You know, Seesaw is probably the fourth "new" GBCNer I've seen looking around for a mod to step in whenever we challenge a position. What kind of sheltered internet world are these guys coming from?
There are forums out there that delete any form of debate. You state your "opinion" and that's it. Any sort of challenging or asking for clarification or facts gets deleted. They're big on "everyone has a right to an opinion" even if it's dead wrong, or there's nothing to substantiate it.
Wow. Maybe I'm the one who's sheltered on the internet! I participate in a few other forums and they're all pretty much like this (or worse!)
I'm pretty sure France was regularly expelling Jews once they'd gotten all the loans they needed. Then, of course, inviting them back when they'd gone broke once again.
Not at all suggesting that France was a jewish-friendly state. I'm just saying that the Catholic church + world power = recipe for disaster.
Americans didn't care about the genocide going on during WWII? Did we not join the fight?
We joined the fight for a myriad of reasons, mostly to pull us out of the financial pit of the depression. Frankly, there was little to no public discussion of the concentration camps until after the war and the pictures started leaking out to the world just how barbaric the camps were. THAT's when the general American public decided that they cared.
There are forums out there that delete any form of debate. You state your "opinion" and that's it. Any sort of challenging or asking for clarification or facts gets deleted. They're big on "everyone has a right to an opinion" even if it's dead wrong, or there's nothing to substantiate it.
Wow. Maybe I'm the one who's sheltered on the internet! I participate in a few other forums and they're all pretty much like this (or worse!)
I can't imagine posting on a politics forum with that kind of moderation. What would be the point?
I'm pretty sure France was regularly expelling Jews once they'd gotten all the loans they needed. Then, of course, inviting them back when they'd gone broke once again.
Have you read anything about the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup? It was a plot element in "Sarah's Key."
I watched some shitty movie with Christina Ricci, Johnny Depp, and Cate Blanchette that briefly touched upon the topic of how the Jews were treated in France circa WWII as well.
I think it's the easy way out to blame the Nazis. The reality is that the Holocaust could not have happened were there not an existing level of antisemitism in Europe and indeed, the rest of the world.
I find it endlessly fascinating that the only country that would take Jewish refugees was Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. And it seems to me, he only did so because they weren't black.
You know, Seesaw is probably the fourth "new" GBCNer I've seen looking around for a mod to step in whenever we challenge a position. What kind of sheltered internet world are these guys coming from?
No offense to some of the young regulars, but some of these newbies seem very young. Like south of college-aged.
Definitely. Why else would they consider themselves experts on a topic they wrote about in 6th grade?
We joined the fight for a myriad of reasons, mostly to pull us out of the financial pit of the depression. Frankly, there was little to no public discussion of the concentration camps until after the war and the pictures started leaking out to the world just how barbaric the camps were. THAT's when the general American public decided that they cared.
And mostly so we could tout how awesome we were if you ask me. Rah rah nationalism!
I feel like, "Americans won the war in Europe in order to end the Holocaust" is the over-simplified-WWII-version of "The North won the Civil War to free the slaves." No and no.
Though I will say, I have a friend whose father helped liberate one of the camps. For years he would wake up screaming in the middle of the night. So second-hand reports of the atrocities didn't really matter to Americans. Seeing what actually happened affected many people greatly. It took a while, though, for Holocaust survivors to publish first hand accounts of what happened. Partly because of their own sanity and partly because publishers weren't really sure how to handle that. Also, humanitarian issues weren't really... issues until maybe 40ish years ago. It's really easy to forget that when we talk about reactions to things like Darfur and Tienanmen Square and the Arab Spring. Would anyone have given a fuck about the rights of Muslim women in 1930? No. I think the entire mid-century experience, though - WWII, Vietnam, the development of a larger mass media, the fall of the USSR - all kind of contributed to the humanitarian missions most people in developed nations see as essential today.
I find it endlessly fascinating that the only country that would take Jewish refugees was Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. And it seems to me, he only did so because they weren't black.
Albania took them in too; not a whole lot though. But enough that their Jewish population was higher after WWII than it was before.
Post by meshaliuknits on May 23, 2012 15:49:52 GMT -5
Dude, my mind would be blown to find the Julius Ceaser was Jewish. Blown. And I can't understand why someone wouldn't find that at least mildly interesting. Same with Columbus.
Oh, and the modern Zionist movement began in the late 19th century partially because of the consistent persecution of Jews in Europe, especially antisemitism in Eastern Europe. A full 50 years+ before the Holocaust. WWII was a catalyst to establish the state of Israel (andplusalso they needed the UN, which wasn't around until after WWII), but it's not like alllll the Jews just showed up in 1948. Trust, they were like "fuck this place, let's head to Palestine" way before Hitler. Hitler's ideas didn't come from nowhere.
I find it endlessly fascinating that the only country that would take Jewish refugees was Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. And it seems to me, he only did so because they weren't black.
Albania took them in too; not a whole lot though. But enough that their Jewish population was higher after WWII than it was before.
I think I remember reading somewhere that Albania was virtually the only country in Eastern Europe that wasn't rabidly antisemetic.
But back to why it's important that Columbus was a Jew - It's history, it's fascinating, and it adds a new dimension to the political landscape of the time and his dealings with the Spaniards. It gives us a much more in depth look at the events than just saying, "In fourteen hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue."
spb - I think most people fixate on the Germans because it was not religiously motivated and it was so extensive in such a short period of time. In roughly a decade, more than 6 million Jews were killed. That's a huge amount.
The Catholic church engaged in institutionalized antisemitism for centuries. But even in the most talked about event involving the expulsion, arrest, detention, and execution of Jews, the Inquisition killed only about 1350 Jews and other heretics over a 160 years span.
I think Hitler's events were so huge and in such a short time period that it was unfathomable to just about everybody that someone could do this. Further more, Jews in Europe weren't just one day rounded up all together. It started a little bit here and a little bit there. Stories traveled from towns and cities and a lot of people, Jews included, just didn't believe it was happening.
I wrote a paper in 6th grade about the Aztec's and I got an A+ on it! I even had to draw a couple pictures. So if anyone needs to know anything at all about Axtec's, I have got you covered.
Also, someone needs to pick up a copy of A People's History, stat.
I agree with everything you're saying here. But I didn't ask the original "why" question. I just threw out a possible answer: it was recent, it was European (so that's "us"), it was "state sponsored."
MrsAjl reminds me of a point I find so infuriating. I hate when people say, oh, why didn't the Jews fight harder?
For one, they did.
And secondly, they were used to persecution, used to random deportations even after centuries of living in certain countries. It was not a new phenomenon for governments to just decide wholesale that they were rounding everyone up and shipping them some place else.
AJL the book is called "The Columbus Affair" by Steve Berry. Like I said it is mystery / thriller kind of fiction so if you want a more serious look at it this probably isn't it. But I was intrigued because it was a different topic.
I like Steve Berry - off the check this book out.
$12.99 for Kindle version - good grief, ebooks are not always cheap!
It would definitely be interesting if Columbus was Jewish, but I'm not sure I buy the argument. First, Columbus grew up in Genoa and lived there until he started sailing a ton as a teenager. He also went to school in Genoa and learned Latin. And you're telling me he didn't speak Italian? Well, true, there wasn't actually an "Italian" language in the 15th century, but I'm pretty sure he must have known the Ligurian dialect, having lived there his entire young life! He also read the writings of Marco Polo and Paolo Toscanelli, maybe in Latin but maybe in Italian.
The other evidence in the article is also somewhat questionable: many, many Christians left money in their wills for the poor and for dowries. He may have decreed money be given to many people, not just an old Jew in Lisbon--remember, Columbus was stripped of his honors and imprisoned near the end of his life, so maybe he identified with the outcasts. The strongest evidence is probably the Hebrew "code"--but many people who fancied themselves intellectuals like Columbus were using Hebrew for all sorts of hermeticism and natural magic. Oh, and Christians were also rather fond of trying to reclaim Jerusalem. Plus, Columbus didn't think he was finding a new magical land for the Jews to escape Europe, since he went to his death denying that he'd discovered a new land at all.
And Columbus's writings (including his personal log book) are filled with mentions of Jesus and God and the cross, and he even talks about showing the cross to the natives he met on his first voyage, and believed they understood its significance--of course, this would be a good cover for a converso, but this case still seems flimsy to me. My guess is that most Columbus scholars won't be swayed by this argument.