Dude, both my parents are of "Israeli" nationality. So get off your high-horse and forget this Jewish chauvinism crap.Not even close to what I said, but better than usual for you.
Will Hitler be seen in a more positive way in the far future?
- Thread starter christos200
- Start date
- Status
Not anymore, actually. They did once.You mean... your parents both have Israeli citizenship?
Ah, I see. But how does this make "Israeli" a nationality? If I combine Brazil, France, China, and the U.K. into one sovereign state, do the people who live in it consider themselves Sinofrenchbrazilbrits or whatever? They may have the term on their citizenship papers, but they don't really think of themselves as the same people at all.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Actually, this is what I mean: the conviction that Jews form a separate and inviolable nation, and that to be a Jew is by definition something other than a German or a Frenchmen or a Pole, and that a German, Frenchmen or Pole is by definition something other than a Jew. In the hands of gentiles, this is an essentially anti-Semitic position, whether it's used to argue for second-class citizenship here or statehood elsewhere. (And, believe me, there are plenty in Europe who would prefer that to be an either/or proposition for European Jewry.)
This is something which Theodore Hertzl and the other early Zionists were grimly aware, and his personal records are full of bitter acknowledgements of the essential anti-Semitism of most gentile Zionism. He just understood that for his political project to have legs, he had to keep that particular opinion to himself.
Explain America. The creation of national feelings tends to take time, and Israel is a new state. But the concept of Israeli as a nationality certainly exists among my family and friends, and I would hazard that it is more common to think of people as being 'Israeli' than 'Jewish' here in Australia. You certainly seldom hear the term 'Jew' applied to people outside of a religious setting, except, funnily enough, by Jews.
While the idea of an "Israeli nationality" likely didn't exist in the generation immediately following the creation of the Israeli state, it certainly does now. The problem is that such a concept is, due to the politics of the region, intertwined with ethnicity and religion, such as your own post on "Israel being a Jewish state" illustrated. As such, it is very easy for someone who is neither Jewish nor of Jewish descent to claim Israeli nationality in a place like Australia, but might be difficult for them to do in Israel itself, or even the US.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Not to mention, as we've discussed before, that there's really no one Jewish ethnicity, but several related Jewish ethnicities, so even the most stringently "Jewish" Israel is going to be a multi-ethnic state by default, and it is doesn't appear to be the case that Jewish Israelis automatically privilege a shared Jewish identity above more immediate ethnic divisions.
Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil. It would also help if it were kept more or less on topic, or at least involved historical discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, being of Sephardic Jewish descent myself, I think Jews can best be labeled a macro-ethnicity, an ethnicity of ethnicities. If you want, you can view Jews as one ethnicity, but you can also separate the diverse Jewish groups.
The closest counterpart would IMO be the Scandinavian countries, where you could see Swedish, Norwegians et. al as one ethnicity of Scandinavians, but can also be viewed apart.
DemonicAppleGuY
King
Why has no one mentioned the Israelites yet?
Too long ago to be the "Nation of Israel"?
Too long ago to be the "Nation of Israel"?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
In answer to your question. Basically, we've all learned what a baddie Hitler was and the smarter among us have contrasted such depictions with hero-worshiped guys like Julius Caesar or Charlemagne who also committed similar atrocities. If the rule is 'guys who commit inhumane atrocities are always seen as badies', then Julius Caesar-type worship doesn't make sense, does it? So maybe instead what we have is that they are initially seen as baddies, but then after a while the sour taste of genocide fades from the historiographic mouth and the deeper idiosyncrasies of his flavour can be appreciated.
In fact guys like JC were venerated in their time, as were most committers of genocide. Indeed, Stalin and Truman also mass murdered countless civilians, but neither were seen as particularly bad (nor are they really ... Stalin is 'bad' in a very distant sense, Truman generally seen positively).
The truth is Hitler is hated now because his 'baddieness' serves a function for us in the West. He is what happens if you ignore your elites and listen to demagogues, what happens if you start disliking foreigners, what happens if you don't let Israel do what it wants, he is why the Germans are still one of us, and so on and so forth. He is part of the demonology of the modern economic-political system of multiculturalism, mobile international capital and the power of the elites benefiting from it. Hitler the baddie is maintained for contemporary purposes and will continue to be seen that way for as long as those last.
In fact guys like JC were venerated in their time, as were most committers of genocide. Indeed, Stalin and Truman also mass murdered countless civilians, but neither were seen as particularly bad (nor are they really ... Stalin is 'bad' in a very distant sense, Truman generally seen positively).
The truth is Hitler is hated now because his 'baddieness' serves a function for us in the West. He is what happens if you ignore your elites and listen to demagogues, what happens if you start disliking foreigners, what happens if you don't let Israel do what it wants, he is why the Germans are still one of us, and so on and so forth. He is part of the demonology of the modern economic-political system of multiculturalism, mobile international capital and the power of the elites benefiting from it. Hitler the baddie is maintained for contemporary purposes and will continue to be seen that way for as long as those last.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Well, if you take into account the precedents set by - say - Napoleon, you'd wonder why Hitler doesn't receive more attention for his "good" aspects, such as the Autobahn, the fight against Communism, the harmonisation of date and times, the introduction of universal healthcare in the occupied territories (the Dutch universal health care system was introduced by Seyss Inquart), the fight against the colonialism of the British Empire and saving the German people from the excesses of capitalism.
Fortunately, the high profile of his atrocities against Jews and Slavs made sure he got judged as he deserved. The only problem is, that a lot more historical figures deserve such reputation and don't have it.
Fortunately, the high profile of his atrocities against Jews and Slavs made sure he got judged as he deserved. The only problem is, that a lot more historical figures deserve such reputation and don't have it.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
If the questions is will future historians praise Hitler, then, the answer is probably not. He may serve the opposite function as a kind of saint in some sort of dark future order, but other than that probably not. His methods of trying to achieve success for Germany are not those that will produce future success for Germany, and it is in Germany's interests to distance itself from his methods and goals (even if the latter are the same). Maybe they will say he was a great politician, but Hitler took on enemies he could not defeat, and saw his country occupied, raped and plundered, and then divided into three parts.
Historical figures aren't usually evaluated on who they killed, how many and by what means. That's not why Hitler is disliked. It's because of the power of this image of him for current purposes. Likewise, why do Americans idol-worship Washington and the 'founding fathers'? Because they were great men? No. Because veneration of them protects American unity and its institutions (they may have been 'great' of course, but that is very subjective and, more importantly, incidental). Likewise the English venerate Churchill, for opposing Hitler and genocide, though in reality Churchill was a proponent of genocide and differed from Hitler only in his power and what side he was on. The real reason Churchill is venerated is because he is a focal point for collective identity within England, esp. for militaristic purposes.
Historical figures aren't usually evaluated on who they killed, how many and by what means. That's not why Hitler is disliked. It's because of the power of this image of him for current purposes. Likewise, why do Americans idol-worship Washington and the 'founding fathers'? Because they were great men? No. Because veneration of them protects American unity and its institutions (they may have been 'great' of course, but that is very subjective and, more importantly, incidental). Likewise the English venerate Churchill, for opposing Hitler and genocide, though in reality Churchill was a proponent of genocide and differed from Hitler only in his power and what side he was on. The real reason Churchill is venerated is because he is a focal point for collective identity within England, esp. for militaristic purposes.
I choose to read this as saying that Jesus Christ committed genocide.Pangur Bán;12850716 said:
Historical figures who committed atrocities, such as Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and the like, tend to receive respect because they; accomplished some truly great things at the same time; had great publicity both before and after their deaths; their atrocities weren't that much worse than the norm at the time in which they lived.
Napoleon committed quite few atrocities himself, with his biggest being an attempted genocide in Haiti. But those he did commit are forgotten because Napoleon lived for ten years after his defeat, spending most of the time compiling memoirs that shifted the blame for his vices onto others whilst taking sole credit for his successes. As popular perception of history lags one hundred years behind academia, those claims are still accepted today.
Julius Caesar's atrocities in Gaul weren't really any worse than the norm at the time. He also instituted great reforms to the Roman state and died at the height of his power, before he could be laid low by fortune. His nephew later became the first Roman Emperor and glorified his uncle, as did later emperors. The manner of Caesar's death also helped his image; it's hard not to feel sympathy for a man stabbed to death by a mob, especially when that mob is comprised of aristocrats who are killing him because he's a threat to their power. Doubly so when several of them purported to be Caesar's friends. Dante didn't single out Brutus for punishment in his Inferno for the hell of it.
Genghis Khan... Yeah, outside of Mouthwash and the citizenry of Mongolia, does anyone actually venerate Genghis Khan?
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
I wouldn't call Stalin, Churchill or Truman genocidaires. Criminally complicit in killing, for sure.
I also find various winguts and anti-communist liberals implicitly downplaying Hitler's atrocities to make Stalin look bad to be depressingly common.
I also find various winguts and anti-communist liberals implicitly downplaying Hitler's atrocities to make Stalin look bad to be depressingly common.
Russian Eurasianists, as a consequence of their positive perception of Mongolia in general. They're quite a specific phenomena, though.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Neither were Hitler's. Nor that of Stalin's, or Hirohito's or whomever. Thanks to each other, these became the norm. Prior to the Holocaust the Beligan genocide in the Congo, the Armenian genocide, the Herero Massacres and the Imperial Russian pogroms all had happened and at large those were forgotten/forgiven. You would think that it would set up Hitler for a world with a moral vision that largely viewed these as necessary and normal.
However, arguably, the goals of the game shifted, and states were expected to be "moral", because of the allies' appeals to morality to gain several niche states on their side by the war's conclusion, including Argentina, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Everyone was made to hate Hitler. Rightfully so, but it is weird that the "Hitler-moment" happened rather late.
The Holocaust exceeded the Armenian Genocide dramatically in its size and brutality, with the latter itself exceeding previous genocides by a wide margin. "Appeals to morality" had nothing to do with most states who joined the Allies in the latter stages of the war. They simply jumped on the bandwagon so as to be included in the post-war discussions.
It also helps to remember that the Holocaust wasn't known to the public until after the war. Even the Western Allies had trouble believing the extent of it. Prior to winning they had a fairly limited range of information. Polish sources told them that the Nazis were straight out murdering people on a massive scale. But the Western Allies didn't credit that as reliable intelligence. Reconnaissance photos also showed some weird activity going on at camps. But that was explained away for the most part. Really, it wasn't until the Allies won and had time to go through Nazi records, interview those involved and digest the scale of the horrors that understood what happened. Most of the stuff directly after the war - showing people around the camps - was intended to deal with the visible parts of the Holocaust - the limited numbers of bodies on display - and not to address the entirety of the Holocaust itself.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Trust me, no-one cares about genocide or whatever word you want to use to describe mass scale killings. Rationalization of it in your line of argument above is a waste of time. Guys are great or bad depending on how they serve the social order. JC and Augustus were great because they served as the basis of legitimacy of future emperors. The stuff you are talking about is incidental, being incorporated into narratives about such figures later to sustain such greatness. Truman and Stalin aren't baddies not because they didn't order mass killings of civilians, they did, but few really cared and such baddieness would serve social order poorly (though in Stalin's case, Stalin the baddie does exist to some extent to discourage communism, as a warning of the dangers of Moscow rule, and so on), . Few cared about Hitler's killings at the time either, we only care now because he has become a demonic figure whose baddiness serves our social order (see above).
- Status
Similar threads
