QuoteAre Today's Germans Morally Responsible for the Holocaust?
Yascha Mounk's new book on Jewish identity leaves readers with a question: Are people destined to see themselves as the descendants of victims or oppressors?
It's a perennially reoccurring question: What makes someone Jewish? Answers vary, touching everything from the blood in your veins to the prayer book on your shelf to the egg bagel on your plate.
Yascha Mounk, a 31-year-old German Jew who's a doctoral candidate at Harvard, has offered another definition: You are a Jew if your parents or grandparents were called out as Jews, persecuted as Jews, and killed as Jews. "In a sense, this was enough," he writes in a new book, Stranger in My Own Country: A Jewish Family in Modern Germany. "If to speak honestly about their life stories is to become, in the eyes of most beholders, a Jew—and if being a Jew, in turn, means not being a true German—then, so long as I lived in Germany, my family history made me a Jew."
In his book, Mounk explores German attitudes toward Jews during the 70 years following the Holocaust (Mounk's parents and grandparents are Eastern European Jews, and he was born in Germany). But he also offers a broader theory about identity: that people understand themselves and others through their genetic ties to history's victims and oppressors. This pattern develops repeatedly and in diverse contexts, Mounk argues: In Germany, there's collective guilt about Jews and the Holocaust; in America, a similar phenomenon shapes discourse around blacks and slavery. Each new generation matures into its role as steward of historical hatreds; although the legacies of genocide and enslavement become refracted through time, young people can't escape the grievances of prejudices past.
The resulting emotions they experience range from anxiety to hostility. Writing about Germany, Mounk points to philo-Semitism and overt racism as related reactions to the same historical guilt. He has many personal anecdotes to support this theory. There's the exchange he has with a friend, Markus, who converted to Judaism out of shame after seeing a documentary about the Holocaust as a teenager. There's the tasteless joke about incinerating Jews and fitting them into an ashtray, defiantly cracked over beers by thirty-something Stephanie. There's recurring, self-conscious praise of Woody Allen, embellished for Mounk's "benefit" lest he take offense at criticism of the wordsmithing of a fellow member of the tribe. His examples fall somewhere between absurd and macabre: Filtered through time, historical guilt has morphed into self-loathing, defiant contempt, and paranoid self-censorship.
This has also been true in the German public sphere, Mounk writes. In 1974, the filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder wrote a play laced with thinly veiled anti-Semitism, claiming to critique German attitudes toward Jews. Lines like this made that claim seem questionable:
And it is the Jew who is guilty because he makes us guilty, for he is here. Had he stayed where he came from, or had they gassed him, I could sleep better today. They forgot to gas him. This is no joke, that's what I think, deep inside of me.
Fassbinder's play was eventually panned by critics and shuttered in theaters, but the piece represented a tense uncertainty, Mounk writes. Could "the nervous taboo against all forms of anti-Semitism ... finally be lifted," as Fassbinder and his supporters wanted? Or would Germans be forever doomed to keep an eye on the past, unsure of the boundary between criticism and insensitivity?
As these questions gained prominence in the public sphere, Mounk writes, the answers hinged on whether it's possible to draw a "finish line" on the moral burden of the Holocaust. Especially starting in the 1970s and '80s, a vocal group of German intellectuals expressed resentment at "being made to feel guilty" about crimes against Jews, arguing that there should be a statue of limitations of sorts on moral responsibility. If it were even possible for public intellectuals to artificially define such a boundary, Germany certainly hasn't hit it; Mounk's experiences suggest that young Germans are still struggling with their ethnic inheritance.
Perhaps this is the most important lesson from Mounk's book: Ethnic alienation is more personal than political. Mounk speaks German without an accent; he looks similar to his fellow countrymen; he doesn't even observe major Jewish holidays. Yet growing up in Germany in the 1990s and 2000s, he felt totally different from his peers. Almost implausibly, the abstract idea of collective national guilt defined his everyday life in a big way.
Mounk describes a swirl of small, subtle experiences of "otherness," including classroom call-outs, awkward jokes told by friends, and offensive interviews with potential employers. He may not have started elementary school feeling like a "stranger in [his] own country," but everyone else expected him to. Over time, he fulfilled their expectations. Because he was the subject of a stereotype, he came to confirm the stereotype itself: Jews are different from Germans.
That this is still the social environment of 21st-century Germany raises profound questions. How is it that young people come to feel guilty about the sins of their parents and grandparents? How did today's twenty-something Germans learn to internalize guilt about Auschwitz, maybe even coming to resent the assumption that they're supposed to feel guilty at all? How do atrocious ethnic crimes become disembodied ideas, morphing into a vague sense of moral responsibility?
Somehow, between essays penned by Jürgen Habermas and political stump speeches that use the "dog-whistle of anti-Semitism," as Mounk calls it, the grandchildren of Nazis and soldiers and silent, complicit townspeople came to see themselves as part of a reified historical narrative. In one way or another, Germans define their ethnic identity in the context of the Holocaust. Ironically, the common response seems to rely on a nationalistic impulse to deal with Germany's crimes of nationalism: By treating Mounk extra-carefully, his peers set him apart from other Germans; in setting him apart from other Germans, they reinforce the us/them mentality that undergirded the Holocaust in the first place.
Although Mounk admits he has no solution to this cycle of self-condemnation and historical defiance, he maintains a fairly dismissive tone regarding the philo-Semitism he so often encountered in his youth. Similarly, he pokes fun at the "liberal guilt among white Americans" about slavery and racism. In his view, these postures are inauthentic self-contortions that hurt more than they help: They reconfirm the differences between people of different ethnic backgrounds rather than carving out common ground. On this point, Mounk is persuasive.
But the real open question is not whether overeager self-flagellation is the right way to deal with atrocities; it's whether it's ever possible to be freed from responsibility for the past, even if a long time has gone by. What's the half-life of historical guilt?
It's been nearly 150 years since the end of slavery in the U.S., yet Mounk still sees the institution's imprint everywhere in America. The citizens of Germany have spent less than half that amount of time reconciling with past transgressions. In many ways, the country has been granted clemency by its former enemies: It holds massive economic power within the European Union, its political leaders are well respected—even its athletes are beloved. Yet Mounk sees traces of old prejudice and solitary nationalism in the country's politics: hostility toward Muslim immigrants; resentment about bailing out debt-ridden neighbors like Greece; reluctance to join Western allies on military missions in Libya and elsewhere. Whether or not Mounk's attempt to link Merkel's Germany to the country's pre-World War II postures is persuasive (and I don't think it is), he has set up a tangled paradox: Personally, young Germans still feel a connection to the legacy of the Holocaust; politically, certain policies have the ring of familiar intolerance; yet any outward recognition of these tensions is interpreted as either racism or reverse-racism.
At the end of the book, Mounk declares New York his new home, savoring the blandness of being Jewish in a city of 1.5 million Jews. "A true New Yorker is one who has come to the city in quest of something," he writes. And quest he does: Throughout the book, Mounk seems to be searching for historical anonymity, a place where he won't feel defined by the ancestors who suffered before him. Whatever anonymity Mounk may have found, though, he should know that it's an artificial refuge. He himself has argued persuasively that identities are inextricably bound to past persecution. Leaving Germany doesn't diminish his ties to the country's conflicted history, and arriving in New York won't keep him from becoming part of the United States' own set of racial tensions. All his life, Mounk has felt like a stranger in his own land, but unfortunately, every land bears the weight of historical wrongs.
Interesting argument. I think there's a lot to the idea that it's personal more than political.
Also I think my immediate thought on the title was that I think Germans have a moral responsibility for or to the Holocaust, because of the history. But that's different from whether they're morally responsible.
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
What an absurd question.
Quote from: Syt on January 23, 2014, 09:23:51 AM
QuoteSimilarly, he pokes fun at the "liberal guilt among white Americans" about slavery and racism.
I really do not understand what exactly this means. It seems to me that merely discussing slavery and racism and how it operated (or operates I guess) results in people angrily making accusations of white guilt and all that. I mean it is history people chill, unless you actually went out there and lynched people yourself. I guess this is about far left wing people but they get that way about everything, according to them simply waking up in the morning and taking up space is a crime against nature.
No.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
Yeah I mean this is really what it is about. Really this should be everybody's take away from the Holocaust.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
Well put.
QuoteFiltered through time, historical guilt has morphed into self-loathing, defiant contempt, and paranoid self-censorship.
This sums things up the status quo in Germany (and Austria to some degree) rather well, IMO.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
I'd go further. I think there's a responsibility to remember actively rather than just be aware and to try and spread that memory beyond Germans. In the same way as I think the Jewish people have a responsibility to ensure it's never forgotten.
QuoteI really do not understand what exactly this means.
That issues of historical guilt and grievance are personal and not political. From an outside perspective the never-ending American 'conversation about race' is extraordinary and American political correctness seems far stronger than any other type in the world. Neither of those things are necessarily bad (though he argues otherwise) but I think they are legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and more particularly how those are remembered and perceived by white people now and African Americans.
On a far smaller scale I understood what he was saying from an Irish in England perspective.
Quote from: Syt on January 23, 2014, 09:59:28 AM
QuoteFiltered through time, historical guilt has morphed into self-loathing, defiant contempt, and paranoid self-censorship.
This sums things up the status quo in Germany (and Austria to some degree) rather well, IMO.
And, from an outside perspective, I'd say it seems to describe the US 'conversation about race' too. As Ta-Nehisi Coates has often said that conversation is actually less helpful than a pause in it.
Edit: And on the other hand what's the alternative and is it better? I think Britain's an example of a country that's never felt much guilt and what it has it's quickly forgotten.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2014, 10:05:08 AM
That issues of historical guilt and grievance are personal and not political. From an outside perspective the never-ending American 'conversation about race' is extraordinary and American political correctness seems far stronger than any other type in the world. Neither of those things are necessarily bad (though he argues otherwise) but I think they are legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and more particularly how those are remembered and perceived by white people now and African Americans.
The memory is very bizarre. Sure are a lot of people in this country who try to pretend it either never happened or was not that bad. Hence we get bizarreness. I just get frustrated we cannot even discuss the reality of these things without accusations of 'white guilt!' pouring in. As if white people in the US were the only people in history to do this sort of thing or as if talking about it is somehow persecuting white people. I just find it frustrating if understandable. It is a painful and recent memory.
But how exactly are we supposed to be about it? What does the criticism that we need to stop with the liberal guilt mean exactly? Just not talk about fight club?
Modern Germans, no, The Modern German State, yes.
By yes I don't mean completely, but as the corporate heir to the nazi state that was completely responsible.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 10:13:41 AMThe memory is very bizarre. Sure are a lot of people in this country who try to pretend it either never happened or was not that bad. Hence we get bizarreness. I just get frustrated we cannot even discuss the reality of these things without accusations of 'white guilt!' pouring in. As if white people in the US were the only people in history to do this sort of thing or as if talking about it is somehow persecuting white people. I just find it frustrating if understandable. It is a painful and recent memory.
Exactly. As the writer said and Syt quoted earlier, 'Filtered through time, historical guilt has morphed into self-loathing, defiant contempt, and paranoid self-censorship.' Similarly the historical pressure on African-Americans, 'He may not have started elementary school feeling like a "stranger in [his] own country," but everyone else expected him to. Over time, he fulfilled their expectations. Because he was the subject of a stereotype, he came to confirm the stereotype itself: Jews are different from Germans.' I think an incidental example of this is that it's striking that Obama is, to an extent except through choice, partly outside of that.
QuoteBut how exactly are we supposed to be about it? What does the criticism that we need to stop with the liberal guilt mean exactly? Just not talk about fight club?
Yeah. I agree it's difficult to think of an alternative.
derspiess is morally responsible for the Holocaust.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 23, 2014, 10:26:41 AM
derspiess is morally responsible for the Holocaust.
WHAT ABOUT ME? :cry:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 23, 2014, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 23, 2014, 10:26:41 AM
derspiess is morally responsible for the Holocaust.
WHAT ABOUT ME? :cry:
Alright, you share some of the blame. 11B, too.
Call me Otto Remer ladies!
Quote from: Syt on January 23, 2014, 09:59:28 AM
QuoteFiltered through time, historical guilt has morphed into self-loathing, defiant contempt, and paranoid self-censorship.
This sums things up the status quo in Germany (and Austria to some degree) rather well, IMO.
France too, moreso than Austria for sure. Topics may vary: slave trade only a crime against humanity IF committed by "Whites",
truth passed as law by Taubira who even tried to ban a book dealing with ALL slave trades
Les traites négrières : essai d'histoire globale ; colonialism, namely the conquest of Algeria without mentioning one deep cause, islamic piracy/slave trade in the Mediterranean; collaboration, the myth of everybody resistant à la de Gaulle needed to rest but the early PCF collaboration is forgotten.
Alain Finkielkraut wrote a book to criticise the whole self-hatred phenomenon
L'identité malheureuseHe even went as far as criticising miscegenation IF motivated by self-hatred, pissing off the left, not just the far left, which compared him to Le Pen and/or some infamous comedian known for its anti-semitic/anti-zionist trolling which incidentally made quite a good diversion for the current Interior minister Valls.
edit: read Finkie's book there's none of that miscegenation criticism
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 23, 2014, 10:56:56 AM
Topics may vary: slave trade only a crime against humanity IF committed by "Whites", truth passed as law by Taubira who even tried to ban a book dealing with ALL slave trades Les traites négrières : essai d'histoire globale ; colonialism, namely the conquest of Algeria without mentioning one deep cause, islamic piracy/slave trave in the Mediterranean; collaboration, the myth of everybody resistant à la de Gaulle needed to rest but the early PCF collaboration is forgotten.
I don't know why the French Commies get off so easily. Damn assholes were striking in protest to the war at the beginning and then they go on act like they were some sort of heroes. As for the slavery thing that drives me nuts both ways. First as a way to minimize the crimes of our ancestors (well the Africans were doing it to so...) and the bizarre need to paint white people as subhumans worse than everybody else (slavery in Africa or the Islamic world was not as bad...as if that makes it ok or something).
The French resistance thing is hilarious. It did exist and was substantial and useful to the Allies...but it seems we have this need to either blow it out of proportion or minimize it completely.
QuoteAlaink Finkielkraut wrote a book to criticise the whole self-hatred phenomenon L'identité malheureuse
He even went as far as criticising miscegenation IF motivated by self-hatred, pissing off the left, not just the far left, which compared him to Le Pen and/or some infamous comedian known for its anti-semitic/anti-zionist trolling which incidentally made quite a good diversion for the current Interior minister Valls.
Um that was idiotic. Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:21:44 AM
Um that was idiotic. Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.
Why?
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:21:44 AM
Um that was idiotic. Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.
Why?
Because it makes him sound like a racist?
Tell me more about " miscegenation ... motivated by self-hatred". Sounds hott. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:31:34 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:21:44 AM
Um that was idiotic. Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.
Why?
Because it makes him sound like a racist?
Only if you're the type that reads racism into everything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
I think it is odd to make the responsibility specific to present-day Germans. The real lesson - one that has been taught before and since - is that any people are capable of such an action, and hence all peoples need to guard against a repeat. The significance of the Holocaust and Germany specifically is that present-day Germans may be more likely to have that awareness because of the efforts made to inculcate it into the definition of post-1945 German political culture and ideology.
I don't see how you get that lesson from the Holocaust Joan.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 11:36:00 AM
Only if you're the type that reads racism into everything.
Please explain the non-racist way of complaining about miscegenation please. I mean really? I am only the type who reads racism into racism.
But it distracts from whatever good points he was making. Suddenly one starts to question his motives. Obviously his opponents did do this to marginalize him so there you go.
Modern Germans are indeed morally reprehensible.
If the Holocaust could happen in a goosestepping authority fetish hellhole then it can happen anywhere.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:21:44 AM
Um that was idiotic. Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.
Why?
Because self-hatred is involved in so many facets of human pair bonding, it seems silly to just single out the racial angle.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 11:36:00 AM
Only if you're the type that reads racism into everything.
Please explain the non-racist way of complaining about miscegenation please. I mean really? I am only the type who reads racism into racism.
But it distracts from whatever good points he was making. Suddenly one starts to question his motives. Obviously his opponents did do this to marginalize him so there you go.
I also fail to understand what's racist about saying something that boils down to "don't get married for the wrong reasons"; is he supposed to dodge the technically accurate wording given the subject of the discussion? Or is there something inaccurate in what was posted above? Did he complain of miscegenation in any other circumstances than that motivated by self-hatred?
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:46:17 AM
Please explain the non-racist way of complaining about miscegenation please. I mean really? I am only the type who reads racism into racism.
I thought it was not so much complaining about miscegenation but complaining about someone's motives.
I think complaining about mixed race marriages based on self-loathing is as worthwhile as moaning about gnome genocides.
Does anyone really believe there is a significant number of white people going around seeking out interracial relationships with the motive of punishing the evil white race? :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
I think complaining about mixed race marriages based on self-loathing is as worthwhile as moaning about gnome genocides.
I would simply assume that the person complaining about it is making a backhanded assertion that mixed-race marriages are generally based on self-loathing, presumably on the part of the White partner - that is, the person doing the complaining is a racist jackass. ;) But maybe it reads better in context.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 11:45:35 AM
I don't see how you get that lesson from the Holocaust Joan.
Yi, I don't see how you could
not get that lesson from the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the genocides by the Zulus under Shaka, the Herero Genocide, etc, etc.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 23, 2014, 01:31:35 PM
Does anyone really believe there is a significant number of white people going around seeking out interracial relationships with the motive of punishing the evil white race? :huh:
No, but that would make a good porn plot.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
I think complaining about mixed race marriages based on self-loathing is as worthwhile as moaning about gnome genocides.
I wouldn't argue with that. It's not a big deal to me, but I don't think the complaint is necessarily racist.
To me it sounds like a sophisticated Jewish guilt trip about marrying out.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 01:39:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
I think complaining about mixed race marriages based on self-loathing is as worthwhile as moaning about gnome genocides.
I wouldn't argue with that. It's not a big deal to me, but I don't think the complaint is necessarily racist.
Seems to me, though, of course without context, like it could overemphasize a trivial subject and thus creating an argument against that is by and large irrelevant.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 01:39:14 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 23, 2014, 01:29:32 PM
I think complaining about mixed race marriages based on self-loathing is as worthwhile as moaning about gnome genocides.
I wouldn't argue with that. It's not a big deal to me, but I don't think the complaint is necessarily racist.
It doesn't bother me either. It just opens him up to being labeled as such and having the rest of his arguments dismissed, so I thought it was foolish.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 23, 2014, 01:26:34 PM
I also fail to understand what's racist about saying something that boils down to "don't get married for the wrong reasons"; is he supposed to dodge the technically accurate wording given the subject of the discussion? Or is there something inaccurate in what was posted above? Did he complain of miscegenation in any other circumstances than that motivated by self-hatred?
Nope, and that's only a small part of the book anyways, blown out of proportion as always by the usual suspects.
As for the Commie resistance, even a guy like Guy Môquet who was arrested under an anti-communist Third Republic law banning the PCF, by Vichy, for distributing anti-war propaganda as per Stalin's dictates, is still seen by a resistant and has a metro station to his name.
He just happened to be one of the first victims of Nazi firing squads during the occupation when the Nazis demanded some hostages for reprisals after a killing of a high-ranked Wehrmacht officer by communists (no longer being "revolutionary defeatists after June 1941) to Vichy. If you ask me, that's one the least worst Vichy crimes (not as bad as enforcing dubbing).
Even Sarkozy, cynically or cleverly used this "icon" for political benefit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 01:40:41 PM
To me it sounds like a sophisticated Jewish guilt trip about marrying out.
You may be on to something. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 01:40:41 PM
To me it sounds like a sophisticated Jewish guilt trip about marrying out.
Most Jews who marry out marry people who
look very much like them.
There's probably an evolutionary monkey reason for it, but I have no idea why modern people would feel guilt over the crimes of others. I reject the concept of guilt as anything but individual.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2014, 03:05:36 PM
There's probably an evolutionary monkey reason for it, but I have no idea why modern people would feel guilt over the crimes of others. I reject the concept of guilt as anything but individual.
I agree that guilt (or contrition) should be individual, but responsibility can be collective.
Quote from: Neil on January 23, 2014, 01:07:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 11:30:36 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2014, 11:21:44 AM
Um that was idiotic. Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.
Why?
Because self-hatred is involved in so many facets of human pair bonding, it seems silly to just single out the racial angle.
:lol:
I refuse to be held responsible for anything my ancestors did, regardless of how horrible the crime was. So I won't insist that others be held responsible either.
But I also make the distinction between states and individuals. The German state has moral responsibily to admit guilt, fight revisionism, and take measures to prevent the same from happening.
Quote from: derspiess on January 23, 2014, 09:46:28 AM
What an absurd question.
I'll put you down in the "defiant contempt" category.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 23, 2014, 03:05:36 PM
There's probably an evolutionary monkey reason for it, but I have no idea why modern people would feel guilt over the crimes of others. I reject the concept of guilt as anything but individual.
If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 08:17:16 PM
If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?
Pride is a more fun affectation than shame.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have humanity has a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people species, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
:)
edit: damnit, my point has already been made. Damn work keeping me off Languish! :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on January 23, 2014, 09:17:05 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have humanity has a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people species, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
:)
edit: damnit, my point has already been made. Damn work keeping me off Languish! :mad:
Sure. While we're at it, why not all mammals, or all vertebrates, or all life forms in the universe? :)
Genocides in the literal meaning of the word (in sharp contrast to the new, faggy, definition) are few and far between. And the combination of medieval bigotry and industrial efficiency that was the Holocaust is totally unique in human history.
I don't feel Tibetans have any moral responsibility to guard against their tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Nor do Balians, or Swedes, or Australian aborigines, or most people in the world.
I think you have to at least concede it wasn't just the fault of the Germans. Lots of other people in allied and occupied countries actively helped them perpetrate the Holocaust.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:28:25 PM
Sure. While we're at it, why not all mammals, or all vertebrates, or all life forms in the universe? :)
So it's either all life in the universe, or just the Germans? Nothing in between is possible?
QuoteGenocides in the literal meaning of the word (in sharp contrast to the new, faggy, definition) are few and far between. And the combination of medieval bigotry and industrial efficiency that was the Holocaust is totally unique in human history.
Disagree on the first point (that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy), and would point out that every genocide has been unique in some fashion, so the second point is a tautology.
QuoteI don't feel Tibetans have any moral responsibility to guard against their tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Nor do Balians, or Swedes, or Australian aborigines, or most people in the world.
What makes you think only some groups of people have a "tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups?" How can we tell these groups or people from those who simply haven't manifested a "tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups," but will do so in the future? After all, the Germans prior to, say, 1880 exhibited none of those tendencies, either.
Polacks are single cell organisms.
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2014, 10:25:33 PM
QuoteGenocides in the literal meaning of the word (in sharp contrast to the new, faggy, definition) are few and far between. And the combination of medieval bigotry and industrial efficiency that was the Holocaust is totally unique in human history.
Disagree on the first point (that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy), and would point out that every genocide has been unique in some fashion, so the second point is a tautology.
I think he means he's sticking to the definition of genocide as the actual physical mass-murder of people rather than just forcing them out of a region or, god help us, "cultural genocide."
Or the classic version, killing the men and raping the women.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2014, 09:11:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 08:17:16 PM
If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?
Pride is a more fun affectation than shame.
"It's fun", isn't the most satisfactory answer.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 23, 2014, 11:38:20 AM
I think it is odd to make the responsibility specific to present-day Germans. The real lesson - one that has been taught before and since - is that any people are capable of such an action, and hence all peoples need to guard against a repeat. The significance of the Holocaust and Germany specifically is that present-day Germans may be more likely to have that awareness because of the efforts made to inculcate it into the definition of post-1945 German political culture and ideology.
Pretty much. I don't think there are a dozen different Sonderwegs to explain why all these 20th Century nations went totalitarian and nuts in the mid-20th Century. There's likely not an underlying similarity between Cambodia and Weimar Germany that made them both susceptible to violent national insanity.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 11:06:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 23, 2014, 09:11:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2014, 08:17:16 PM
If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?
Pride is a more fun affectation than shame.
"It's fun", isn't the most satisfactory answer.
Answer was "it's an affectation".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
Racist horseshit. Civilized human beings were capable of doing these things.
Quote from: Agelastus on January 23, 2014, 01:26:34 PMI also fail to understand what's racist about saying something that boils down to "don't get married for the wrong reasons"; is he supposed to dodge the technically accurate wording given the subject of the discussion? Or is there something inaccurate in what was posted above? Did he complain of miscegenation in any other circumstances than that motivated by self-hatred?
The word "miscegenation" in the English language carries a few centuries worth of explicitly racist political agenda as baggage - i.e. anti-miscegenation laws and popularist opposition to mixing with "lesser races". I don't think appeals to being "technically accurate" is going to divest any users of the word of that baggage.
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2014, 12:21:25 AM
The word "miscegenation" in the English language carries a few centuries worth of explicitly racist political agenda as baggage - i.e. anti-miscegenation laws and popularist opposition to mixing with "lesser races". I don't think appeals to being "technically accurate" is going to divest any users of the word of that baggage.
Really? It may have the sort of baggage you claim in the USA. It does not do so to anything like that extent in Britain.
Words don't have "baggage"; people have "baggage".
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2014, 12:21:25 AM
The word "miscegenation" in the English language carries a few centuries worth of explicitly racist political agenda as baggage - i.e. anti-miscegenation laws and popularist opposition to mixing with "lesser races". I don't think appeals to being "technically accurate" is going to divest any users of the word of that baggage.
Indeed, the word itself carries a racist tone because it inherently includes the concept of "race" and, thus "race blending." The human race is already plenty blended. To call out a given marriage as "miscegenation" is impossible except as a racist concept. "Miscegenation" is a social term, not a biological one.
Quote from: Jacob on January 24, 2014, 12:21:25 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on January 23, 2014, 01:26:34 PMI also fail to understand what's racist about saying something that boils down to "don't get married for the wrong reasons"; is he supposed to dodge the technically accurate wording given the subject of the discussion? Or is there something inaccurate in what was posted above? Did he complain of miscegenation in any other circumstances than that motivated by self-hatred?
The word "miscegenation" in the English language carries a few centuries worth of explicitly racist political agenda as baggage - i.e. anti-miscegenation laws and popularist opposition to mixing with "lesser races". I don't think appeals to being "technically accurate" is going to divest any users of the word of that baggage.
Indeed, I've just started using it heavily lately. My best friend is half asian, and he married a white girl that we went to high school with. So I get to use miscegenation from time to time. It's fun.
Ever since my sister in law miscegenated, I've been using the term non-stop!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:28:25 PM
I don't feel Tibetans have any moral responsibility to guard against their tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Nor do Balians, or Swedes, or Australian aborigines, or most people in the world.
The Swedes wiped out the Geats? Brain, any thoughts?
Humans should be very happy for any marriage (or union) which results in children with mixed genetic backgrounds. The goal - maybe not a societal or cultural goal, but certainly the species-level goal - is to mix things up so inherited defects (predilections to certain diseases, etc.) are watered down and spread out, and inherited advantages (resistances to various blights) are spread widely.
Plus mixed race black girls are hotter than the ghetto sistahs.
So...there's an evolutionary explanation for Lettow's and CdM's yellow fever?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
So...there's an evolutionary explanation for Lettow's and CdM's yellow fever?
It certainly would seem so. There's also an evolutionary explanation for why like 101% of Jewish people need glasses.
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 08:33:21 PM
Humans should be very happy for any marriage (or union) which results in children with mixed genetic backgrounds. The goal - maybe not a societal or cultural goal, but certainly the species-level goal - is to mix things up so inherited defects (predilections to certain diseases, etc.) are watered down and spread out, and inherited advantages (resistances to various blights) are spread widely.
That all sounds well and good when you type it out like that. Yet when you try to explain it to the hot Asian chick in the apartment across from you and she slams the door in your face,
you're weird one. Go fig.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
So...there's an evolutionary explanation for Lettow's and CdM's yellow fever?
They cry during sex. According to the pornos.
So hot.
Quote from: Kleves on January 24, 2014, 08:59:21 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 08:33:21 PM
Humans should be very happy for any marriage (or union) which results in children with mixed genetic backgrounds. The goal - maybe not a societal or cultural goal, but certainly the species-level goal - is to mix things up so inherited defects (predilections to certain diseases, etc.) are watered down and spread out, and inherited advantages (resistances to various blights) are spread widely.
That all sounds well and good when you type it out like that. Yet when you try to explain it to the hot Asian chick in the apartment across from you and she slams the door in your face, you're weird one. Go fig.
I can't help you with your game. I can only help you with science.
On another note: fellas, why Asian women?
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
On another note: fellas, why Asian women?
They stay thin until age 60? :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geekinheels.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2Faverage_asian_woman_aging.jpg&hash=8c00cedb40ed8eb81d74c51dc855715737181201)
Great. It's a world of Ides.
I have read that the looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand.
I like skinny chicks. Never boned an Asian. Unless you count Indian. And those were proper westernized ones with good grooming and no desire to call me to tell me I won a 100 dollar gift card.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 24, 2014, 09:14:41 PM
I like skinny chicks. Never boned an Asian. Unless you count Indian. And those were proper westernized ones with good grooming and no desire to call me to tell me I won a 100 dollar gift card.
I dated an Indian girl for a bit in college. Since my sample size was only one, I will not deign to offer any generalized thoughts on the matter. PS: I would like a 100 dollar gift card.
Yeah, me too. Hook me up Boner.
Yi is Asian; does not count.
I'm not Asian; I'm hapa-haole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 24, 2014, 09:28:34 PM
I'm not Asian; I'm hapa-haole.
Really? Why did I think you were Korean?
EDIT: In that case, my apologies for misrepresentation. :(
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
On another note: fellas, why Asian women?
Pros: Lack of body hair. Can be both petite and busty at the same time. Get one with submissive Daddy issues, enjoys rough sex and will interrupt intercourse to suck you off, just because. Have kitty cat eyes.
Cons: High maintenance. Knows there is a premium attached to being a hot Asian chick, will leverage accordingly. Enjoys drama for the sake of drama. Difficult to find in quantity in many markets.
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:27:45 PM
Yi is Asian; does not count.
Yi does not look Asian. Looks like he has some Mestizo, with a splash of Mediterranean.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2014, 09:32:58 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
On another note: fellas, why Asian women?
Pros: Lack of body hair. Can be both petite and busty at the same time. Get one with submissive Daddy issues, enjoys rough sex and will interrupt intercourse to suck you off, just because. Have kitty cat eyes.
Cons: High maintenance. Knows there is a premium attached to being a hot Asian chick, will leverage accordingly. Enjoys drama for the sake of drama. Difficult to find in quantity in many markets.
Duly noted. Although:
1) Body hair can be dealt with, by women who wish to do so.
2) Fair point. But there's something about big R. Crumb-style thighs.
3) I can't possibly argue with that.
4) I don't want to fuck kitty cats.
1) That's not a trait specific to Asian women.
2) I can't possibly argue with that either.
3) This is kind of a dealbreaker, wouldn't you say?
4) SO WIDEN YOUR SCOPE
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:30:02 PM
EDIT: In that case, my apologies for misrepresentation. :(
No offense taken. :)
I ain't sending anybody a gift card. Leeches.
Per biological imperatives: I just had the most adorable, big-boned Indiana-raised petitioner come to my door. She could have asked me to sign a petition to slaughter all the whales in a 500 mile radius and I'd have put pen to paper.
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 08:51:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
So...there's an evolutionary explanation for Lettow's and CdM's yellow fever?
It certainly would seem so. There's also an evolutionary explanation for why like 101% of Jewish people need glasses.
:yeahright: Really? I know that myopia is particularly prevalent in East Asia and afflicts a comfortable majority of adults (I worked on a study about it a long time ago). And that it has historically been nearly absent among indigenous Arctic populations. But Jews, I've never heard that. Other than the high proportion of book learners who ruin their long-distance vision over time. Which is itself an old wives' tale, but one that seems to have some basis in fact.
I don't have a single thing to back it up, Mihali, except that every older Jewish guy I see wears glasses. Nota bene: I am also ethnically Jewish.
Most older guys of every race, ethnicity, creed, and national origin tend to wear glasses though, no? :D
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
Per biological imperatives: I just had the most adorable, big-boned Indiana-raised petitioner come to my door. She could have asked me to sign a petition to slaughter all the whales in a 500 mile radius and I'd have put pen to paper.
LOL.
When I applied for a position in Nebraska, told Mom I would find a nice, healthy corn-fed Midwestern blonde of Northern European descent to breed with.
Sigh. I could really go for a healthy corn-fed Midwestern blonde of Northern European descent right about now.
Hoosier girls are nuts.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2014, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
Per biological imperatives: I just had the most adorable, big-boned Indiana-raised petitioner come to my door. She could have asked me to sign a petition to slaughter all the whales in a 500 mile radius and I'd have put pen to paper.
LOL.
When I applied for a position in Nebraska, told Mom I would find a nice, healthy corn-fed Midwestern blonde of Northern European descent to breed with.
Sigh. I could really go for a healthy corn-fed Midwestern blonde of Northern European descent right about now.
You would love Bloomington Indiana.
Christ, now that I think about it, I've only hit two blondes in the last 20 years. I have more redheads under my belt, with an equal number of Asiatic types. Now that math just don't add up.
edit: brunettes, of course, maintain the plurality.
My wife's healthy blonde sister just became single. She's a personal trainer.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 10:19:01 PM
My wife's healthy blonde sister just became single. She's a personal trainer.
She's be off the market by, oh, I'd say by the 29th.
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:08:56 PM
On another note: fellas, why Asian women?
Asian men are too short?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 10:19:01 PM
My wife's healthy blonde sister just became single. She's a personal trainer.
She's be off the market by, oh, I'd say by the 29th.
I'm guessing a 50 year old dude with cash is gonna be around soon, yeah.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2014, 09:56:08 PM
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
Per biological imperatives: I just had the most adorable, big-boned Indiana-raised petitioner come to my door. She could have asked me to sign a petition to slaughter all the whales in a 500 mile radius and I'd have put pen to paper.
LOL.
When I applied for a position in Nebraska, told Mom I would find a nice, healthy corn-fed Midwestern blonde of Northern European descent to breed with.
Sigh. I could really go for a healthy corn-fed Midwestern blonde of Northern European descent right about now.
It was her first night petitioning, or so she said :) I sat on my porch and smoked a cigar while she talked to me and told her she was "doing great".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 10:21:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 24, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 10:19:01 PM
My wife's healthy blonde sister just became single. She's a personal trainer.
She's be off the market by, oh, I'd say by the 29th.
I'm guessing a 50 year old dude with cash is gonna be around soon, yeah.
Hi.
Quote from: citizen k on January 24, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:28:25 PM
I don't feel Tibetans have any moral responsibility to guard against their tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups. Nor do Balians, or Swedes, or Australian aborigines, or most people in the world.
The Swedes wiped out the Geats? Brain, any thoughts?
We didn't and said we did.
White women is best women.
Quote from: fhdz on January 24, 2014, 09:12:45 PM
Great. It's a world of Ides.
H.G. Wells wrote of this. Unfortunately, the STEM graduates found us delicious.
the Ides....they all died from poor nutrition!
Monsters from the Ide!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 24, 2014, 10:19:01 PM
My wife's healthy blonde sister just became single. She's a personal trainer.
I could use a personal trainer.... :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 23, 2014, 09:41:27 AM
I think Germans have a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.
This is my position as well.
I hold no grudge against Germans.
But then, I did not lose any family member to the Nazis. If I had, I might have a different opinion.
However I would like to think I am mature enough to understand Germany as a nation has truthfully assumed responsibility and therefore I have no moral right to hold such a grudge.