the Holocaust tend to be anti-semites who try to avoid expressing any sympathy for Jews. As mentioned before, in Poland up until quite recently, if you visited Auschwitz you would be given the impression that there was a long list of peoples killed there and that J was for Jews after H was for honmosexuals and before I was for Italians. The embarrassing (to the Poles) fact that about 95% of the people killed there were Jewish was always conventiently swept under the rug.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 17 March 2005 02:41 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

So what? If you were anything other than Jewish, all you had to do was be apolitical and you could be left alone.


What about the known gays?
Catholics?
Roma?
The handicapped?
The Slavs?


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 March 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what? Simply because there is no understanding the Holocaust, or Shoah, outside the broader picture of the development of fascism.

I agree that the former Polish government's approach was a form of negationism (though I don't think it was necessarily grounded in anti-semitism). But putting up religious memorials and saying prayers for people who may well have been atheists has an offensive tinge as well - they are both ways of confiscating memory. After I'm dead, obviously I can't stop anyone from praying for my non-existent soul (yecch) any more than I can prevent a fascist from spitting on my grave. But it is important to realise how memory is used and misused.

No, right-wing Jews were not gassed as fast as left-wing Jews - those who were both Jewish and "Undeutsch" were singled out for special persecution very early in the Nazi regime, and even by the Nazi movement before the regime took hold.

Of course negationism for any reason is wrong, but so is a metaphysical, ahistorical approach to fascism and the Holocaust.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 March 2005 02:52 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What about the known gays?
Catholics?
Roma?
The handicapped?
The Slavs?

First of all I don't rthink anyone was automatically killed by virtue of being catholic. That would have been pretty inconvenient to all those Catholics (such as Pope Pius, Gen. Franco, the fascist leader sof Slovakia and Croatia etc...) who were Nazi sympathizers and approved of the Holocaust. Hitler himself was Catholic and so were 90% of his fellow Austrians and many of them joined the SS and still went to Mass every Sunday!

Yes, German gays were persecuted - though in most cases they were sent to prison camps like Dachau and not automatically exterminated.

Slavs were also not systematically eliminated off the face of the earth (too many of them were working as concentration camp guards helping slam the gas chamber doors shut)

I suppose you could put the Roma in the same category as the Jews, but that's about it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 17 March 2005 03:14 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First, the call is not to put other groups "on the same level" as the Jews. It is a request for inclusion, to tell the whole story. Yad Vashem is including "a reference" to gay victims, not turning over an entire wing.

Second, can we dispense with this "Hitler was a Catholic" red herring? Some nasty Hitler quotes on the subject (i won't quote the anti-semitic bile in full) are at this site.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 March 2005 03:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always understood the word "Holocaust" to be a word that was coined specifically to refer to the attempted extermination of every single Jew on the face of the earth. The fact that various other peoples were imprisoned and killed is something else.



Reading you is like reading Iago lecture about Christian morality.

Here you are condemning Nazi race laws that exclude and identified Jewish people for special treatment, in the same breath you demand it, to the exclusion of other who were likewise persecuted for similarly arbitrary reasons.

You even go as far as to hypoerbolically play with the known facts. For instance the stated purpose of the Nazi regieme was to make europe free of Jews, not exterminate them from the world. Also, it is not clear that the extermination of the Jews was the original intended project (Wansee was in '42), at all, but that in all probability the mass slaughter was the "logical" culmination of the race laws compounded by the logistical "necessity" caused by the war. In other words there was lattitude in dealing with Jews, and the attitude of the Nazis was not as absolute as you would have us believe. Huge numbers of rich Vienna Jews, were fleeced of their property and allowed exit, while the poor were dealt with otherwise. This is not to excuse anything, but simply to point out your flagrant abuse of historical fact for the purposes of emotional effect.

[ 17 March 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 17 March 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always understood the word "Holocaust" to be a word that was coined specifically to refer to the attempted extermination of every single Jew on the face of the earth. The fact that various other peoples were imprisoned and killed is something else.


What Cueball already said. PLUS... you are quite incorrect about the word. It is NOT specific to the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis. To whit:

quote:
hol·o·caust (hl-kôst, hl-) n.

1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

2.
a) Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff).
b) A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland).

3. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.


edited to add: definition from here

[ 17 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 March 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rosa Luxemburg famously spoke of the "holocaust" of the First World War, in which an entire generation of young men slaughtered each other in the trenches for their respective bourgeoisies.

Actually, from a museological standpoint, I like what I've seen of the new museum that tries to tell people's stories and give the visitors a sense of all their individual lives. Some of the Holocaust monuments, such as the new one in Berlin that is just a forest of ugly, anonymous slabs, give me the creeps. There is something very totalitarian about that monument - I wish it had never been built and that instead, a neighbourhood for people to live and work in had been built, with street and place names of some of the many people murdered - whether Jewish, communist, gay, Entartekunstlerisch or all of the above - and yes, a place or two to welcome modern-day refugees and torture victims in the most caring way possible.

The architecture is interesting - of a type that works better in the strong Mediterranean sun than in Mitteleuropa. For that reason it has echoes of the monument to Walter Benjamin at Port-Bou. Would it matter to Walter whether the Gestapo were out to torture him to death as a Red or a Jew?


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 17 March 2005 08:27 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Second, can we dispense with this "Hitler was a Catholic" red herring? Some nasty Hitler quotes on the subject (i won't quote the anti-semitic bile in full) are at this site.

The Catholic Church has never excommunicated Adolf Hitler.

Re: Yad Vashem + gay section..

About bloody time I say!


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 18 March 2005 01:39 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
First, the call is not to put other groups "on the same level" as the Jews. It is a request for inclusion, to tell the whole story. Yad Vashem is including "a reference" to gay victims, not turning over an entire wing.

I agree 100%. I think it is essential that a museum devoted to the Holocaust DOES acknowledge the various non-Jewish victims of the Nazis. Maybe I misunderstood the original argument because I thought that someone was arguing that there should be no acknowldegment that the Jews were far and away the primary victim of Hitler and that they were just one of a dozen or so segments of humanity that the Nazis persecuted.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 18 March 2005 11:20 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
[QB]First, the call is not to put other groups "on the same level" as the Jews. It is a request for inclusion, to tell the whole story.

The difference is only in the accounting. In order to complete the move of inclusion, we have to consider all victims of the Holocaust to be equally "victimised" so that qualitatively all victims of the Holocaust are "on the same level".


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Other Todd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7964

posted 19 March 2005 01:32 AM      Profile for The Other Todd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
What Cueball already said. PLUS... you are quite incorrect about the word. It is NOT specific to the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis.
[ 17 March 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

Probably true (but "shoah" the hebrew word for a burnt offering does mean the same thing as the greek "holocaust" in the religious sense), but the Holocaust Industry's working hard to make sure that term gets trademarked for Jewish use only.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/content.php?pg=3


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 19 March 2005 02:11 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:
...but the Holocaust Industry's working hard to make sure that term gets trademarked for Jewish use only.

Yes, just as they try to maintain that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. Both arguments are not only wrong, they are risable.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 19 March 2005 10:50 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

but the Holocaust Industry's working hard to make sure that term gets trademarked for Jewish use only.

And here i thought that Yad Vashem was a built to remember the evils of the Nazi Holocaust industry. I guess I was confused Todd so thanks for letting me know.

I agree that all those who perished in the Holocaust should be remembered in all holocaust museums from Yad Vashem in Israel, to the one in Washington DC to others around the world not in an attempt to belittle the suffering of the Jewish people but rather to educate the world that mass murder and slaughter of innocents can happen to anyone when a population allows it to happen.

I strongly believe that Holocaust museums should mark the murder and slaughter of the 6 million Jews but they had better also mark the murder and slaughter of the Gays and Lesbians, the Roma and Jehovah Witnesses and the others I have failed to mention here.

I wonder why no one has asked if Jehova Witnesses are included in any of the museums and if not condemming it strongly in this thread?

[ 19 March 2005: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 19 March 2005 10:59 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
JPJ—

If JWs are not mentioned in the memorials, then I agree, they should be added. I have no quarrels with the JWs beyond the fact that their religious heirarchy is *just* as bigoted toward gay people as the vatican is...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lena
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8541

posted 19 March 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for Lena     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stockholm
quote:

First of all I don't rthink anyone was automatically killed by virtue of being catholic. That would have been pretty inconvenient to all those Catholics (such as Pope Pius, Gen. Franco, the fascist leader sof Slovakia and Croatia etc...) who were Nazi sympathizers and approved of the Holocaust. Hitler himself was Catholic and so were 90% of his fellow Austrians and many of them joined the SS and still went to Mass every Sunday!



This is utter nonsense. Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Europe saved more Jews during WW2 than any entity with the exception of the Allied liberating armies!

Many Catholics in Poland were killed by virtue of being Catholic. I believe one-quater of their entire clergy was executed by the Nazis during the occupation. St. Maximillian Kolbe at Auschwitz was a bright light of God's love in a dark world.....

Hitler did not believe in Catholic Church's teachings. He was antagonistic to the Church by the mid-30s. Recently, it came out that Hitler wanted to kidnap the Pope during the war..... As all faithful Catholics know, to be anti-Semitic is to be unChristian. QED>..


From: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 19 March 2005 01:40 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Mac, you're starting to remind me of the Canadian Legion, I think it was -- y'know the fuss they kicked up about adding a Holocaust section to the war museum?
How am I doing that Skdadl? I have asked a legitimate question that being can Jews not commemorate the slaughter of their generations by memorializing them in a manner that educates towards the destrucution faced by the community? Could others also not do the same? Why is this so difficult?

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 19 March 2005 01:43 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by The Other Todd:

Probably true (but "shoah" the hebrew word for a burnt offering does mean the same thing as the greek "holocaust" in the religious sense), but the Holocaust Industry's working hard to make sure that term gets trademarked for Jewish use only.

[


"Holocaust Industry"? That is just fucking offensive. Shame on you for putting forward this Finkelstein canard so welcomed by white supremacists and others. It is a form of Holocaust trivialization of the worst kind.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 19 March 2005 01:52 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
How am I doing that Skdadl? I have asked a legitimate question that being can Jews not commemorate the slaughter of their generations by memorializing them in a manner that educates towards the destrucution faced by the community? Could others also not do the same? Why is this so difficult?

If there is a HOLOCAUST museum then it should apply to all those that suffered. Inclusion is what will heal the rift of something bred from exclusion and alienation and hatred.

If the Jewish people wanted a Jewish Holocaust museum, then they can announce it as such. But to call it "The Holocaust Memorial Museum" or something along those lines and not including the other sufferers of the tragedy...Then that is damned offensive.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 March 2005 01:56 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Macabee:
How am I doing that Skdadl? I have asked a legitimate question that being can Jews not commemorate the slaughter of their generations by memorializing them in a manner that educates towards the destrucution faced by the community? Could others also not do the same? Why is this so difficult?

Down, Mac, down.

Mac, that is exactly the same logic that was argued by the Legionnaires (I think it was them) when it was proposed to add a Holocaust memorial to the War Museum in Ottawa -- which addition I strongly support, by the way.

The old soldiers claimed that their dedication and sacrifice could only be memorialized by a free-standing museum that focused solely on them.

Now, while I am all in favour of recognizing their dedication and sacrifice, I also believe -- well, I know -- that the news of what was actually happening in Europe during the thirties and early forties was indeed news to most of them. It shouldn't have been but it was, and it shook their world-view when younger generations began to shift the lenses through which we have viewed WWII ever since.

Personally, I think that it is a good thing that world-views get shaken, in that case, anyway, although I have a lot of feeling for the old soldiers. Plus, it seems to me that a war museum that failed to set WWII in fuller context than many grasped at the time would quickly turn into not much more than a dusty regimental archive.

As many have written above, any group have, of course, the right to build a memorial as dedicated as they wish. But the larger the context, the truer to human history, the more compelling that museum is going to be.

It is my understanding that Yad Vashem has long taken some of the greater context into account -- in memorializing, eg, the so-called Righteous Gentiles. I'm not quite sure of what you are lamenting here, actually. It always puzzles me when people start to think of history as something we can have too much of.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Janelle
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8447

posted 19 March 2005 02:20 PM      Profile for Janelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lena:
Stockholm

This is utter nonsense. Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Europe saved more Jews during WW2 than any entity with the exception of the Allied liberating armies!

Many Catholics in Poland were killed by virtue of being Catholic. I believe one-quater of their entire clergy was executed by the Nazis during the occupation. St. Maximillian Kolbe at Auschwitz was a bright light of God's love in a dark world.....

Hitler did not believe in Catholic Church's teachings. He was antagonistic to the Church by the mid-30s. Recently, it came out that Hitler wanted to kidnap the Pope during the war..... As all faithful Catholics know, to be anti-Semitic is to be unChristian. QED>..


Sure, there were some Catholics, and some Protestants that were heroic and saved lives. But when you look at the reaction [or total lack thereof] of the Church overall, it is shameful. Boy, the Catholics sure helped their fellow man by staying totally silent about the Final Solution. And by helping smuggle those war criminals to South America.And by refusing to give Jewsish parents their children if they had decided to baptize them.Wasn't that kind and Christly? They agreed to care for the kids while mom and dad went of to a concentration camp and when by some miracle they return, they say "You can't have your son back. I decided to baptize him and he belongs to God now"

The Light of God must really be blinding if you can ignore the action and inaction of the Church here.


From: Regina | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 March 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All that, Janelle, and then the sheer absurdity of a utilitarian comparison -- "saved the most" -- when almost no one but an enormous and powerful institution could have had any influence or effect at all against the Nazi machine.

The heroism of those who saved others deserves to be recognized as such, in itself, as the human strength and virtue that dignifies us all when we remember it and take courage from it.

It isn't fodder for accountants or PR or marketing campaigns. The Catholic Church should be ashamed to be associated with such grubby arguments.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lena
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8541

posted 19 March 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for Lena     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Janelle, you ought to read more. there are scholars out there like Goldhagen who despise the Church and lift up the shams you've offered here.... A closer look from many sources (even Jews like Dailin or Lapin) provides more clarity.

http://www.rider.edu/cathmin/CathRdgs/PiusXII/dalindef.htm

Anyway, Chief Rabbi Zolli of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war.... you think he would have done so if the Church is anti-Semitic.... preposterous


From: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 19 March 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Catholic Church knew that its existence was threatened by the NAZI regime. Although the Papacy released a Bull known as "With Burning Sorrow" to express anger and declare "spiritual" war on NAZI Germany. They didn't do enough. The Church was afraid, and rather than being like Christ and standing like a true martyr and opposing tyranny and hatred it put its holy tail beneath its legs and slinked away.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 19 March 2005 07:50 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Down, Mac, down.

Mac, that is exactly the same logic that was argued by the Legionnaires (I think it was them) when it was proposed to add a Holocaust memorial to the War Museum in Ottawa -- which addition I strongly support, by the way.

The old soldiers claimed that their dedication and sacrifice could only be memorialized by a free-standing museum that focused solely on them.

Now, while I am all in favour of recognizing their dedication and sacrifice, I also believe -- well, I know -- that the news of what was actually happening in Europe during the thirties and early forties was indeed news to most of them. It shouldn't have been but it was, and it shook their world-view when younger generations began to shift the lenses through which we have viewed WWII ever since.

Personally, I think that it is a good thing that world-views get shaken, in that case, anyway, although I have a lot of feeling for the old soldiers. Plus, it seems to me that a war museum that failed to set WWII in fuller context than many grasped at the time would quickly turn into not much more than a dusty regimental archive.

As many have written above, any group have, of course, the right to build a memorial as dedicated as they wish. But the larger the context, the truer to human history, the more compelling that museum is going to be.

It is my understanding that Yad Vashem has long taken some of the greater context into account -- in memorializing, eg, the so-called Righteous Gentiles. I'm not quite sure of what you are lamenting here, actually. It always puzzles me when people start to think of history as something we can have too much of.


On second sober reflection and after reading your position I see your point and agree. Thanks for giving me this to ponder.

From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca