NationStates Jolt Archive

And of course you didn't bother to put up 2 points which explain his reasoning
We must tell a child the truth," he said. "We do not traumatize children by giving them the gift of the memory of the country.
If you do not talk to them of this tragedy, then you should not be surprised if it repeats itself," Sarkozy said. "It is ignorance that prompts the repetition of abominable situations, not knowledge. Make our children into children with open eyes.





My thread now, its just a shame I can't eliminate the ## at the beginning of the thread title.

If and when Sarkozy has a child, let me know if he intends to inflict that on his progeny.

But then again, parents do inflict all sorts of crap on their offspring, so not unimaginable.

Damn it, and I thought the obsession with the Holocaust in Israeli schools was too much.

Sarkozy orders schools to honor Holocaust victims
February 16, 2008-- PERIGUEUX, France — President Nicolas Sarkozy on Friday defended a plan to require 10-year-olds to honor child victims of the Holocaust, saying adults should not hide terrible truths from children.

The idea, floated by the president earlier this week, rankled psychologists worried about traumatizing children and has teachers reviving debates about how France remembers World War II. But Sarkozy stood firmly by the plan in meetings with teachers over proposed reforms of France's school system.

The president wants each child in the last year of French primary school, at about 10 years old, to "adopt" the memory of one of the 11,000 Jewish children in France killed in the Holocaust, learning about the selected child's background and fate.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/16/sarkozy-orders-schools-to-honor-child-victims/

WTF?

I mean, I know the French president (Sarkozy) has Jewish roots and all, but isnt this a bit too much.. Why ask the Schools to force this crap into the children minds?

Trauma?

We read a very emotional book about a child victim of the Holocaust in primary school when I was about that age. That's how most of us first learned in depth about the topic (with photos and so on and so forth). I don't recall any of us being particularly traumatised.

The problem is that Sarkozy is decreeing what happens in a class room. I don't think that's what a head of state should be doing, there's an education department with actual pedagogues and educators to do that.

Trauma?

We read a very emotional book about a child victim of the Holocaust in primary school when I was about that age. That's how most of us first learned in depth about the topic (with photos and so on and so forth). I don't recall any of us being particularly traumatised.

The problem is that Sarkozy is decreeing what happens in a class room. I don't think that's what a head of state should be doing, there's an education department with actual pedagogues and educators to do that.

Indeed.

On that same token, he's doing it for a good reason, and with good sentiment, so I can't personally blame him for saying this.

Still...as you said, he shouldn't have any control over actual policy.

Child victims of the Holocaust. Hmmm, does that include Palestinian children, who without the Holocaust would not have had to suffer the loss of their homes due to the influx of Jews from Europe?

<threadcrash/>

Apparently, the French president has some supporters.Jewish body backs Sarkozy’s Holocaust proposal
by: AFP and EJP Updated: 18/Feb/2008 00:00

PARIS (AFP-EJP)---The president of CRIF, France’s Jewish representative body, has backed the idea that the memory of a child who died in the Holocaust be entrusted to a whole school class.
The idea was suggested by an aide to Nicolas Sarkozy as a way to "adapt" the controversial French president plan, presented on Wednesday during the CRIF annual dinner, to require 10-year-old pupils to honor the memory of the 11,000 French children who perished in the Holocaust from the start of the next school year.
"I am clearly favourable that the memory of a child be carried by a whole class,” Richard Prasquier, president of CRIF, told France Inter radio station.
Sarkozy’s plan set off an outcry among psychologists, parents and the political left.

I heard a rumor that Sarkozy is starring in the next big chickflick alongside Andrey Tautou and Gerard Depardieu, c/d?

If and when Sarkozy has a child, let me know if he intends to inflict that on his progeny.

But then again, parents do inflict all sorts of crap on their offspring, so not unimaginable.

It is important that children learn that terrible things really have happened so that they will grow up with a developed sense of justice and will not be duped into allowing such horrors to happen again.

Pampering and insulating people from the real world and from history leads to mediocrity.

I would hardly say that the Holocaust is a good story 'for a sense of justice'...

It is important that children learn that terrible things really have happened so that they will grow up with a developed sense of justice.:confused:

Would you say German children have the most developed sense of Justice in the World?

:confused:

Would you say German children have the most developed sense of Justice in the World?

Who can say, really?

I would hardly say that the Holocaust is a good story 'for a sense of justice'...

Well, i suppose that can be a corollary to your "statements regarding marxism" and we'll let people come to their own conclusions.

It is important that children learn that terrible things really have happened so that they will grow up with a developed sense of justice and will not be duped into allowing such horrors to happen again.


Oh, I'm not disputing that they should learn that. But things like that should remain as objective evidence and records. How are you going to be objective when you start forcing people to treat the totally unrelated dead as part of ones family? Particularly the dead who died gruesomely at the hands of others?

This sounds like a recipe for bringing about a fair bit of trauma and possible (too early to say with certainty) anti-German sentiment breeding.

I would hardly say that the Holocaust is a good story 'for a sense of justice'...The Holocaust is not a current genocide, It ended 60 years ago, Most of the Victims have passed away and most of the perpetrators have been dealt with at Nuremberg.

Yes, Holocaust memorabilia can build sympathy for Jews, but if Governments go overkill with this, they are potentially creating injustice for Palestinian children.

Either way it is not creating a sense of justice because it has ended, all the War crimes that could have a day court did so at Nuremberg, justice was served then.. and in the 10 years following the end of the war.

Who can say, really?have you ever been in Germany?

I have, the German sense of Justice is not the most developed in World... its average.
But they are less likely to be openly critical of Israel actions in Gaza and Lebanon.

(whenever I say Germans I mean to say -Most of- or -All the Germans I met-)

have you ever been in Germany?

I have, the German children and German adults do not a more (or less) developed sense of Justice.

Do you think they would have a more or less developed sense of justice if they'd never learned about the holocaust and what their country did?

The Holocaust is not a current genocide, It ended 60 years ago, Most of the Victims have passed away and most of the perpetrators have been dealt with at Nuremberg.

Yes, Holocaust memorabilia can build sympathy for Jews, but if Governments go overkill with this, they are potentially creating injustice for Palestinian children.

Either way it is not creating a sense of justice because it has ended, all the possible Justice to be delivered WAS delivered at Nuremberg.

I hardly think that the victors justice (even deserved) at Nuremberg on a few surviving old Nazi's count as justice for the millions of their victims. I think 'never again' would be more appropriate.

have you ever been in Germany?

I have, the German do not have a more (or less) developed sense of Justice.
But they are less likely to be openly critical of Israel actions in Gaza and Lebanon.

If they aren't critical of the israeli actions in gaza and lebanon then I don't believe that they have a particularly well developed sense of justice.

At any rate, the point is that by having the emotional trauma of learning about a child who died at a young age, they can grow up to have that same trauma return when they hear about other crimes against humanity, like the israeli attacks on lebanon's civilians two summers ago.

Germany may not be the best country to benefit from such a program as sarkozy proposes, because of the infinitely tangled complication of their country being guilty for the holocaust.

No one likes to be told that they're bad.

"The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz."

Do you think they would have a more or less developed sense of justice if they'd never learned about the holocaust and what their country did?one think is to "Learn what your Country did"

To the same degree WE learn about what we did in Vietnam, and what our Children will learn about Iraq.

Another thing is to have it drilled in your memory year -after year -after year- since primary school.


But to answer you question, Their sense of Justice would be about average.
Just like the sense of Justice is average in countries where the Holocaust is one genocide like the others. where it does not have a privileged statute.

There are a lot of real problems with this, showing the insanity of Sarkozy.

First, he took this decision all by himself, without asking anyone... he didn't ask to teachers, he didn't ask to parents, he didn't ask to psychologists, and he didn't ask to the NGO promoting the memory of nazi crimes. That's not a way to behave in a democracy, that's the "will of the Prince".

Then, it's not acceptable to have the government saying to teachers how they should be their work. That the government has some saying on the content of public education, that's normal. That they ask to teachers to speak about the Shoah and the horror of nazism, and to keep this memory alive, that's normal. But then, let the teachers teach it the way they feel, depending on their students, their age, their sensibility, ... and in coherence with the rest of the teachings they provide (the Shoah isn't isolated from the rest of history, ...).

For the measure itself, the first thing I've to say is that it's far too young. 10 or 11 is still a "fairy tale" age, not the age to be charged with the full weight of nazi horror. Identifying yourself to "martyrs" may come later on, and even then I'm not even sure it's really a good thing, but not at 10 or 11 ! When I was a teen I somehow "carried the memory" of Guy Mocquet, but when I was 15 or 16, not at 10 or 11. And by my own choice, after just learning about him, not imposed by someone else.

And there is another, unacceptable, thing: why only french jew ? Why not jew from Poland or other countries, who were living in France, shared the same games and shcools than the french jew, were arrested by the same people, parked in the same camps, and murdered in the same way ? Why not tsigans or other victims of nazi barbarians ? And why not the native americans slaughtered by european, the african reduced to slavery, or the Tutsi slaughtered in Rwanda under the watching eye of french army ? This selection of memory and of which victims to remember makes me sick.

I hardly think that the victors justice (even deserved) at Nuremberg on a few surviving old Nazi's count as justice for the millions of their victims. I think 'never again' would be more appropriate."never again" is not Justice.

"never again" is a promise.
"never again" is a wish.

its a wish a tragedy does not happen.

... a tragedy, we ,human beings promise, will do everything possible to prevent from happening.

"never again" is not Justice.

To say that Palestinians suffered from the mass murder of Jews due to influx immigration is the kind of racist stupid banter I would expect from one such as you UB. Still it does little to dull the contempt I have for you and your kind. The Jews as a people have none little if nothing to the Palestinians as a people. This in spite of the unbridled support for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust in particular by the Grand Mufti at the time.

Whats not to get? There is no hive mind of Jews that actively do things to Palestinians. Most of the times when a Palestinian has conflict with Israelites it is because they actively start it themselves.

The Jews as a people have none little if nothing to the Palestinians as a people. huh?

And there is another, unacceptable, thing: why only french jew ? Why not jew from Poland or other countries, who were living in France, shared the same games and shcools than the french jew, were arrested by the same people, parked in the same camps, and murdered in the same way ? Why not tsigans or other victims of nazi barbarians ? And why not the native americans slaughtered by european, the african reduced to slavery, or the Tutsi slaughtered in Rwanda under the watching eye of french army ? This selection of memory and of which victims to remember makes me sick.

Because then they get to play the old "oh woe is us. We are the oppressed race, never mind current realities" card.

I suspect Sarkozy is going to start raising racial tensions before long.

I don't see the big deal. 10 year olds should be learning about important historical events, and the Holocaust is one of the most important in European history. And learning about historical events from a subjective perspective ("adopting" the memory of specific victims) is a strategy that allows the learner to get a sense of scale and comparison to other events and events in their own life. In fact, I'm surprised that anybody would object to this. Here in the states, 10 year olds see all kinds of gorified, glorified violence in the media, and even if they get a few nightmares, they aren't traumatized by the images, but are taught that violence is okay. Learning that violence is actually bad is an improvement.

I don't see the big deal. 10 year olds should be learning about important historical events, and the Holocaust is one of the most important in European history. And learning about historical events from a subjective perspective ("adopting" the memory of specific victims) is a strategy that allows the learner to get a sense of scale and comparison to other events and events in their own life. In fact, I'm surprised that anybody would object to this. Here in the states, 10 year olds see all kinds of gorified, glorified violence in the media, and even if they get a few nightmares, they aren't traumatized by the images, but are taught that violence is okay. Learning that violence is actually bad is an improvement.
And let me just add that it sounds to me that the critics are mostly rankled partly because Sarkozy is making a decision that they have to follow, but also because they would rather pretend that the holocaust didn't happen, that this isn't about the children, but that they personally are uncomfortable with the memory of the holocaust. Fact is, ten year old children won't be traumatized in the least. Hell, they'll probably joke about it and think it's cool. But at least they'll have that crucial, fundamental knowledge to draw on and compare to years later if they are ever looking on at a situation in the world that might have some similarities.

And let me just add that it sounds to me that the critics are mostly rankled partly because Sarkozy is making a decision that they have to follow, but also because they would rather pretend that the holocaust didn't happen, that this isn't about the children, but that they personally are uncomfortable with the memory of the holocaust. Fact is, ten year old children won't be traumatized in the least. Hell, they'll probably joke about it and think it's cool. But at least they'll have that crucial, fundamental knowledge to draw on and compare to years later if they are ever looking on at a situation in the world that might have some similarities.
LAST POST - In the US, kids read Ann Frank's diary. It's considered a crucial part of the curriculum, and when I was a kid, I remember that a lot of my classmates were completely intrigued by it. It gave them a true sense of historical perspective, and they grew as people because of it.

Would you say German children have the most developed sense of Justice in the World?In a way.

There is no hive mind of Jews that actively do things to Palestinians.Except take their homeland away. They have learned well from their German masters. You should enter some history class.

but also because they would rather pretend that the holocaust didn't happen

That's just plain stupid. Even someone like Simon Veil (a jew who was deported to Asuwitz as a child and was lucky enough to survive, president of a "memory of the shoah" association is shocked by this measure of Sarkozy and strongly opposes it. Very very few people in France pretend that the holocaust didn't happen.

Fact is, ten year old children won't be traumatized in the least.

That's not what most of child psychologist are saying. And that's why Sarkozy (or you) shouldn't decide alone: you've no real idea of what can or cannot traumatize a ten year old child. It's true that most won't be traumatized, but even if 0.1% of them are, that means thousands of traumatized children every year ! We have to be very, very careful when playing with children psychology... and trust the professionals.

LAST POST - In the US, kids read Ann Frank's diary. It's considered a crucial part of the curriculum, and when I was a kid, I remember that a lot of my classmates were completely intrigued by it. It gave them a true sense of historical perspective, and they grew as people because of it.

We usually do read it, but first when we are a bit older (more around 12-13 I think or maybe 13-14), and then the way to do it and when and how is decided by the teachers, depending on the class, ... not decided by the Prince.

If and when Sarkozy has a child, let me know if he intends to inflict that on his progeny.

He has at least two sons that I know of. One grown-up, and involved in politics, the other still a child.

I'm still fairly undecided on this whole debate. I agree, on the whole, with NL (for once):

We read a very emotional book about a child victim of the Holocaust in primary school when I was about that age. That's how most of us first learned in depth about the topic (with photos and so on and so forth). I don't recall any of us being particularly traumatised.

The problem is that Sarkozy is decreeing what happens in a class room. I don't think that's what a head of state should be doing, there's an education department with actual pedagogues and educators to do that.

I also agree with this:
he took this decision all by himself, without asking anyone... he didn't ask to teachers, he didn't ask to parents, he didn't ask to psychologists, and he didn't ask to the NGO promoting the memory of nazi crimes. That's not a way to behave in a democracy, that's the "will of the Prince".


And I'm slightly bothered by the fact that he first announced it during a speech to the CRIF. It ties it in with his frankly open attempt to bring religion back into politics, over a hundred years after the two were legally made distinct. He has made several remarks about France's "Christian roots", and the fact the religion should be involved in politics.

Note also that Simone Veil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Veil), one of France's best known Auschwitz survivors, has opposed Sarkozy's idea. (link (http://people.blogs.courrierinternational.com/archive/2008/02/16/simone-veil-juge-la-proposition-de-sarkozy-sur-l-adoption-de.html))

That's just plain stupid. Even someone like Simon Veil (a jew who was deported to Asuwitz as a child and was lucky enough to survive, president of a "memory of the shoah" association is shocked by this measure of Sarkozy and strongly opposes it.What's so shocking about it? It's not like the kids are undergoing the holocaust. Surely teaching an uncomfortable truth is desirable to sheltering them in ignorance of the historical event most relevant to humanism in the 20th Century.
Very very few people in France pretend that the holocaust didn't happen.Then why is Sarkozy's lesson plan causing such hoopla? Why would they pretend to their kids that the holocaust didn't happen, which is what a failure to educate them about it effectively constitutes.
That's not what most of child psychologist are saying. And that's why Sarkozy (or you) shouldn't decide alone: you've no real idea of what can or cannot traumatize a ten year old child. It's true that most won't be traumatized, but even if 0.1% of them are, that means thousands of traumatized children every year ! We have to be very, very careful when playing with children psychology... and trust the professionals.I call complete and utter Bullshit. Maybe Sarkozy overstepped his bounds in suggesting a specific lesson plan, but I can assure you that learning about the holocaust would be the LEAST traumatic thing in a ten year old's life. Ten year olds are traumatized by bullies, parents, and teachers - THAT's what makes them quake in fear and piss their beds, NOT stories out of history. In fact, I know for a FACT that the Diary of Anne Frank actually HELPED kids cope with traumatic experiences in their own lives, and I suspect that Sarkozy's plan would do the same thing for the children of France.

He has at least two sons that I know of. One grown-up, and involved in politics, the other still a child.

He has 3, two are in their early 20s and one of them is involved in politics (the other one is not), and young one around 10. I pity him ;)

And I'm slightly bothered by the fact that he first announced it during a speech to the CRIF. It ties it in with his frankly open attempt to bring religion back into politics, over a hundred years after the two were legally made distinct. He has made several remarks about France's "Christian roots", and the fact the religion should be involved in politics.

Yeah... Sarkozy attempts to put back religion in politics and education is very scary.

I call complete and utter Bullshit. Maybe Sarkozy overstepped his bounds in suggesting a specific lesson plan, but I can assure you that learning about the holocaust would be the LEAST traumatic thing in a ten year old's life. Ten year olds are traumatized by bullies, parents, and teachers - THAT's what makes them quake in fear and piss their beds, NOT stories out of history. In fact, I know for a FACT that the Diary of Anne Frank actually HELPED kids cope with traumatic experiences in their own lives, and I suspect that Sarkozy's plan would do the same thing for the children of France.

Simone Veil, who's an Auschwitz survivor and initially a strong supporter of Sarkozy, disagrees with you. She says it would be unbearable for children.

Sarkozy isn't suggesting simply that 10 year-olds should be taught about what happened. Nobody would disagree with that. What he's saying is that each child will be entrusted with the memory of a specific dead child, maintaining for a full school year the memory of that child's name and everything known about his or her life.

I do think that children should be given a profound understanding of the Shoah. When I was 14 or thereabouts, we were taken to a Shoah memorial. It was intensely moving, and really drove into us (or into me, at least) a few things that all children should know and understand. When I was 17, we visited the death camp in Buchenwald. Children much younger than that have done so too. And that's fine. It's more than fine: it should be done.

But what Sarkozy wants to do is different. It isn't a one day outing or a history lesson. It's something that he wants to put at the forefront of a 10 year-old's mind for a full year. Each 10 year-old will be made individually responsible for getting to know and preserving the memory of an individual dead child. I'm slightly uncomfortable with that.

"never again" is not Justice.

"never again" is a promise.
"never again" is a wish.

its a wish a tragedy does not happen.

... a tragedy, we ,human beings promise, will do everything possible to prevent from happening.

"never again" is not Justice.
Sorry OD, that sounds like emotional claptrap to me.

What's so shocking about it? It's not like the kids are undergoing the holocaust. Surely teaching an uncomfortable truth is desirable to sheltering them in ignorance of the historical event most relevant to humanism in the 20th Century.
Then why is Sarkozy's lesson plan causing such hoopla? Why would they pretend to their kids that the holocaust didn't happen, which is what a failure to educate them about it effectively constitutes.

No one (well, very few at least) is refusing to teach the kids about the holocaust. That's not the question. World War II is studied several times, in depth, in public schools, and the Shoah is of course widely explained in those.

The question is on the way to teach it. Teaching something as horrible as the holocaust to 10 year olds is not easy, it requires a lot of pedagogy and carefulness. Creating such a strong, direct emotional bond between a child and another one is something dangerous - we are playing with emotions, with identity. It's a field in which we have to be very careful, because emotions are very hard to control and predict, especially with children. And that's where specialist of child psychology come into play - not because we want to teach the holocaust to children (it's already done), but because Sarkozy wants to use a very emotional way to do it.

I can assure you that learning about the holocaust would be the LEAST traumatic thing in a ten year old's life.

Are you a specialist of child psychology ? Do you have any training in that field ? I don't. I understand how it can be traumatic, I understand how it can help. Not being a specialist of the field, I have to admit I don't know how strong both are. That's intellectual honesty. But I trust the specialist of the field, and since so many of them say it's very dangerous, then better not do it.

Simone Veil, who's an Auschwitz survivor and initially a strong supporter of Sarkozy, disagrees with you. She says it would be unbearable for children."Unbearable" Yeah right...

Sarkozy isn't suggesting simply that 10 year-olds should be taught about what happened. Nobody would disagree with that. What he's saying is that each child will be entrusted with the memory of a specific dead child, maintaining for a full school year the memory of that child's name and everything known about his or her life.

I do think that children should be given a profound understanding of the Shoah. When I was 14 or thereabouts, we were taken to a Shoah memorial. It was intensely moving, and really drove into us (or into me, at least) a few things that all children should know and understand. When I was 17, we visited the death camp in Buchenwald. Children much younger than that have done so too. And that's fine. It's more than fine: it should be done.

But what Sarkozy wants to do is different. It isn't a one day outing or a history lesson. It's something that he wants to put at the forefront of a 10 year-old's mind for a full year. Each 10 year-old will be made individually responsible for getting to know and preserving the memory of an individual dead child. I'm slightly uncomfortable with that.That's not traumatic; it's unrealistic. It's not possible to put something at the forefront of a ten-year-old's mind for a year, let alone something absent and intangible. The subject matter is irrelevant.

No one (well, very few at least) is refusing to teach the kids about the holocaust. That's not the question. World War II is studied several times, in depth, in public schools, and the Shoah is of course widely explained in those.

The question is on the way to teach it. Teaching something as horrible as the holocaust to 10 year olds is not easy, it requires a lot of pedagogy and carefulness. Creating such a strong, direct emotional bond between a child and another one is something dangerous - we are playing with emotions, with identity. It's a field in which we have to be very careful, because emotions are very hard to control and predict, especially with children. And that's where specialist of child psychology come into play - not because we want to teach the holocaust to children (it's already done), but because Sarkozy wants to use a very emotional way to do it.Emotion? Identity? Exactly what kind of way is that - maybe I'm misunderstanding. In my country, educational is not a highly emotional thing. Are the kids going to be brainwashed or tormented or something??

Are you a specialist of child psychology ? Do you have any training in that field ? I don't. I understand how it can be traumatic, I understand how it can help. Not being a specialist of the field, I have to admit I don't know how strong both are. That's intellectual honesty. But I trust the specialist of the field, and since so many of them say it's very dangerous, then better not do it.I am a specialist in bullshit detection, and unless the proposal is something very different from I understand education to be, the notion that anybody is going to be traumatized by the content is one in which I detect high levels of bullshit.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/16/sarkozy-orders-schools-to-honor-child-victims/

WTF?

I mean, I know the French president (Sarkozy) has Jewish roots and all, but isnt this a bit too much.. Why ask the Schools to force this crap into the children minds?You know, by pure coincidence, 10 was how old I was when I saw my first Concentration Camp from the inside. I doubt that merely "adopting" a holocaust victim is going to be nearly as "traumatizing" as seeing lampshades made of human skin is at that age.

You know, by pure coincidence, 10 was how old I was when I saw my first Concentration Camp from the inside. I doubt that merely "adopting" a holocaust victim is going to be nearly as "traumatizing" as seeing lampshades made of human skin is at that age.How is that "traumatizing" ?? A ten-year-old one finds such things exotic at best.

Oh, I'm not disputing that they should learn that. But things like that should remain as objective evidence and records. How are you going to be objective when you start forcing people to treat the totally unrelated dead as part of ones family? Particularly the dead who died gruesomely at the hands of others?

This sounds like a recipe for bringing about a fair bit of trauma and possible (too early to say with certainty) anti-German sentiment breeding.If it's done right, it won't be too much of a problem. Then again, the first thing in French schoolbooks for German class is World War II...

have you ever been in Germany?Ah, I have.
I have, the German do not have a more (or less) developed sense of Justice.
But they are less likely to be openly critical of Israel actions in Gaza and Lebanon.You are incorrect. Maybe if you had provided someone whom to compare to, you would not have been wrong.

If they aren't critical of the israeli actions in gaza and lebanon then I don't believe that they have a particularly well developed sense of justice.They are less critical than OD, not uncritical.

How is that "traumatizing" ?? A ten-year-old one finds such things exotic at best.I thought it was disgusting. If you enjoyed such things when you were little, though, I'm sure it explains a lot about why you developed into the person you are today.

"Unbearable" Yeah right...

That's what she said. She said it was "inimaginable, insoutenable et injuste", which means, "unimaginable, unbearable and unfair". And she's an holocaust survivor, she was a supporter of Sarkozy in the elections, and she is a very respected woman, even among her political opponents. You may treat her with irony, but she doesn't deserve it.

Emotion? Identity? Exactly what kind of way is that - maybe I'm misunderstanding. In my country, educational is not a highly emotional thing.

Well, that's exactly the point. The Shoah is _already_ explained and teached, deeply, in schools. Three times. In CM2 (10-11 years old), in 3ème (14-15 years old) and in Terminale (17-18 years old), for those who follow the "classical" public education.

The reason is simple: we have three "stages" of school, Primaire, Collège and Lycée, and in each, history is done linearly, so in the last year of each, WW2 is studied, and that includes, of course, the Shoah. The details and way to present it vary of course between each of those tree "stages".

Sarkozy's proposal is not about "teaching the Shoah" to children. It's about doing it in this very emotional way, creating an intimate link, a "sponsorship" or "godfathering" between a child of now and one who died in the Shoah. That's a "highly emotional thing", and that's against what people are protesting - not about the teaching of the Shoah, but about doing it in this emotional, initimate way.

I thought it was disgusting. If you enjoyed such things when you were little, though, I'm sure it explains a lot about why you developed into the person you are today.Seeing lampshades made of human skin is no different than seeing lampshades made of animal skin. The disgusting part is that humans make lampshades out of creatures. And that it is human skin does not make it more disgusting, or enjoyable (what a rubbish), it only makes it exotic.
And I really think you know nothing about the person I am today.

Seeing lampshades made of human skin is no different than seeing lampshades made of animal skin. The disgusting part is that humans make lampshades out of creatures. And that it is human skin does not make it more disgusting, or enjoyable (what a rubbish), it only makes it exotic.
And I really think you know nothing about the person I am today.Animals don't get tattoos. Most ten-year-olds can differentiate between a leather jacket and something made of human insofar as that they consider the latter wrong.

That's not traumatic; it's unrealistic. It's not possible to put something at the forefront of a ten-year-old's mind for a year, let alone something absent and intangible. The subject matter is irrelevant.

The whole point is not to make it "absent and intangible". Each kid will learn the life story of a particular child.


Emotion? Identity? Exactly what kind of way is that - maybe I'm misunderstanding. In my country, educational is not a highly emotional thing. Are the kids going to be brainwashed or tormented or something??

No, they're going to be asked to identify on a continuous basis with a murdered child.

Child psychiatrists are saying it's dangerous. They're actually qualified to say that; you are not. Simone Veil, who survived the death camps and lost most of her famlily there, says it would be unbearable for children. One would think she knows what she's talking about. She's also not doing it for political reasons, since she's been a supporter of Sarkozy's until now.

So yes, you are misunderstanding. This is not simply educational content. Nobody would disagree with that. This is asking each individual child to identify, on an emotional basis, for a full year, with a murdered child.

You know, by pure coincidence, 10 was how old I was when I saw my first Concentration Camp from the inside. I doubt that merely "adopting" a holocaust victim is going to be nearly as "traumatizing" as seeing lampshades made of human skin is at that age.

Depends how intense the "adoption" is, I suppose. I've also seen objects made from the remains of death camp victims. The horror of it has been seared into my memory. But it was a day trip, not a continuous one year experience. Again, I'm not qualified to say, but professionals are saying it can be dangerous for kids.

How is that "traumatizing" ?? A ten-year-old one finds such things exotic at best.

Only an incredibly unsensitive ten-year-old. A normal human child would (and does) retain a life-long sense of horror.

Then again, we seem to be developing a society of individuals so self-centred they lack any sense of basic human empathy...

Animals don't get tattoos. Most ten-year-olds can differentiate between a leather jacket and something made of human insofar as that they consider the latter wrong.
Exactly. Furthermore, they only consider the latter wrong because society/parents tells them to. Well, most of them. Myself, I became a vegetarian at age 11 for ethical reasons. I found the idea of an animal meat industry to be cruel and inconsistent with my beliefs, and meat became a horrific object - akin to human flesh - but I wasn't "traumatized" in any sense.

Depends how intense the "adoption" is, I suppose. I've also seen objects made from the remains of death camp victims. The horror of it has been seared into my memory. But it was a day trip, not a continuous one year experience. Again, I'm not qualified to say, but professionals are saying it can be dangerous for kids.They had pictures of worse things than the lampshades, I may add. It all depends on how the "adoption" goes and what is involved. There may be enough distance between the real horror here. Reading about it for a year is one thing, seeing it a different matter all together. Experts claim that it can be traumatising. Sure, most horrible things can be traumatising for 10-year-olds. But its hardly guaranteed, me speaking from personal experience here.

I did, I am comparing Germans to the rest of the World, I find they have a sense of Justice as good as anyone elses.Well, the problem with "the rest of the world" is that there's the entire Arab bloc, which can easily be considered biased.

aww Common.

I am a very critical person, I am very critical of my Country and of the other Countries. I am critical of everything that moves.
I am not someone you should be comparing to. I am not your average Joe.

If you want to compare, try The Swedes, the Belges, the Japanese, The Norwegians, The Brazilians. Think outside the box for a second. (outside the Anglosphere)Why look outside the Anglosphere?

Exactly. Furthermore, they only consider the latter wrong because society/parents tells them to. Well, most of them. Myself, I became a vegetarian at age 11 for ethical reasons. I found the idea of an animal meat industry to be cruel and inconsistent with my beliefs, and meat became a horrific object - akin to human flesh - but I wasn't "traumatized" in any sense.

I'm also a vegetarian for ethical reasons. I'm aware of where meat and leather come from - the truths which most people like to ignore. Im not "traumatised" by seeing it, because force of habit has presumably enabled me to "tone down" my sensitivity sufficiently when I do. I'm still disgusted and horrified on an emotional and intellectual level, but I can live with it.

Yes, you have a point when you say that our reactions are conditioned by what society and our parents teach us, and by what we're taught to consider "normal". That doesn't alter the fact that any child seeing an object made of the skin of a murdered human being should (and usually does) experience a natural reaction of deep and lasting horror. As I said, having seen such things is seared into my memory with a profoundly discomforting and enduring sense of horror. I'd like to think that makes me a normal human being.

A child who does not react in that way is either numbed by society's constant encouragement of self-centredness, or emotionally immature, or deficient in the basic intellectual ability necessary to relate to the reality behind such a sight.

the first thing in French schoolbooks for German class is World War II...I know.
.
Ah, I have.of course.
.

You are incorrect. ... you would not have been wrong.I am only human.
.
Maybe if you had provided someone whom to compare to, I did, I am comparing Germans to the rest of the World, I find they have a sense of Justice as good as anyone elses.
.
They are less critical than OD, not uncritical.aww Common.

I am a very critical person, I am very critical of my Country and of the other Countries. I am critical of everything that moves.
I am not someone you should be comparing to. I am not your average Joe.

If you want to compare, try The Swedes, the Belges, the Japanese, The Norwegians, The Brazilians. Think outside the box for a second. (outside the Anglosphere)

It all depends on how the "adoption" goes and what is involved. There may be enough distance between the real horror here. Reading about it for a year is one thing, seeing it a different matter all together.

Indeed. You may well be right. But there's the possibility of a significant risk.

Leaving aside the issue of duration, there's the fact that, when you're taken on a day trip to see such things, you're part of a group. You relate to what you're seeing on a personal level, yes, but you're not individually singled out to react to it. You're not made personally responsible for anything. Asking each child, individually, to bear responsibilty for preserving the memory of a dead child may be quite something else.

As I said, I'm still undecided on this. But it does set off warning bells.

:confused:

Would you say German children have the most developed sense of Justice in the World?

Who the hell is qualified to make a decision like that? What are you trying to imply here? That learning about the horrors inflicted by your nation 2 generations ago is a bad thing? Why would that be....because they are learning about the murdering of Jews?

God you are so fucking transparent.

Only an incredibly unsensitive ten-year-old. A normal human child would (and does) retain a life-long sense of horror.Only speak for yourself.

Then again, we seem to be developing a society of individuals so self-centred they lack any sense of basic human empathy...What a complete rubbish. It is the anthropocentric and self-centered individuals who are a threat to this planet, not those who see no difference between a dead human and any other dead creature, killed by humans. Respect for life that is limited to human life is not really respect for life, it is just self-righteous retardation.

Only an incredibly unsensitive ten-year-old. A normal human child would (and does) retain a life-long sense of horror.

Then again, we seem to be developing a society of individuals so self-centred they lack any sense of basic human empathy...

This is the laudable thing about the idea.

People *should* retain a life-long sense of horror at something like this, so as to develop a working sense of human empathy and relate the terrible things they see on the news to some trauma that they can identify with.

The ideal product would be a thought along these lines:

"The people being killed in XXXXXX remind me of the horror I felt as a child when I learned about little YYYYY ZZZZZ who was murdered by the Germans, this horror has come back and I feel we must act to stop the killings in XXXXXX!"

The Holocaust is not a current genocide, It ended 60 years ago, Most of the Victims have passed away and most of the perpetrators have been dealt with at Nuremberg.

Yes, Holocaust memorabilia can build sympathy for Jews, but if Governments go overkill with this, they are potentially creating injustice for Palestinian children.

Either way it is not creating a sense of justice because it has ended, all the War crimes that could have a day court did so at Nuremberg, justice was served then.. and in the 10 years following the end of the war.

Yeah, sure, remembering the Jews murdered is an injustice to Palestinian children......

WHAT

THE

FUCK???????

So remembering the victims of 9/11 might be an injustice to the Muslims? Even if all those who could be convicted were, how the HELL does that make ANY sense.

have you ever been in Germany?

I have, the German sense of Justice is not the most developed in World... its average.
But they are less likely to be openly critical of Israel actions in Gaza and Lebanon.

Wow, now a blanket statement regarding the entire German people. Because you have "been there" you now know they are less critical of Israeli actions, and not only that, you can further deduce a cause-and-effect scenario, where this effect (which I think is only present in your eyes) is due to the cause of Germans being taught the horrors of the holocaust.

I thought Waztakan was a fool due to making EXACTLY these kinds of generalizations and ridiculous assumptions.

Yeah, sure, remembering the Jews murdered is an injustice to Palestinian children...... No, remembering murdered Jews while forgetting/ignoring what Jews do elsewhere endorses the latter injustice.

have you ever been in Germany?

I have, the German sense of Justice is not the most developed in World... its average.
But they are less likely to be openly critical of Israel actions in Gaza and Lebanon.

Can you also please inform the other readers and me of what you define as AVERAGE, and especially an "average sense of Justice"

It is the anthropocentric and self-centered individuals who are a threat to this planet, not those who see no difference between a dead human and any other dead creature, killed by humans. Respect for life that is limited to human life is not really respect for life, it is just self-righteous retardation.

Congratulations. You've completely and utterly missed the point, and somehow managed to imply that I was saying the opposite of what I actually said.

I have said that I respect animal life (me being an ethical vegetarian). How did you manage to twist my respect for human life into non-respect for animals, when that's both off-topic and contrary to what I said?

You seem to be implying that people should not react with horror to an object made from the skin of a murdered human being. You're making absolutely no sense.

Except take their homeland away. They have learned well from their German masters. You should enter some history class.

Ahhh....so there is a Jewish hivemind, I see.....are there any other hiveminds, or is it just the evil Jew collective?

Did all Jews take away land? even the ones who have never been to Israel. Even the current Israelis who committed the simple sin of being born in the nation after its formation? Is that like all Muslims caused 9/11?

No, remembering murdered Jews while forgetting/ignoring what Jews do elsewhere endorses the latter injustice.

The hivemind again huh? They are remembering the Holocaust victims...not the people who commit PERCEIVED injustice elsewhere. These jews lived and were murdered about 60 years ago. While remembering them, one must talk about what the Israelis do NOW???? That is the most illogical crap I've heard since the dawn of Waztakan.

There is no Jewish hivemind. When remembering victims of 9/11, we do not talk about American troops who tortured people at Abu Ghraib. There is no American hivemind either. When talking about Muslims killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq or Afghanistan, we do not talk about Muslims who slaughtered people in Darfur. There is no Muslim hivemind either, I thought we had agreed on this, no?

There is no Jewish hivemind.Yes, there is. It is called the Tanakh.

How is that "traumatizing" ?? A ten-year-old one finds such things exotic at best.

:eek:

They had pictures of worse things than the lampshades, I may add. It all depends on how the "adoption" goes and what is involved. There may be enough distance between the real horror here. Reading about it for a year is one thing, seeing it a different matter all together. Experts claim that it can be traumatising. Sure, most horrible things can be traumatising for 10-year-olds. But its hardly guaranteed, me speaking from personal experience here.

Exactly. I'm also sure there would be MANY psychologists who would say that seeing the inside of a concentration camp at the age of 10 is a traumatic experience no child should be exposed to.

If you want to compare, try The Swedes, the Belges, the Japanese, The Norwegians, The Brazilians. Think outside the box for a second. (outside the Anglosphere)

Yes, lets think about that....can you in any way be more precise than simply saying "try the Swedes", or "about average." Can you actually quantify or qualify these vague proclamations, signifying nothing?

What? Do you find dead bodies horrifying? Dying may be horrifying, but neither death nor dead material.

Any sane human being, and even more a child, is horrified by the sight of such usage of human body parts.

Exactly. I'm also sure there would be MANY psychologists who would say that seeing the inside of a concentration camp at the age of 10 is a traumatic experience no child should be exposed to.

Well, I'm not sure it's good idea to bring such young children to it. It can wait until they are a bit older, like 13 or 14. But it depends a lot of the child, on how things are prepared, on what they see exactly, on how things are explained later on, ...

:eek:What? Do you find dead bodies horrifying? Dying may be horrifying, but neither death nor dead material.

These jews lived and were murdered about 60 years ago. While remembering them, one must talk about what the Israelis do NOW????

Not really, but why only remember the jew, and not for example the tsigan/romani ("gypsies") who were murdered at the time by the same people and for the same insane reasons ? This selection of memory is in itself an injustice.

And sadly, it is used by those committing injustice now, so we have to be careful too. Israel government uses the horror of the holocaust as a shield to protect themselves from criticism, and we have to be careful about that. Not by denying the existence of holocaust or making it sound minor, of course, it was one of the most horrible things of all history. But by remembering also that jew were not the only victims of nazi barbarians, and that there were other horrible crimes in history (and in many of which western countries, and france especially, participated).

Any sane human being, and even more a child, is horrified by the sight of such usage of human body parts.Which "such" usage? The lampshades? Why? Anthropocentrism?

Which "such" usage? The lampshades? Why? Anthropocentrism?

As much as I respect people who chose to be vegetarian for ethical reasons, I'm disgusted by your attempts to make the killing of an animal to be the same than the killing of a human. I don't even want to know where and how you draw the line...

But that's not the question of this thread. You can open your own thread pretending that animals should have the same rights than humans, I won't participate. Please stay on topic.

Which "such" usage? The lampshades? Why? Anthropocentrism?

Is that an invitation to turn you into a lampshade? By your standards, I should have no compunction against doing so.

Which "such" usage? The lampshades? Why? Anthropocentrism?Because cows don't speak.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/16/sarkozy-orders-schools-to-honor-child-victims/

WTF?

I mean, I know the French president (Sarkozy) has Jewish roots and all, but isnt this a bit too much.. Why ask the Schools to force this crap into the children minds?

"Crap?" What does that mean?

As much as I respect people who chose to be vegetarian for ethical reasons, I'm disgusted by your attempts to make the killing of an animal to be the same than the killing of a human. I don't even want to know where and how you draw the line...No, your self-righteous anthropocentrism is disgusting.

But that's not the question of this thread. You can open your own thread pretending that animals should have the same rights than humans, I won't participate. Please stay on topic.The topic of this thread is that a certain French retard wants kids to "adopt" folks who have been dead for 60 years, while elsewhere today victims of atrocities go unadopted.

Not really, but why only remember the jew, and not for example the tsigan/romani ("gypsies") who were murdered at the time by the same people and for the same insane reasons ? This selection of memory is in itself an injustice.

And sadly, it is used by those committing injustice now, so we have to be careful too. Israel government uses the horror of the holocaust as a shield to protect themselves from criticism, and we have to be careful about that. Not by denying the existence of holocaust or making it sound minor, of course, it was one of the most horrible things of all history. But by remembering also that jew were not the only victims of nazi barbarians, and that there were other horrible crimes in history (and in many of which western countries, and france especially, participated).

I agree that there ARE many other people who COULD be remembered. But the significance of this is the scale, the methodology, and the context. However, whatever the case, it was, as you say, one of the most horrible events in recent history. The fact that some Israeli's in the present day might use this as a "shield" (the victims really have nothing to do with this person or any Jew living now) does not mean that the memory of those passed cannot or should not be honored. If someone WERE to take advantage of a good deed, that does not make the deed itself a deed any less worthy.

The topic of this thread is that a certain French retard wants kids to "adopt" folks who have been dead for 60 years, while elsewhere today victims of atrocities go unadopted.

Your logic (or rather lack thereof) is appalling. One should be able to recognise, deplore and commemorate an atrocity without someone immediately piping in "But what about such and such other one".

What's particularly sad is that, by trying to make people callous about human suffering, you're encouraging them to be even more callous about animal suffering. You cannot, logically or ethically, encourage people to care about violence against animals if you discourage them from caring about violence against humans.

And you're off-topic. This is not about animal rights. I say this as a vegetarian myself.

No, your self-righteous anthropocentrism is disgusting.Pot calling kettle black.
The topic of this thread is that a certain French retard wants kids to "adopt" folks who have been dead for 60 years, while elsewhere today victims of atrocities go unadopted.The topic of this thread was never and will never be about the Palestinians, despite your attempts at thread-jacking.

No, your self-righteous anthropocentrism is disgusting.

Your equating human beings to mere beasts is disgusting and insulting. Oh, and stupid, I didn't mention stupid, did I?

The topic of this thread is that a certain French retard wants kids to "adopt" folks who have been dead for 60 years, while elsewhere today victims of atrocities go unadopted.

Obviously, because the holocaust was something that happened in a major industrialized "civilized" country. Genocide and mass murder are not things that only happen in far away countries with black people.

The fact that some Israeli's in the present day might use this as a "shield" (the victims really have nothing to do with this person or any Jew living now) does not mean that the memory of those passed cannot or should not be honored. If someone WERE to take advantage of a good deed, that does not make the deed itself a deed any less worthy.

Of course. But I'm not saying we shouldn't remember the Shoah nor honor the memories of those who died in it, or of those who died fighting against it. I'm not arguing for less memory, but for _more_ memory. I'm saying that we can remember them, as we should, without opening too much to this taking of "taking advantage", by widening the scope of our memory, and speaking the romani, homosexual, ... who were slaughtered by the nazi exactly in the same way, with the same methods and reckless hatred, than the jew.

This is inherently more fair, because it's remembering all victims of the nazi barbarian, and at the same time it reduces the possibility of some (and I'm perfectly aware it's not "the jew") to use it as a shield to cover criminal acts today.

Yes, there is. It is called the Tanakh.
*sigh* Please fuck off and refrain from telling me what I do and do not believe and how I do and do not interpret certain aspects of my own culture. No, there is no Jew hivemind. However, speaking of hiveminds, they are defined as a perfect consistency among individuals as a group (at least, that seems to be the best definition to give a hivemind). Now, going along with this idea of consistency, there is, I would argue, a human hivemind to some degree, that being rationality and...well, humanity (empathy, etc.). You seem to be lacking both of these; you express explicitly illogical opinions and, in this very thread, have shown an incapacity to empathize with members of your own species and their suffering. It follows that you may have a broken brain, please investigate further.
Not really, but why only remember the jew, and not for example the tsigan/romani ("gypsies") who were murdered at the time by the same people and for the same insane reasons ? This selection of memory is in itself an injustice.

And sadly, it is used by those committing injustice now, so we have to be careful too. Israel government uses the horror of the holocaust as a shield to protect themselves from criticism, and we have to be careful about that. Not by denying the existence of holocaust or making it sound minor, of course, it was one of the most horrible things of all history. But by remembering also that jew were not the only victims of nazi barbarians, and that there were other horrible crimes in history (and in many of which western countries, and france especially, participated).

I agree that the scope of the Holocaust should be expanded. The Holocaust isn't terrifying because of the irrational hatred of Jews, or even just of others. These things are consistent throughout history. What's terrifying is the industrialized, mechanized assembly-line type application of that particular genocide. It's terrifying in that aspect that for all of humanity's great achievements at that point, we see them simply fall to the primal level of how to kill members of our own species.

The latter statement, though, I find issue with. Yes, there are those that use the Holocaust to defend Israel, but that is generally strictly in defense of its existence and not in defense of Israeli actions. I rarely encounter anyone who uses the Holocaust to shield Israel from criticism as regards its policies. In fact, I have never heard anyone say that it is acceptable for Israel to bulldoze Palestinian houses because of the Holocaust or that to criticize such is to belittle the memory of it. Seriously, show me where this happens, I'm interested in where this nonsensical myth originates from.

Finally, it annoys me that the Holocaust is used as some bar that other genocides must aspire to. It had its particularly horrifying aspects, yes, but it belittles the atrocious nature of the act, and of similar acts, by comparing them. Rwanda was fucking terrible, Stalin's purges were disgusting, there is no need to compare them to the Holocaust or to anything else. They are terrible in their own isolated light. Honestly, one of the greatest crimes of the Holocaust is that it stole the identity of its survivors and their children and grandchildren and created this environment of genocide-comparisons.

I mean, I know the French president (Sarkozy) has Jewish roots and all, but isnt this a bit too much.
As if only Jews are interested in teaching the holocaust. I guess every German school is run by someone with "Jewish roots" eh?

What a stupid thing to say...but totally expected from you...
Why ask the Schools to force this crap into the children minds?
Excuse me? What "crap"? Oh yeah, that's right. You're the one that denies the holocaust....no wonder you're pissed off about this...

"Crap?" What does that mean?
He denys the holocaust....thus to him it equals a bunch of made-up crap.

:rolleyes:

You know...it used to be a mental illness to just deny reality when it "disagreed" with you. What happend?

You know, for someone complaining about people putting words into your mouth...

Not that I wouldn't love to catch OD denying the holocaust outright: He relativates it, draws attention away from it by bringing in other atrocities, or disputes the numbers under the pretense of scholarship. But I have yet to see him deny it outright.
He used to back in the days when he was a new poster....and I and IDF used to argue with him about it.

Now he knows that he can't just outright say it ...so he tries to beat around the bush like he's scared to eat pussy so he eats around the tush.

He said stuff like there were no gas chambers there and that the holocaust only "exists" to create injustice for palestinians.

He denys the holocaust....thus to him it equals a bunch of made-up crap.

:rolleyes:

You know...it used to be a mental illness to just deny reality when it "disagreed" with you. What happend?You know, for someone complaining about people putting words into your mouth...

Not that I wouldn't love to catch OD denying the holocaust outright: He relativates it, draws attention away from it by bringing in other atrocities, or disputes the numbers under the pretense of scholarship. But I have yet to see him deny it outright.

The latter statement, though, I find issue with. Yes, there are those that use the Holocaust to defend Israel, but that is generally strictly in defense of its existence and not in defense of Israeli actions. I rarely encounter anyone who uses the Holocaust to shield Israel from criticism as regards its policies.
In fact, I have never heard anyone say that it is acceptable for Israel to bulldoze Palestinian houses because of the Holocaust or that to criticize such is to belittle the memory of it. Seriously, show me where this happens, I'm interested in where this nonsensical myth originates from.


Well, it's done indirectly, but it's done quite frequently here. People who oppose Israel's policies are often accused of being antisemitic by Israel-supporters, and this accusation is very hard to get rid off. Even organisations like the MRAP (an antiracist organisation which was created illegally during the Occupation, and which contains a lot of former Resistant) or the UJFP ("French Jew Union for Peace", which is a jewish association) are accused of being antisemitic because of their positions on Israel's actions.

And if this accusation of antisemitism is so efficient and so hard to get rid of, it's because of the Shoah and the guilt feeling of french people towards the Pétain régime. In french mentality of today, "antisemitism" is a much worse accusation than "racism" (while for me it's exactly the same criminal stupidity), and that's very visible for example in the reaction of the government to racist acts. When a jew cemetery or a synagogue are damaged by racist people, they react much more strongly than when a muslim cemetery or mosque is damaged in a similar way.

Finally, it annoys me that the Holocaust is used as some bar that other genocides must aspire to. It had its particularly horrifying aspects, yes, but it belittles the atrocious nature of the act, and of similar acts, by comparing them. Rwanda was fucking terrible, Stalin's purges were disgusting, there is no need to compare them to the Holocaust or to anything else. They are terrible in their own isolated light. Honestly, one of the greatest crimes of the Holocaust is that it stole the identity of its survivors and their children and grandchildren and created this environment of genocide-comparisons.

I totally agree with that.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/feb/16/sarkozy-orders-schools-to-honor-child-victims/

WTF?

I mean, I know the French president (Sarkozy) has Jewish roots and all, but isnt this a bit too much.. Why ask the Schools to force this crap into the children minds?

Ignorance of history is ignorance of life. Just because it may be traumatizing doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught. I'm traumatized by the Holocaust, and so are my parents. Do you think that we shouldn't have been taught about it just because it's not pleasing to our ears?

History is history. Teach it, and if the children cry, then tell them that it is a cruel world. They'll have to face it someday - better sooner than later so that they have time to prepare.

He used to back in the days when he was a new poster....and I and IDF used to argue with him about it.

Now he knows that he can't just outright say it ...so he tries to beat around the bush like he's scared to eat pussy so he eats around the tush.

He said stuff like there were no gas chambers there and that the holocaust only "exists" to create injustice for palestinians.I've argued about it with him as well. He's never denied it outright, even if he alleges that it's primary purpose is to create sympathy for the Israelis.

What gets my goat here is that some people actually go to jail for holocaust enquiry/ revisionism/ denial/ whatever.

One thing that I firmly believe is that a 'true' truth, certainly a would-be truth with the financial backing that the holocaust enjoys, does not require the presence of legislation or penalties to back it up against would-be lies.

Its common sense really.

If I were to hold an eraser in a hand behind my back

And if I were to strongly claim that an eraser is in my hand

And if you were to question this I were to beat you into the ground (or imprison you)

And claim with ever more shrill cries that I have an eraser

While never showing my hand.

...

Would you conclude that I have an eraser behind my back? ^_~

...because throwing people in jail for daring to suggest that the holocaust is not exactly as stated in the "official" records while refusing debate on the matter ( 9_9 ) is precisely provokative of similar conclusions.

- - -

Oh... and by the way... the easiest way to make something accepted (and psychologically beyond question) is to install it into the innocent minds of children - 10 year olds no less... 9_9

Edit: I request an explanation as to why I have been censored. This post is apparently the basis of it. What aspect of it is worthy of censorship? Would anybody kindly explain it?

Is debating the debating (or lack thereof) of the holocaust to become a crime also?

What gets my goat here is that some people actually go to jail for holocaust enquiry/ revisionism/ denial/ whatever.

Freedom of speech, as any other freedom, needs to have limits: where the rights of others begin.

Denying the existence of holocaust is a direct, unacceptable assault against people who survived it with unforgettable scares in their heart and flesh, to families who lost dear ones. And it is increasing the risk of seeing it, or any other similar bloodshed, to occur again. That is not acceptable.

As much as I dislike the whole idea of jail, I do support making some things - like denial of crimes against humanity, or open hate speech - illegal. Words can hurt and kill.

Ignorance of history is ignorance of life. Just because it may be traumatizing doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught. I'm traumatized by the Holocaust, and so are my parents. Do you think that we shouldn't have been taught about it just because it's not pleasing to our ears?

History is history. Teach it, and if the children cry, then tell them that it is a cruel world. They'll have to face it someday - better sooner than later so that they have time to prepare.

The question is not about teaching it or not. World War II and Holocaust are already teached, and of course they should be.

The question is on this particular method used to "teach" it. Which is not really teaching it, even, just adding a very strong emotional weight to it.

Freedom of speech, as any other freedom, needs to have limits: where the rights of others begin.


Of course. Rights are offset by responsibilities... but how many times do you hear of individuals jailed for offending other grief-related sensitivities?

Why the holocaust in particular?

Does this not instill suspicion within any critical thinker to come across such glaring over-reactions?


Denying the existence of holocaust is a direct, unacceptable assault against people who survived it with unforgettable scares in their heart and flesh, to families who lost dear ones. And it is increasing the risk of seeing it, or any other similar bloodshed, to occur again. That is not acceptable.


The holocaust ended 60+ years ago - How many students go to jail for "failing"?


As much as I dislike the whole idea of jail, I do support making some things - like denial of crimes against humanity, or open hate speech - illegal. Words can hurt and kill.

So can illogical and inconsisten legislation. In terms of legislation holocaust denial legislation is to law is a wart is to skin.

If it cannot stand up to debate then it is little better than the inquisition's suppression of the forerunners of the Renaissance - such as Galileo Galilei - no matter how mistaken or not such offenders are.

- - -

And again - forcing the holocaust as a compulsory subject at elementary level is highly suspicious. What is so scary about the hall of debate that one would seek to effectively brianwash children into accepting the holocaust as gospel truth?

The question is on this particular method used to "teach" it. Which is not really teaching it, even, just adding a very strong emotional weight to it.

There's a word for it. I think they call it conditioning. Or Pavlovian treatment. It depends on how it's going to be implemented, but I can see this being abused quite handily to shape up a society who will let you do anything so long as you cry antisemitism at your detractors.

Really though, it depends on how it plays out. As of now, it stinks mightily to me.

History should never be an emotive subject. It restricts the mind.

Yeah, sure, remembering the Jews murdered is an injustice to Palestinian children......
oh I think History has to be remembered, but This Zarkozy project is overkill.

Wow, now a blanket statement regarding the entire German people. Because you have "been there" you now know they are less critical of Israeli actions, and not only that, you can further deduce a cause-and-effect scenario, where this effect (which I think is only present in your eyes) is due to the cause of Germans being taught the horrors of the holocaust.I stand by my statement.

with the -most of- Tag

Can you also please inform the other readers and me of what you define as AVERAGE, and especially an "average sense of Justice"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average ;)

can you in any way be more precise than simply saying "try the Swedes", or "about average." No.

I am not in business of babysitting.

"Crap?" What does that mean?Something that will make you vomit http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crap

One should be able to recognise, deplore and commemorate an atrocity.Yes one should be able to recognize, deplore and commemorate atrocities.

If American students had learned about the Holocaust and the rise of Nazi Germany, we would would not have an electorate that is so willing to vote for the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

We are doing children no favors when we try to spare them from uncomfortable ideas just because we don't think children should be exposed to such things. One day they will have to enter the real world and become actual functioning parts of society. It is our job to teach them about the mistakes made by their ancestors so that we can continue moving forward.

One should be able to recognize, deplore and commemorate an atrocity.Yes one should be able to recognize, deplore and commemorate atrocities.

The most important step is the first one (recognize),

And it is the step most Governments (and many individuals) have problems with. The only recognize one or two chosen atrocities and lowball/ignore to the other atrocities.

You know, for someone complaining about people putting words into your mouth...

Not that I wouldn't love to catch OD denying the holocaust outright: He relativates it, draws attention away from it by bringing in other atrocities, or disputes the numbers under the pretense of scholarship. But I have yet to see him deny it outright.
He used to back in the days when he was a new poster....LOL, I have reduced AtlantianIslands to lies,

AI, so you have nothing against me.. and now you have to Lie, I pity you.

I agree that we should talk about other instances of genocide, but the Holocaust is a particuarly good topic for European children. In the modern world there's a tendency to see genocide is something which is done to brown people, usually by other brown people, and always a long way away. The Holocaust is a reminder that genocide can happen anywhere, and that it isn't something that Europeans can be complacent about.

This is even before you get on to the technical arguments for emphasising the Holocaust, such as:
-it was one of the biggest genocides of all times
-it was probably the most mechanised genocide of all time
-it was the most carefully planned and documented genocide of all time
etc.

Incidentally, while I don't remember Oceandrive ever denying the Holocaust, I would like to hear him confirm that he isn't a denier.

Apparently, the French president has some supporters. Yes we all know you hate Jews OD.

Ignorance of history is ignorance of life.I agree 100%
.
Just because it may be traumatizing doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught. I'm traumatized by the Holocaust, and so are my parents. Do you think that we shouldn't have been taught about it just because it's not pleasing to our ears?I thing Atrocities have to be recognized, all atrocities. Concentrating in just one atrocitiy is silly.
.
if the children cry, then tell them that it is a cruel world. They'll have to face it someday - better sooner than later..I dont think so. but I am no expert in child psychology.

we all know you hate Jews OD.I dont.

BTW: you speak for every singly one of us now?

OcceanDrive, you really are anti-Semitic trash. I'm sorry for you, but you really need to change your ways if you want to be a decent human being. You have the ability now do it. I really do feel sorry for you. It must suck to be so filled with hate.

OcceanDrive, you really are anti-Semitic trash. Godwhinning :rolleyes: ... how pathetic.
.
you really need to change your ways if you want to be a decent human being. I guess everyone who disagrees with you is NOT a decent human being :rolleyes:
.
I'm sorry for you.. I really do feel sorry for you.Dont cry for me Argentina. ;)

I agree that we should talk about other instances of genocide...Yes, all tragedies have to be recognized a talked about, but not to children IMO

.. that it's primary purpose is to create sympathy for the Israelis.Its primary purpose is NOT to create sympathy for the Israelis.

History class should teach us the Tragedies of History.. as a part of History.
One particular group should not be given special treatment.

If American students had learned about the Holocaust and the rise of Nazi Germany, we would would not have an electorate that is so willing to vote for the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. :confused:

Are you a (former) US student?

All you people making accusations of antisemitism, shut your $^@(@ mouths. Only half the deaths of the Holocaust were Jews-about 3 million were actually Polish Christians- and considering every other genocide to take place, "never again" is a pitiful and empty phrase.

And you can't say I'm antisemitic- I have several Jewish friends and have attended two Bar Mitzvahs (one was a B'nai Mitzvah, actually, so you can't say I don't know my stuff)

OcceanDrive, you really are anti-Semitic trash. I'm sorry for you, but you really need to change your ways if you want to be a decent human being. You have the ability now do it. I really do feel sorry for you. It must suck to be so filled with hate.

Nothing that OD2 said is worthy of being labeled as "anti-semitic". Just because he doesn't kiss Israel's ass doesn't mean he hates Jews/ wants to kill them/denies the holocaust. Get a grip.

Continuing on, I think what Sarkozy did was a good idea. However, I dislike the excessive attention on the Holocaust. Yes, it was terrible, but what about all the other genocides in history that were equally as terrible. Does anyone remember what happened in Armenia? Or in China's Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward? Why do they receive no attention?

Yes, all tragedies have to be recognized a talked about, but not to children IMO

Its primary purpose is NOT to create sympathy for the Israelis.

History class should teach us the Tragedies of History.. as apart of the History.
One particular group should not be given special treatment.

Contradiction much?

I notice you ignored the reasons I gave for emphasing the Holocaust. I'll also repeat my request: do you confirm that you're not a Holocaust denier?

Oh, I forgot to mention- Sarkozy is wrong.

Why do other genocide victim races get no attention? Because they're not white?

Let me clarify the second quote:
History class should teach us the Tragedies of History.. as apart of the History. (and it should not be when they are 10 years old, more like at 16)

I don't know about the US, but history isn't mandatory past the age of 16 in the UK (probably France too) so there wouldn't be room to fit in all the potentially 'nasty' history. 10 might be too young, but 12 should be fine.

And for the third time: are you a Holocaust denier? I didn't think you were, but your failure to answer the question is making me suspicious.

And for the third time:meh, I did not see the other 2.

are you a Holocaust denier? I didn't think you were, You are right, I am not.
This tragedy did take place. I think I have already said that in this very thread.
.
but your failure to answer the question is making me suspicious.You are not the center of the Universe, lost of posters talk to me, and I dont always have the time to read/answer all.

I have quite a few RL responsibilities/duties/bills to pay/etc
40-50 years down the road... when I retire, maybe I will have time to read/answer all.. but I make no promises.

Talk about "Jewification".

Sarkozy has taken this way too far. What a great tool to fuel Zionism. Sure people need to understand history, especially France in this situation as well as the rest of Europe, but throughout the past century there's been way too much emphasis on the Shoah compared to the other genocides committed in the past. and those who speak out against this emphasis are labelled anti-Semitic and immediately dismissed, often without being heard. I find it funny living in a society which adopts liberalist principles of the sharing of ideas, on this issue specifically it's taboo. In a society that prides itself on freedom of speech and thought, we ought to reexamine this contradiciton.

in addition, teaching schoolchildren that young about genocide probably isn't the best idea. Kids that age usually don't have a full understanding of death at that age unless they've been directly effected by the death of a loved one. I remember when i was 10 i'd play with toy guns, G.I. Joes, and other toys that possibly glorify war but still didn't give me an understanding about its ramifications.

Once children are mature enough to fully understand the reality of death and the consequences of war, they would gain much more learning from genocide rather than growing up with the idea that a long time ago in a place far away a lot of people died.

All you people making accusations of antisemitism, shut your $^@(@ mouths. Only half the deaths of the Holocaust were Jews-about 3 million were actually Polish Christians- and considering every other genocide to take place, "never again" is a pitiful and empty phrase.

And you can't say I'm antisemitic- I have several Jewish friends and have attended two Bar Mitzvahs (one was a B'nai Mitzvah, actually, so you can't say I don't know my stuff)

Or those mentally incapacitated. The Holocaust extends far beyond Jewish people, but many, including my old history textbook, fail to recognize that. Not that what happened to the Jews wasn't bad, but there are so many more dimensions to the Holocaust then simply jew-killing. A large number of Catholics were also incinerated.

Thank you.You are welcome.
.
It's hard to see how you could have missed it, unless you reply to sentences in posts without even glancing at the context...I might have glanced it at 200 miles/hour. Its because i have to go.

:confused:

I did not see the other 2.

You are right, I am not.

This tragedy did take place. But I have already said that in tis thread.

Thank you.

You are not the center of the Universe, lost of posters talk to me, and I dont always have time to read/answer all.

I have quite a few RL responsibilities/duties/bills to pay/etc

40-50 years down the road... when I retire, maybe I will have time to read/answer all.. but I make no promises.

You responded to both of the posts where I asked the question, one of which read as follows:

Contradiction much?

I notice you ignored the reasons I gave for emphasing the Holocaust. I'll also repeat my request: do you confirm that you're not a Holocaust denier?

It's hard to see how you could have missed it, unless you reply to sentences in posts without even glancing at the context...

Or those mentally incapacitated. The Holocaust extends far beyond Jewish people, but many, including my old history textbook, fail to recognize that. Not that what happened to the Jews wasn't bad, but there are so many more dimensions to the Holocaust then simply jew-killing. A large number of Catholics were also incinerated.But Jews whine louder.

I don't know about the US, but history isn't mandatory past the age of 16 in the UK (probably France too)

Yes, school is only mandatory until 16.

so there wouldn't be room to fit in all the potentially 'nasty' history. 10 might be too young, but 12 should be fine.

Well, I and most other people who protest against Sarkozy's measure don't oppose speaking about the Shoah to 10 years old. We just say that we should be very careful in doing so. We oppose this specific way of doing it (through an intimate, emotional link with a murdered child), not the idea of speaking about the Holocaust in history lessons. Edit: and it is already the case, in CM2 (the class targeted by Sarkozy), the Shoah is already part of the program.

But Jews whine louder.

haha amen brother

Freedom of speech, as any other freedom, needs to have limits: where the rights of others begin.

Denying the existence of holocaust is a direct, unacceptable assault against people who survived it with unforgettable scares in their heart and flesh, to families who lost dear ones. And it is increasing the risk of seeing it, or any other similar bloodshed, to occur again. That is not acceptable.

As much as I dislike the whole idea of jail, I do support making some things - like denial of crimes against humanity, or open hate speech - illegal. Words can hurt and kill.

I'd have liked to have responded in the decent manner that I had intended - but clearly somebody doesn't want me talking about certain topics - regardless of the fact that I have infringed upon no laws.

Clearly "freedom of speech" is not a right. Not any more.

oh I think History has to be remembered, but This Zarkozy project is overkill.

Hardly, in the European context this is something that is entirely appropriate. It humanizes the victims of a European genocide, and helps children to be able to put a face to these individuals, rather than merely the faceless millions that we are so often acquainted with. In a Europe where the specter of rising xenophobia and nationalism cannot be ignored, if people can find a marker to show them what is wrong, then maybe, just maybe we can prevent history from repeating itself.

It's not overkill in the slightest and it's entirely appropriate.

Yes, all tragedies have to be recognized a talked about, but not to children IMO

For God's sake they MUST be taught to children!

It is to these very same children that the purveyor's of the insidious lies of racism and nazism seek to implant their beliefs, to fill this "empty vessel" with hate and prejudice. They must be permitted to know the reality of the world, and to know the truth, so that they can be equipped to defend themselves from this sort of filth.

In a Europe where the specter of rising xenophobia and nationalism cannot be ignored

Wanting to honor only _french_ jew, from the same president who want to teach kids the Marseillaise and have them stand up to it and to the flag, and who created a "Ministry of National Identity" you can hardly say that this measure is against the rise of nationalism.

Wanting to honor only _french_ jew, from the same president who want to teach kids the Marseillaise and have them stand up to it and to the flag, and who create a "Ministry of National Identity" you can hardly say that this measure is against the rise of nationalism.

Once again, it puts a face on someone, helps students to identify with a member of a persecuted group, and helps them to see that people in persecuted groups are very much like themselves.

There's a distinct difference between patriotic nationalism and chauvanistic nationalism. Patriotic nationalism is healthy for developing and maintaining the identity of a country, chauvanist nationalism is not. What Sarkozy wants to do is to strengthen the national identity of France with patriotic nationalism. Patriotic nationalism can have an ameliorating effect on chauvanistic nationalism, as various studies on the matters of national identity have proven.

You might be acquainted with the fact that, in reality, Americans have a very weak sense of national identity, and always have. As a result, Americans have fallen into the trap of a milder form of chauvanistic nationalism, cloaked in the quasi-Buddhist trappings of American Patriotism. Our weak national identity is tied to our constant involvement in everyone else's affairs around the world. Why there was such a wave of anti-French attitudes in the US during the lead-up to the Iraq War, and such similar stuff.

For God's sake they MUST be taught to children!

It is to these very same children that the purveyor's of the insidious lies of racism and nazism seek to implant their beliefs, to fill this "empty vessel" with hate and prejudice. They must be permitted to know the reality of the world, and to know the truth, so that they can be equipped to defend themselves from this sort of filth.What about the insidious lies of religions, such as Judaism? Aren't religions causing greater damage than singular events or phases in history? Haven't the doctrines that came out of Judaism killed more people than the holocaust, or all of WW2, ever could have?

What about the insidious lies of religions, such as Judaism? Aren't religions causing greater damage than singular events or phases in history? Haven't the doctrines that came out of Judaism killed more people than the holocaust, or all of WW2, ever could have?

And how about the good that has been derived from the Jewish tradition? The social order and structure, the scholasticism that maintained the classical tradition through the medieval era, the Islamic Golden Age, the Renaissance, and the developments of liberalism and humanism in post-reformation Europe?

The art, music and literature that has been composed on the behalf of that kernel of faith, the Jewish God, transferred into the Christian and Muslim faiths. Humanitarian ideologies and charity?

The benefits of the Judeo-Christian, Judeo-Muslim tradition cannot be denied, and easily overwhelm the negatives. Negatives that were usually inspired by external considerations, such as economic gain, security issues or the drive for personal power, and only used religious language to cloak the violence in a tinge of legitimacy.

Nazism, though, had no creative and beneficial elements. It was pure destruction, and reckless hatred. There are no redeeming qualities to that fell ideology, and it is good that it is gone.

Talk about "Jewification".

Youre a riot. Tell us more about how Schindler's List shouldnt have been made.

But Jews whine louder.

That is a horribly flippant way to look at what happen. The reason that Jews were focused on is because they were the prime target. Over 6,000,000 Jews were killed in the Holocaust, well over half of the total number of people killed and therefore more than every other targeted group combined. This doesn't mean that we should ignore the other groups targeted and murdered, but you can't ignore the fact that the Jews were the primary target.

Freedom of speech, as any other freedom, needs to have limits: where the rights of others begin.The limit of your imaginary "right not to hear somebody say something" ends where my freedom of speech begins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
Denying the existence of holocaust is a direct, unacceptable assault against people who survived it with unforgettable scares in their heart and flesh, to families who lost dear ones.No, it's not.
And it is increasing the risk of seeing it, or any other similar bloodshed, to occur again. That is not acceptable.In fact, outlawing holocaust denial is of the same kind of censorship that allowed the holocaust to be perpetuated in the first place. THAT kind of restriction on public dialog is what increases the risk of it and other atrocities happening again. And I suspect it's a contributing factor to why neo-nazism is stronger in European youth culture than the US, despite US having the more insular/monolithic cultural conditions.
As much as I dislike the whole idea of jail, I do support making some things - like denial of crimes against humanity, or open hate speech - illegal. Words can hurt and kill.No, they can't. Unless you say them really loud while a person is scaling a precipice and they slip and fall off because of it.

Wanting to honor only _french_ jew, from the same president who want to teach kids the Marseillaise and have them stand up to it and to the flag, and who created a "Ministry of National Identity" you can hardly say that this measure is against the rise of nationalism.

Yeah, I forgot about that.

This in conjunction with everything else seems like an attempt to bring more nationalism and perhaps a healthy dose of anti-german xenophobia into the mix.

The limit of your imaginary "right not to hear somebody say something" ends where my freedom of speech begins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
No, it's not.
In fact, outlawing holocaust denial is of the same kind of censorship that allowed the holocaust to be perpetuated in the first place. THAT kind of restriction on public dialog is what increases the risk of it and other atrocities happening again. And I suspect it's a contributing factor to why neo-nazism is stronger in European youth culture than the US, despite US having the more insular/monolithic cultural conditions.
No, they can't. Unless you say them really loud while a person is scaling a precipice and they slip and fall off because of it.

Exactly! Well said! Though I wouldn't say the US has more insular/ monolithic cultural conditions. We can be very diverse.

In fact, outlawing holocaust denial is of the same kind of censorship that allowed the holocaust to be perpetuated in the first place. THAT kind of restriction on public dialog is what increases the risk of it and other atrocities happening again.

I don't use this term lightly, but that was a perfectly idiotic thing to say. Denying an actual, well documented historical event that still has survivors that can attest to the fact that it happened is absolutely absurd. When did we become a society where even the most absurd ideas have to be given equal play with accepted truths?

If I were to go to the local newspaper and demand that they print a story saying that slavery never happened, I would hope to be run out of the office on a rail. Then the peoples of Seattle should burn me in effigy. OK, maybe not, but you can't really say that people should have the right to go around and convince the population that a false statement is true. I mean, that's how all these religions start anyway.

But Jews whine louder.

So clever you are :rolleyes:

I don't use this term lightly, but that was a perfectly idiotic thing to say. Denying an actual, well documented historical event that still has survivors that can attest to the fact that it happened is absolutely absurd. When did we become a society where even the most absurd ideas have to be given equal play with accepted truths?

If I were to go to the local newspaper and demand that they print a story saying that slavery never happened, I would hope to be run out of the office on a rail. Then the peoples of Seattle should burn me in effigy. OK, maybe not, but you can't really say that people should have the right to go around and convince the population that a false statement is true. I mean, that's how all these religions start anyway.

Denying the holocaust may be an idiotic and douchbaggy thing to say, but it still falls under the protection of freedom of speech. The government has no right to dictate what opinions you're allowed to hold and what opinions you're not allowed to hold, neither does your (and my) sense of what's historically accurate.

To turn your example with slavery on its head, what if the government decided that slavery never happened, and to protect against the horrible lies of a few dissidents, decided to declare slavery-affirmation a crime? Or holocaust-affirmation, for that matter.

I don't use this term lightly, but that was a perfectly idiotic thing to say. Denying an actual, well documented historical event that still has survivors that can attest to the fact that it happened is absolutely absurd. When did we become a society where even the most absurd ideas have to be given equal play with accepted truths?Not equal play; equal rights. Freedom of speech considerations aside, the idea is that the government doesn't have a monopoly on the truth - it's just as fallible as you and I - and therefore doesn't have any grounds to enforce it.

If I were to go to the local newspaper and demand that they print a story saying that slavery never happened, I would hope to be run out of the office on a rail. Then the peoples of Seattle should burn me in effigy.
You're perfectly free to start your own newspaper denying slavery.
OK, maybe not, but you can't really say that people should have the right to go around and convince the population that a false statement is true. I mean, that's how all these religions start anyway.Yes, freedom of religion is a consequence of freedom of speech.

With freedom comes responsibility, but people don't seem to give a flying shit about responsibility. If you want to run around saying that you think all Jews should be murdered, then you have every right to do so. Running around saying that Jews were never murdered, though, and that the holocaust is a zionist conspiracy....


I am saying that people should not be given the right to go around and lie in order to try to rewrite history so that it comes out more like they think it should. Why the hell do you think most Americans believe that the US was founded by Christians and on Christian principles?

With freedom comes responsibility, but people don't seem to give a flying shit about responsibility. If you want to run around saying that you think all Jews should be murdered, then you have every right to do so. Running around saying that Jews were never murdered, though, and that the holocaust is a zionist conspiracy....


I am saying that people should not be given the right to go around and lie in order to try to rewrite history so that it comes out more like they think it should. Why the hell do you think most Americans believe that the US was founded by Christians and on Christian principles?

Most Americans believe that the US was founded on Christian principles because it was. Before you misinterpret what I say, I understand the Constitution was drawn up by a bunch of deist classical liberals. But before the 1960s, Christianity in the US was well nigh universal and was, to some extent, responsible for many of the political movements. Abolitionism, social reformism, utopian movements, and prohibition, among many examples, all found their origin, or at least their justification, in Christian doctrine. Most historians believe that the success of the English colonies in the New World was due largely to the additive religious element in the colonies, that other colonies lacked. The First and Second Great Awakenings were huge events. Now, since the 1960s, the role of religion in the US has declined, but to say Christianity has no effect on American history would be a false rewriting of history. My, I think your opinion should be outlawed. :rolleyes:

Most Americans believe that the US was founded on Christian principles because it was. Before you misinterpret what I say, I understand the Constitution was drawn up by a bunch of deist classical liberals. But before the 1960s, Christianity in the US was well nigh universal and was, to some extent, responsible for many of the political movements. Abolitionism, social reformism, utopian movements, and prohibition, among many examples, all found their origin, or at least their justification, in Christian doctrine. Most historians believe that the success of the English colonies in the New World was due largely to the additive religious element in the colonies, that other colonies lacked. The First and Second Great Awakenings were huge events. Now, since the 1960s, the role of religion in the US has declined, but to say Christianity has no effect on American history would be a false rewriting of history. My, I think your opinion should be outlawed. :rolleyes:

I respectfully urge you to look up the names of any of the leading reformers from any of the abovementioned movements. Most of the feminist movement was led by closet atheists, and while a great deal of abolitionists cited religion, so did a lot of southern slaveholders. You didn't get a bunch of atheist arguments in favor of slavery. Many members of the Utopian movements were decried as socialists / communists (and many of them were). America has a rich freethought history that is ignored by most history classes and it is therefore something that most Americans are ignorant about. The only thing that I will agree with you on (as far as being explicitly christian-led) is the abolitionist movement.... and didn't that turn out wonderfully?

English colonies survived in the new world because Europeans gave the native people syphilis when they raped them, and smallpox to those who weren't raped. Europeans also had something of an upper hand technologically / militarily.

Most of American society has always been Christian, but most of American society wasn't involved in the drafting of the documents that established our government.

I am saying that people should not be given the right to go around and lie in order to try to rewrite history so that it comes out more like they think it should. Why the hell do you think most Americans believe that the US was founded by Christians and on Christian principles?:rolleyes:

Let me guess,

"everything you say is the truth.
If someone does not agree with you he must be a liar."

What about the insidious lies of religions, such as Judaism? Aren't religions causing greater damage than singular events or phases in history? Haven't the doctrines that came out of Judaism killed more people than the holocaust, or all of WW2, ever could have?And how about the good that has been derived from the Jewish tradition? The social order and structure, the scholasticism that maintained the classical tradition through the medieval era, the Islamic Golden Age, the Renaissance, and the developments of liberalism and humanism in post-reformation Europe?huh?
both of you.
While we are at it, why dont you just say Jewish tradition invented the wheel.

:rolleyes:

Let me guess,

"everything you say is the truth.
If someone does not agree with you he must be a liar."

I have never said any such thing. When I speak, I attempt to do so as truthfully as possible and I am open to being proven wrong. Please don't set up a straw man.

I don't understand this kind of intellectual relativism and it disturbs me.

With freedom comes responsibility, but people don't seem to give a flying shit about responsibility. If you want to run around saying that you think all Jews should be murdered, then you have every right to do so. Running around saying that Jews were never murdered, though, and that the holocaust is a zionist conspiracy....Hypothetically, if it were true that the holocaust was a Zionist conspiracy and the Jews were never murdered (it's not), would you still be okay with outlawing holocaust denial? What authority has the all-seeing eye that we can trust to regulate our rights accurately? History has shown time and again that truth can only thrive in free and open dialog.

I am saying that people should not be given the right to go around and lie in order to try to rewrite history so that it comes out more like they think it should.Rights (negative rights, like freedome of speech, etc.) aren't "given". They exist, and are exercised. The only action governments can take regarding them is to restrict them. What makes the government a more accurate judge of truth than any single person such that they should take the rights of that person away? And what end would it ultimately serve to deprive people of this right?
Why the hell do you think most Americans believe that the US was founded by Christians and on Christian principles?Because in a sense it was. Most Americans were Christians, and the Enlightenment principles on which the nation was founded have historical roots in the Protestant Reformation.

I have never said any such thing. When I speak, I attempt to do so as truthfully as possible...Do you realize that history books are written by the Victors? ... and that not everything in your History books is the Truth? Some details are hidden others are twisted, and some are simple made up.
I don't understand this kind of intellectual relativism and it disturbs me.It may very well be that you are not ready for NSG.

Rights (negative rights, like freedome of speech, etc.) aren't "given". They exist, and are exercised. The only action governments can take regarding them is to restrict them. What makes the government a more accurate judge of truth than any single person such that they should take the rights of that person away? And what end would it ultimately serve to deprive people of this right?

Because in a sense it was. Most Americans were Christians, and the Enlightenment principles on which the nation was founded have historical roots in the Protestant Reformation.

As to rights, I am not saying that government can just go around and decide what is and isn't acceptable thought. I am saying, though, that we should really work to publicly humiliate anyone who tries to rewrite history in such a despicable way (and that goes for anyone who tries to put their own spin on a historical event).

Most Americans today try to use those same christian principles to justify school prayer and intelligent design - most certainly not products of Enlightenment thinking. They also use that to try to justify inflicting their religion on others via proselytizing in the military. Take some time to read up on evangelism in the military and what atheists (even catholics, jews, or non-evangelicals) have to deal with when they enlist. Did you know that now when people visit a VA hospital - even for outpatient procedures - they have to either speak with a chaplain or go out of their way to say they aren't interested? They also have their "spiritual health" evaluated.

I will concede that elements of the enlightenment stem from the protestant reformation, but that does not make America any less secular.

I respectfully urge you to look up the names of any of the leading reformers from any of the abovementioned movements. Most of the feminist movement was led by closet atheists, and while a great deal of abolitionists cited religion, so did a lot of southern slaveholders. You didn't get a bunch of atheist arguments in favor of slavery. Many members of the Utopian movements were decried as socialists / communists (and many of them were). America has a rich freethought history that is ignored by most history classes and it is therefore something that most Americans are ignorant about. The only thing that I will agree with you on (as far as being explicitly christian-led) is the abolitionist movement.... and didn't that turn out wonderfully?

English colonies survived in the new world because Europeans gave the native people syphilis when they raped them, and smallpox to those who weren't raped. Europeans also had something of an upper hand technologically / militarily.

Most of American society has always been Christian, but most of American society wasn't involved in the drafting of the documents that established our government.

Firstly, syphilis originated in the New World, or at least was already present when the Europeans arrived. And unless you're referring to the modern, 1960 feminist movement, the "closet atheist" suggestion of yours is false. Susan B. Anthony, for instance, was a quaker. The Utopian movements were founded upon strict religious guidelines. Yes, they were socialist/collectivist, but they were largely founded in the 1820's and 1830's, before socialist thought was associated with atheism. Actually, before socialist thought was even recognized at all.

Alexis de Tocqueville, during the 1830s, created a massive study of American Democracy and concluded that religion played a very important role in the US. Abolition, slavery, reform movements, prohibition, progressivism, and the city-on-a-hill idealism, among others. One cannot deny the role religion played in the founding of New England, or the settling of the West. The US may have not been found by Christians or Christian ideals, but it was certainly built by them, to some extent, at least until the 1960s.

English colonies survived in the new world because Europeans gave the native people syphilis when they raped them, and smallpox to those who weren't raped.You have a simplistic, one-sided view of the interaction between the early colonists and American indigenous peoples. It wasn't all rape, pillage, infect. There is evidence to suggest that syphilis was newer to Europe than the New World, although the Europeans did bring the bulk of the diseases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_Exchange
Also, not every English colony survived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roanoke_Colony
Most of American society has always been Christian, but most of American society wasn't involved in the drafting of the documents that established our government.The government that drafted the Constitution was a representative one, and it's my understanding that public sentiment is what led to the Bill of Rights.

I have never said any such thing. When I speak, I attempt to do so as truthfully as possible and I am open to being proven wrong. Please don't set up a straw man.But apparently you are not open to the government being proven wrong, given that you think it's okay for it to restrict public dialog.

Firstly, syphilis originated in the New World, or at least was already present when the Europeans arrived. And unless you're referring to the modern, 1960 feminist movement, the "closet atheist" suggestion of yours is false. Susan B. Anthony, for instance, was a quaker. The Utopian movements were founded upon strict religious guidelines. Yes, they were socialist/collectivist, but they were largely founded in the 1820's and 1830's, before socialist thought was associated with atheism. Actually, before socialist thought was even recognized at all.

Alexis de Tocqueville, during the 1830s, created a massive study of American Democracy and concluded that religion played a very important role in the US. Abolition, slavery, reform movements, prohibition, progressivism, and the city-on-a-hill idealism, among others. One cannot deny the role religion played in the founding of New England, or the settling of the West. The US may have not been found by Christians or Christian ideals, but it was certainly built by them, to some extent, at least until the 1960s.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Jane Addams, Margaret Sanger - all atheists (two feminists and a utopian) - I'll try to find more if I remember.

I am not trying to detract from the role of christianity in this country - I am saying, though, that the intent was that the country be secular.

I need to go and finish studying for my physics midterm - it's been fun. :)

But apparently you are not open to the government being proven wrong, given that you think it's okay for it to restrict public dialog.

You mischaracterize my view.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Jane Addams, Margaret Sanger - all atheists (two feminists and a utopian) - I'll try to find more if I remember.

I am not trying to detract from the role of christianity in this country - I am saying, though, that the intent was that the country be secular.

I need to go and finish studying for my physics midterm - it's been fun. :)

Well, bringing everything back into perspective, if the government were allowed to outlaw "wrong historical opinions" such as the holocaust, it is more likely that your opinion would be outlawed than mine, given the present political climate. Not intended as a jab, just that all opinions should be protected under law, even if you find them personally disagreeable. When you start to outlaw "wrong" opinions, you open an entire can of worms that will eventually rebound on yourself.

Regardless, good luck on your physics midterm, mate. I never did do too well in that class...

Godwhinning :rolleyes: ... how pathetic.

Okay, I really must ask, how does one godwin a thread about the Holocaust?

I noticed that contradiction too, I'd also appreciate an answer to Agenda's question.

I don't suppose all can agree that the Holocaust should be taught to children but making them adopt a victim is going a bit over the top?

Because in a sense it was. Most Americans were Christians, and the Enlightenment principles on which the nation was founded have historical roots in the Protestant Reformation.


"A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, 'No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.'" link (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html)

If one wants to play the game of "concepts that have historical roots in," we can trace things back to Mesopotamia.

The government that drafted the Constitution was a representative one, and it's my understanding that public sentiment is what led to the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution clearly establishes a secular government without reference to God or Christianity.

Alexis de Tocqueville, during the 1830s, created a massive study of American Democracy and concluded that religion played a very important role in the US. Abolition, slavery, reform movements, prohibition, progressivism, and the city-on-a-hill idealism, among others. One cannot deny the role religion played in the founding of New England, or the settling of the West. The US may have not been found by Christians or Christian ideals, but it was certainly built by them, to some extent, at least until the 1960s.

"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point"

-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835

That doesn't mean they weren't Christian.

Based on what are you saying they were overwhelmingly Christian?

'No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.'That doesn't mean they weren't Christian.

The Constitution clearly establishes a secular government without reference to God or Christianity.I agree.

This doesn't mean that we should ignore the other groups targeted and murdered, but you can't ignore the fact that the Jews were the primary target.

But humanity does, oh how it does. Where is the support for the Roma gypsies? The homosexuals? The Polish catholics? The Slavic peasantry? All of them were bundled into death camps, where they met gruesome fates.

Yet nobody seems to care about them at all, only the Jewish people. It's an unhealthy singular focus, and bears the earmarks of rewriting history so as to edit out the true extent of the holocaust.

If anything, there should be no special focus on any of the persecuted groups during the genocides of the holocaust. Yes, it is a horrific point of history which should be studied, but without any special attention to any one group.

Teach it equally, or don't teach it at all.

Sorry, I meant to quote it but I forgot.

Contradiction much?

This question.

I noticed that contradiction too, I'd also appreciate an answer to Agenda's question.What question ???

somedays i get asked like 50 questions, i dont answer them all (i consider some of them silly), but if the same question interests multiple players, i may try to find the time to answer it... I make no promises.

please do use the Quote function to show us this intriguing question.

Sorry, I meant to quote it but I forgot.

This question.check page 8 post 119.

But humanity does, oh how it does. Where is the support for the Roma gypsies? The homosexuals? The Polish catholics? The Slavic peasantry? All of them were bundled into death camps, where they met gruesome fates.

Yet nobody seems to care about them at all, only the Jewish people. It's an unhealthy singular focus, and bears the earmarks of rewriting history so as to edit out the true extent of the holocaust.

If anything, there should be no special focus on any of the persecuted groups during the genocides of the holocaust. Yes, it is a horrific point of history which should be studied, but without any special attention to any one group.

Teach it equally, or don't teach it at all.

The reason that Jews get special focus is because, as of today, the world Jew population is around 5 million. 1 million more than that were killed in the holocaust.

Gays will keep turning up just because homosexuality happens (*I am saying this as a homosexual*). There are over 1 billion Catholics, and I can't really speak to how many gypsies there are. The point is, Jews were the most heavily targeted and if you were to resurrect every Jew killed during the Holocaust, it would more than double today's Jewish population. You can't ignore that.

answered on page 9.

Please do use the Quote function to show us this interesting answer.

For me, your only post on page 9 is this. I see no answers.

You are welcome.
.
I might have glanced it at 200 miles/hour. Its because i have to go.

Please do use the Quote function to show us this interesting answer.

For me, your only post on page 9 is this. I see no answers.The original answer was on page 9 , The post itself is gone but Agenda07 has acknowledged the answer

here is his post quoting my answer
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13462212&postcount=119

here is the answer itself

Let me clarify the second quote:
History class should teach us the Tragedies of History.. as apart of the History. (and it should not be when they are 10 years old, more like at 16)


I dont perceive this as an important question

The original answer was on page 9 , The post itself is gone but Agenda07 has acknowledged the answer

here is his post quoting my answer
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13462212&postcount=119

here is the answer itself



Agenda07 has aknowleged my answer to this

Okay, we got there in the end, although Agenda07 raises a fair point.

I don't think 10 is too young to learn about the Holocaust. I mean, I knew about the Holocaust when I was 8 or 9 and I turned out as...

... okay, bad example. More 10 year olds are aware of the reality of the world than one might think, though. Or many should be more aware. As long as it's based in fact and not subjective like this proposal, I think the Holocaust is something they should be informed about.

The reason that Jews get special focus is because, as of today, the world Jew population is around 5 million. 1 million more than that were killed in the holocaust.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

The CIA factbook puts Israel's population at 6.42 million people. Wikipedia estimates the global Jewish population to be 13 million. The holocaust estimates are anywhere from 5 to 5.9 million Jewish dead. Your facts are incorrect.

There are more Jewish people alive today than there were killed in the holocaust.

Arguing that they get special focus because their numbers today are less than before is also a logical fallacy.

If this is the case, then obviously American Indians must get special focus, as well as Australian aborigines, Russian Cossacks, Mayans, Aztecs, Turkish Armenians and numerous other persecuted groups who were exterminated with zeal to the point of near extinction.

But they are not. Why is that? Is it because the nations who committed said crimes were never forced to admit to it by a superior power, and thus avoid the need to feel the guilt? Or is it because these persecuted groups lack a true nation of their own, thus lack the clout to make the guilt felt?

Perhaps. But the reasons are irrelevant in the face of the facts.

If you wish to make a special focus on the Jewish people because of that, then you must give special focus to all persecuted groups who are now in tiny numbers compared to what they were pre-genocide attempts, else this rewriting of history is nothing but a noxious attempt to give free pass for every action so long as the actor is of Jewish descent.

History must be balanced and provide equal attention to all. Else it is nothing more than propaganda with an agenda and should be ignored.


The point is, Jews were the most heavily targeted and if you were to resurrect every Jew killed during the Holocaust, it would more than double today's Jewish population. You can't ignore that.

I can, because the statement is false. I see no reason to pay attention to falsities beyond proving that they are.

Arguing that they get special focus because their numbers today are less than before is also a logical fallacy.

If this is the case, then obviously American Indians must get special focus, as well as Australian aborigines, Russian Cossacks, Mayans, Aztecs, Turkish Armenians and numerous other persecuted groups who were exterminated with zeal to the point of near extinction.

But they are not.seconded

:confused:

damn, my ## prefix was there for 12 pages.. and now it has disappeared ... *calls Ghostbusters*




My thread now, its just a shame I can't eliminate the ## at the beginning of the thread title.you cant because its clearly not your thread. This is the doing of some ebil ghost :D

Would you say German children have the most developed sense of Justice in the World?
I know I have a very strong sense of justice, stronger than most people I encounter.
have you ever been in Germany?

I have, the German sense of Justice is not the most developed in World... its average.
But they are less likely to be openly critical of Israel actions in Gaza and Lebanon.

(whenever I say Germans I mean to say -Most of- or -All the Germans I met-)
Really now? Again, that's an assumption and a view I absolutely cannot share.
If they aren't critical of the israeli actions in gaza and lebanon then I don't believe that they have a particularly well developed sense of justice.

At any rate, the point is that by having the emotional trauma of learning about a child who died at a young age, they can grow up to have that same trauma return when they hear about other crimes against humanity, like the israeli attacks on lebanon's civilians two summers ago.

Germany may not be the best country to benefit from such a program as sarkozy proposes, because of the infinitely tangled complication of their country being guilty for the holocaust.

No one likes to be told that they're bad.

"The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz."
I can agree with much you've said but what exactly do you mean by your last sentence?
You know, by pure coincidence, 10 was how old I was when I saw my first Concentration Camp from the inside. I doubt that merely "adopting" a holocaust victim is going to be nearly as "traumatizing" as seeing lampshades made of human skin is at that age.
So was I. I went to Bergen Belsen concentration camp - and while the British didn't leave much of it standing after the war, visiting the mass graves left a lasting impression. Each little hill held more people than our entire school had students. Not to mention the movie the liberators made when they found the camp.
How is that "traumatizing" ?? A ten-year-old one finds such things exotic at best.
Exotic? Horrific would be the word I'd use.
Seeing lampshades made of human skin is no different than seeing lampshades made of animal skin. The disgusting part is that humans make lampshades out of creatures. And that it is human skin does not make it more disgusting, or enjoyable (what a rubbish), it only makes it exotic.
And I really think you know nothing about the person I am today.
So you equate humans with animals? That's just plain weird in my book.
In fact, outlawing holocaust denial is of the same kind of censorship that allowed the holocaust to be perpetuated in the first place. THAT kind of restriction on public dialog is what increases the risk of it and other atrocities happening again. And I suspect it's a contributing factor to why neo-nazism is stronger in European youth culture than the US, despite US having the more insular/monolithic cultural conditions.
No. You can talk about the Holocaust long and wide, you can discuss how it came to be, you can pretty much take every stance on it - but denying that it happened? The Shoah/Holocaust are established facts, backed up by more evidence than would be necessary. The scale of the crime and the fact that it is one if not the best documented genocide make it impossible to disprove, unless you're criminally ignorant.
I sincerely doubt that neo-nazism is on the rise because people aren't allowed to deny the Holocaust.
If you don't like that Germany, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland felt it necessary to restrict freedom of speech on that very specific topic, don't come here or go there.
I for one don't see how my right to free speech is diminished by a law that says I must not deny the Holocaust happened.
If freedom of speech needs you to be able to deny the Holocaust, a proven truth, I honestly don't see what it's worth.
I don't use this term lightly, but that was a perfectly idiotic thing to say. Denying an actual, well documented historical event that still has survivors that can attest to the fact that it happened is absolutely absurd. When did we become a society where even the most absurd ideas have to be given equal play with accepted truths?
Exactly!
Denying the holocaust may be an idiotic and douchbaggy thing to say, but it still falls under the protection of freedom of speech. The government has no right to dictate what opinions you're allowed to hold and what opinions you're not allowed to hold, neither does your (and my) sense of what's historically accurate.
Again, I can live perfectly fine with this exception and exercise my rights any which way I want to.
The founding fathers and mothers of the Federal Republic deemed it necessary to volitional restrict freedom of speech when it comes to a truth that may very well not be self-evident as time passes - and I can only agree with their stance.
Over time, as contemporary witnesses, victims and delinquents alike, pass away, with them also dies a certain palpability of the events that made up the crime.
I don't see why you deem it necessary that some people would be allowed to say that it never happened, a position that's simply outright false and degrades the dignity of the victims.
To turn your example with slavery on its head, what if the government decided that slavery never happened, and to protect against the horrible lies of a few dissidents, decided to declare slavery-affirmation a crime? Or holocaust-affirmation, for that matter.
On which legal basis could the government do that? That's simply not how it works.
But apparently you are not open to the government being proven wrong, given that you think it's okay for it to restrict public dialog.
In this specific case, the government simply could not be proven wrong for the facts speak for themselves and the government ensures that this truth cannot be turned on its head.
You can talk about the Holocaust as much as you want to, even state that it's hard to believe for you it actually happened - the only thing you cannot do is deny it happened, for it did.

You're free to prove the government wrong, hold a different view or position, and voice and express that in whichever way suits you best - but you're bound to abide by the law.

So you equate humans with animals? That's just plain weird in my book.Humans are a species of animal.

No. You can talk about the Holocaust long and wide, you can discuss how it came to be, you can pretty much take every stance on it - but denying that it happened? The Shoah/Holocaust are established facts, backed up by more evidence than would be necessary. The scale of the crime and the fact that it is one if not the best documented genocide make it impossible to disprove, unless you're criminally ignorant.Exactly, so why is it considered necessary to outlaw holocaust denial when the historical fact is so obvious? Scientifically speaking, the only facts that you can "establish" with any degree of accuracy are those that are falsifiable. Outlawing denial removes practical falisfiability, thus weakening the ground on which one stands when declaring that the holocaust is an "established fact".
I sincerely doubt that neo-nazism is on the rise because people aren't allowed to deny the Holocaust.B.S. Outlawing holocaust denial is the just the kind of fuel that reactionary fringe groups thrive on.
If you don't like that Germany, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland felt it necessary to restrict freedom of speech on that very specific topic, don't come here or go there.It's not about me - it's about the citizens of those countries who's rights are subject to arbitrary revision by their governments.
I for one don't see how my right to free speech is diminished by a law that says I must not deny the Holocaust happened.Well for one, you can't deny the holocaust. You may want to someday, whether it be for hypothetical/rhetorical purposes or whatever.
If freedom of speech needs you to be able to deny the Holocaust, a proven truth, I honestly don't see what it's worth.1) The fact that you don't see what a right is worth doesn't give you or the government the right to trample on the rights of others.
2) Governments aren't the keepers of truth; the fact that they are only outlawing something false is in part a matter of luck.
3) Truths are only proven by disproving their obverse, and that can only be done if the obverse is considered.
In this specific case, the government simply could not be proven wrong for the facts speak for themselves and the government ensures that this truth cannot be turned on its head.1)Of course the government cannot be proven wrong when it outlaws the process by which it might be done.
2) The government is as fallible as its constituency and has no more power than you or I to ensure that the truth reigns.
You can talk about the Holocaust as much as you want to, even state that it's hard to believe for you it actually happened - the only thing you cannot do is deny it happened, for it did.I can deny it happened because I live in a free country. My denial would have no bearing on the truth, however.
You're free to prove the government wrong, hold a different view or position, and voice and express that in whichever way suits you best - but you're bound to abide by the law.Anti-free speech laws interfere with my freedom to voice and express views or positions, and consequently my ability to hold those positions in the first place if the views to which I have access are restricted. In light of this, I cannot morally abide by such laws.

you cant because its clearly not your thread. This is the doing of some ebil ghost :D

That's what you think http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Sinister.gif

This is a great idea. Unfortunately, most Holocaust victims are dead.

This is a great idea. Unfortunately, most Holocaust victims are dead.

True. France's intentions are noble, but it's a little late.

True. France's intentions are noble, but it's a little late.

Seriously.
And what did they do during the war?

I don't know, but there wasn't a Normandy invasion because France still controlled their country.

Pfft.
Crazy frenchmen.

Humans are a species of animal.
Yet we humans apply a different set of rules when it comes to the likes of us.
Exactly, so why is it considered necessary to outlaw holocaust denial when the historical fact is so obvious? Scientifically speaking, the only facts that you can "establish" with any degree of accuracy are those that are falsifiable. Outlawing denial removes practical falisfiability, thus weakening the ground on which one stands when declaring that the holocaust is an "established fact".
This is not about trying to disprove a scientific theory.
The crime has been proven beyond doubt.

So, in order to establish that the Holocaust did indeed happen I need to be able to disprove that it happened? That doesn't make sense.
B.S. Outlawing holocaust denial is the just the kind of fuel that reactionary fringe groups thrive on.
And allowing them to spread lies, slander the victims, and deny the truth doesn't support them how?
It's not about me - it's about the citizens of those countries who's rights are subject to arbitrary revision by their governments.
As a citizen of one of said countries, I really don't see what the fuss is about. I agree with said law.
Maybe you should look into our legal system and laws a bit deeper - it's not like I live in a totalitarian state.
Well for one, you can't deny the holocaust. You may want to someday, whether it be for hypothetical/rhetorical purposes or whatever.
Why would I ever want to do something as stupid as that?

As for the hypothetical/rhetorical purposes - let's say you're having a discussion in philosophy class, you're free to play devil's advocate. It would be covered under freedom of expression, science, research or teaching.

You just can't try to revise history the way you like when it comes to the Holocaust and the crimes of the nazis and the Third Reich. That is a right you simply don't have when living here.
1) The fact that you don't see what a right is worth doesn't give you or the government the right to trample on the rights of others.
Which rights of others? Either you have the right, or you don't. If you don't over here in that very specific case, and you don't like it, feel free to leave, for denying the Holocaust is a right you don't have in Germany and you know it even before you start an argument about it.
2) Governments aren't the keepers of truth; the fact that they are only outlawing something false is in part a matter of luck.
Generally speaking, that can very be true. Again, in this specific case, it's not a matter of luck but a specifically chosen exception.
3) Truths are only proven by disproving their obverse, and that can only be done if the obverse is considered.
So you don't think that something like a positive proof is possible?

Then what about using fingerprints or genetic fingerprints as a positive proof?
1)Of course the government cannot be proven wrong when it outlaws the process by which it might be done.
It does this only when it comes to denying the Holocaust and other crimes perpetrated under the Nazi regime. That, and only that.
2) The government is as fallible as its constituency and has no more power than you or I to ensure that the truth reigns.
And because of that, the founding fathers and mothers of our democracy deemed it necessary to establish said restrictions and gave the state the power to defend the truth under rule of law.
I can deny it happened because I live in a free country. My denial would have no bearing on the truth, however.
If you need to be able to deny that the Holocaust happened to feel you live in a free country - feel free to do so outside our borders.
I really don't mind having this exception in my freedom of speech - because it would be a right I wouldn't want to use in the first place. And those who do have no place in the society I want to live in.
Anti-free speech laws interfere with my freedom to voice and express views or positions, and consequently my ability to hold those positions in the first place if the views to which I have access are restricted. In light of this, I cannot morally abide by such laws.
Maybe you should take a look at our Basic Law and Criminal Code. It really isn't as intrusive as you might think.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StGB
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm

"A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it." Sir Winston Churchill

The law just makes sure you cannot willfully or ignorantly forget, forge, or revise this country's past in order to further your own goals or prepare to repeat what happened. It is among the founding principles of this nation. Just like donning a swastika or other nazi emblems, doing a nazi salute, or playing down the nazis' crimes is not part of what you may do.

But that doesn't mean that as a Hindu you can't have a swastika on your temple or as an actor do a nazi salute as part of your role. Those things are covered by freedom of expression (religion and art).

Yet we humans apply a different set of rules when it comes to the likes of us.Maybe it's time we evaluate the basis for that.
This is not about trying to disprove a scientific theory.
The crime has been proven beyond doubt.And that proof can no longer be fully scrutinized in the public dialog Germany.
So, in order to establish that the Holocaust did indeed happen I need to be able to disprove that it happened? That doesn't make sense.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
And allowing them to spread lies, slander the victims, and deny the truth doesn't support them how?Not censoring is not "supporting".
As a citizen of one of said countries, I really don't see what the fuss is about. I agree with said law.Yes, I know. You haven't been victimized yet, and it hasn't yet occured to you that you might be at some point down the road.
Maybe you should look into our legal system and laws a bit deeper - it's not like I live in a totalitarian state.Germany used to be totalitarian. As long as the government has the ability to censor, it is possible that it could return to totalitarianism at some point.
As for the hypothetical/rhetorical purposes - let's say you're having a discussion in philosophy class, you're free to play devil's advocate. It would be covered under freedom of expression, science, research or teaching.Not if what you're expressing involves making a declaration that the holocaust didn't happen, right? Freedom of expression superceded by superficial interests of censorship puts it on an inherently unstable foundation.
You just can't try to revise history the way you like when it comes to the Holocaust and the crimes of the nazis and the Third Reich. That is a right you simply don't have when living here.That's the major symptom of the problem.
Which rights of others? Either you have the right, or you don't. If you don't over here in that very specific case, and you don't like it, feel free to leave, for denying the Holocaust is a right you don't have in Germany and you know it even before you start an argument about it.I'm talking about the rights of Germans to free expression. You know, the Jews of Nazi Germany weren't allowed to say what the government didn't want them to, but they were free to leave, at least for a while...

Rights don't change based on what government claims rule over you. It's something you have by virtue of your humanity. That's what a "right" is.

Generally speaking, that can very be true. Again, in this specific case, it's not a matter of luck but a specifically chosen exception.It is in part a matter of luck that "the specifically chosen exception" is one that you happen to agree with. Or maybe it's not, since if the holocaust really didn't happen, the information that might allow you to come to that conclusion certainly would be repressed...
In that case, it's a matter of luck that what's being censored, what's considered false by the state actually happens to be false.

So you don't think that something like a positive proof is possible?Not theoretically.

It does this only when it comes to denying the Holocaust and other crimes perpetrated under the Nazi regime. That, and only that.For now...

If you need to be able to deny that the Holocaust happened to feel you live in a free country - feel free to do so outside our borders.It has nothing to do with feeling. It has to do with fact. Your country isn't free, and has a law that is inimical to democracy.
I really don't mind having this exception in my freedom of speech - because it would be a right I wouldn't want to use in the first place. And those who do have no place in the society I want to live in.So go start your own repressive society - don't force it on those around you.

The law just makes sure you cannot willfully or ignorantly forget, forge, or revise this country's past in order to further your own goals or prepare to repeat what happened.Laws have no such power.

It is among the founding principles of this nation. Just like donning a swastika or other nazi emblems, doing a nazi salute, or playing down the nazis' crimes is not part of what you may do.Censorship is not a principle.

You completely disregard what the German Basic Law and Criminal Code state.

Most if not all of your objections find an answer there. I encourage you to take a look. I already provided the links which you seem to completely ignore.

Really, go take a look.

Maybe it's time we evaluate the basis for that.


Only if you're willing to abolish all laws and return to the law of the jungle, in which case you had better stock up on weapons and munitions, or you are willing to make animals follow human law, in which case, good luck.

Exotic? Horrific would be the word I'd use.How is that horrific? It's a lampshade for fuck's sake.

So you equate humans with animals? That's just plain weird in my book.Get rid of your book.

Oh dear.What? Human skin is not anything horrifying. As I said, it's exotic at best. Just like the stuffed humans they have in some old museums.

How is that horrific? It's a lampshade for fuck's sake.

Oh dear.

Seriously.
And what did they do during the war?

I don't know, but there wasn't a Normandy invasion because France still controlled their country.

Pfft.
Crazy frenchmen.

In a nutshell, made the infinitely regrettable mistake of thinking

"The Germans will never invade us through Belgium again!.

What? Human skin is not anything horrifying. As I said, it's exotic at best. Just like the stuffed humans they have in some old museums.

The human skin didn't just materialise out of thin air, you know. They had to get it from somewhere, and if you don't think the circumstances that led to procuring said skin were not at least somewhat distasteful, then you're probably a sociopath.

How is that horrific? It's a lampshade for fuck's sake.

Get rid of your book.

This should be taken as a telling corollary to the same poster's assertion in another thread that Britain's empire was worse than both world wars.

Very telling.

You completely disregard what the German Basic Law and Criminal Code state.


I've just taken a peek.

"( 2 ) Everyone has the right to life and to inviolability of his person. The freedom of the individual is inviolable. These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law."

And what do you know? They have.


Most if not all of your objections find an answer there. I encourage you to take a look. I already provided the links which you seem to completely ignore.

Really, go take a look.

Since the discussion has gone down this path (with a remarkable absence of moderation - What is so special about myself who had not even dipped a finger into the holocaust itself? I again request an explanation in full by the moderators that be as to the basis upon which the decision has been made - short of which I shall be looking into other more formal options) I shall continue to discuss the laws encrouching upon the rights of individuals who seek to talk about the holocaust (which is only ok for as long as what is said is not sanctioned upon by law) (note that this is not talk of the holocaust but talk of the legislation surrounding the prohibition of talk of the holocaust - a while different topic at law).

I once again implore this forum to reconsider its baseless censorship of myself. I never would have expected contemplating action over such a matter.

I've just taken a peek.

"( 2 ) Everyone has the right to life and to inviolability of his person. The freedom of the individual is inviolable. These rights may only be encroached upon pursuant to a law."

And what do you know? They have.



Since the discussion has gone down this path (with a remarkable absence of moderation - What is so special about myself who had not even dipped a finger into the holocaust itself? I again request an explanation in full by the moderators that be as to the basis upon which the decision has been made - short of which I shall be looking into other more formal options) I shall continue to discuss the laws encrouching upon the rights of individuals who seek to talk about the holocaust (which is only ok for as long as what is said is not sanctioned upon by law) (note that this is not talk of the holocaust but talk of the legislation surrounding the prohibition of talk of the holocaust - a while different topic at law).

I once again implore this forum to reconsider its baseless censorship of myself. I never would have expected contemplating action over such a matter.

I missed it - what did you say that got censored? I know Britain (jolt.co.uk) has censorship, but does it have anything holocaust-specific, or is that just a board policy? Or were you just trolling before?

I missed it - what did you say that got censored? I know Britain (jolt.co.uk) has censorship, but does it have anything holocaust-specific, or is that just a board policy? Or were you just trolling before?

You may judge for yourself. :c) I do not have a dozen posts to my name. I swear that not a single word has been removed from my posts.

I will also note that the first post went in smoothly within this thread and then all others required moderation.

Also note that there is no "new member" under my forum name. This means that I no longer have the same rights as others and effectively means that every post is approved after moderation. I would not mind this were it justified but I contend that there is no basis for it.

If this anomoly is corrected then I will assume it to be an accident, but to persist in unjustified sanction is, quite frankly, discriminatory...

I thank the moderating team for reconsidering.

I retract all previous comments over what must have been nothing more than a slip-up. ^_^