Ken Burns: U.S. & the Holocaust

[ProfX]

I love all his work, but I think for obvious reasons this is one I'm really keeping an eye on.

Ken Burns’ PBS documentary ‘The U.S. And The Holocaust’ asks hard questions about how Americans treated Jews and immigrants during wartime
https://www.jta.org/2022/09/02/culture/ ... ng-wartime

One of the first people introduced in Ken Burns’ new documentary series about the Holocaust is Otto, a Jewish man seen in the series’ first episode who tries to secure passage to America for his family but gets stymied by the country’s fierce anti-immigration legislation.

It isn’t until the third episode that viewers learn that Otto’s daughter is nicknamed Anne, and the pieces fall into place: He’s the father of Anne Frank, the Holocaust’s most famous victim.

Burns calls the delayed detail a “hidden ball trick,” hoping that an audience with only passing knowledge of the Frank family will not immediately clue into the fact that Otto was Anne’s father. Burns and his co-directors, two Jewish filmmakers, want their viewers to ponder the question of what the U.S. government felt Anne’s life was worth when she was still a living, breathing Jewish child and not yet a world-famous author and martyr of the human condition.

“It was important to us to look at a way in which you can rearrange the familiar tropes so that you see: This is a family that is getting the hell out of Germany, and hoping eventually to put more distance between them by going to the United States, which basically in the majority of the citizens and in the policy of its government does not want them,” Burns told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

[sni]

Produced in partnership with the museum and the USC Shoah Foundation, and drawing on the latest research about the time period, the resulting six-hour series explores the events of the Holocaust in granular detail. But it also chronicles the xenophobic and antisemitic climate in America in the years leading up to the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews: a nation largely hostile to any kind of refugee, particularly Jewish ones, and reluctant to intervene in a war on their behalf.

The series paints a picture of a country largely failing the century’s greatest moral crisis, through a combination of bureaucratic ineptitude, political skittishness and open bigotry emanating from the streets to the most vaunted chambers of power — while a handful of heroes, working mostly on the sidelines, succeeded in helping small numbers of people.

[snip]

The filmmakers hope such a message will have modern resonance, especially as it arrives in a very different world from the one in which work on it began: amid a growing climate of authoritarian governments, right-wing extremism, Holocaust denialism and fierce debates over how to frame American history in the classroom.

[snip]

It is also supplemented by extensive interviews with Holocaust survivors and historians, most prominently Deborah Lipstadt, an influential Holocaust scholar and currently the U.S. State Department’s special envoy on antisemitism. Lipstadt delivers what the directors saw as the film’s most haunting conclusion: that the Nazis achieved their goal of permanently crippling the global Jewish population, which has not been fully replenished in the decades since the Holocaust.

The American focus means the film takes 30 minutes to arrive in Germany. The timeline begins not with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power but with the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, an American law that set national quotas on all immigrants to the country and would come to factor heavily into U.S. refugee policy during Europe’s mass expulsion of Jews.

The filmmakers take a wide sweep in establishing the racist political climate of the time, discussing the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 19th century; Theodore Roosevelt’s love of eugenics; Henry Ford’s public campaign of antisemitism; and Jim Crow laws, which rendered Black people second-class citizens and which Hitler would eventually draw from when crafting his own race laws.

[sni]

As it details the horrors unfolding in Europe, the film focuses on the rise of Nazi-sympathizer movements on the homefront, including the America First Committee, and breaks down the tensions within the State Department, where antisemitic officials in positions of power undermined efforts to intervene diplomatically on the behalf of Jews.

The film also discusses divisions within the American Jewish community over whether to let in so many Jewish refugees. Twenty-five percent of American Jews at the time didn’t want to let any more in, some because they looked down on the Eastern European refugees as poor and unassimilated, and others because they were scared of making life worse for the Jews still in Europe if they spoke out too forcefully.

“It took me a while to really get my mind around the idea that there was a significant voice within a powerful Jewish American community that [believed] we shouldn’t say too much because it will just stir the pot and awaken more antisemitism,” Novick said.

[snip]

And also, Novick said, because the filmmakers have noticed the rise of various far-right, white supremacist ideologies, including many figures who espouse Holocaust denial. “It’s a never-ending battle that has to be fought,” she said. The film itself doesn’t engage with such denialists.

[snip]

The producers asked JTA not to give away the details of the film’s ending — an unusual request for a Holocaust documentary. But the reason is that Burns and his team don’t end with the camps’ liberation in 1945. Instead, they come up to the present, in unexpected ways.

“Most of our films come up to the present,” Burns said. “And we would be remiss if we did not take on this most gargantuan of topics, and not say that this is rhyming so much with the present.”

When asked why the film makes some of the connections it makes, Burns quoted a line Lipstadt delivers in the film: “If ‘the time to stop a Holocaust is before it happens,’ then it means you have to lay on the table the ingredients that go into it. Maybe these ingredients don’t add up to it… But if you’re seeing people assembling, in the kitchen, the same ingredients, you’ve got to say, you cannot wait until the meal is prepared.”

[snip][end]

I think I know how the documentary is going to end. I think I know who will get upset by it. That's cuz I'm psychic.

[bird]

I know that it got panned but I read “Human Smoke” which was sad and chilling.

[Glennfs]

I love all his work, but I think for obvious reasons this is one I'm really keeping an eye on.

Ken Burns’ PBS documentary ‘The U.S. And The Holocaust’ asks hard questions about how Americans treated Jews and immigrants during wartime
https://www.jta.org/2022/09/02/culture/ ... ng-wartime

One of the first people introduced in Ken Burns’ new documentary series about the Holocaust is Otto, a Jewish man seen in the series’ first episode who tries to secure passage to America for his family but gets stymied by the country’s fierce anti-immigration legislation.

It isn’t until the third episode that viewers learn that Otto’s daughter is nicknamed Anne, and the pieces fall into place: He’s the father of Anne Frank, the Holocaust’s most famous victim.

Burns calls the delayed detail a “hidden ball trick,” hoping that an audience with only passing knowledge of the Frank family will not immediately clue into the fact that Otto was Anne’s father. Burns and his co-directors, two Jewish filmmakers, want their viewers to ponder the question of what the U.S. government felt Anne’s life was worth when she was still a living, breathing Jewish child and not yet a world-famous author and martyr of the human condition.

“It was important to us to look at a way in which you can rearrange the familiar tropes so that you see: This is a family that is getting the hell out of Germany, and hoping eventually to put more distance between them by going to the United States, which basically in the majority of the citizens and in the policy of its government does not want them,” Burns told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

[sni]

Produced in partnership with the museum and the USC Shoah Foundation, and drawing on the latest research about the time period, the resulting six-hour series explores the events of the Holocaust in granular detail. But it also chronicles the xenophobic and antisemitic climate in America in the years leading up to the Nazi genocide of Europe’s Jews: a nation largely hostile to any kind of refugee, particularly Jewish ones, and reluctant to intervene in a war on their behalf.

The series paints a picture of a country largely failing the century’s greatest moral crisis, through a combination of bureaucratic ineptitude, political skittishness and open bigotry emanating from the streets to the most vaunted chambers of power — while a handful of heroes, working mostly on the sidelines, succeeded in helping small numbers of people.

[snip]

The filmmakers hope such a message will have modern resonance, especially as it arrives in a very different world from the one in which work on it began: amid a growing climate of authoritarian governments, right-wing extremism, Holocaust denialism and fierce debates over how to frame American history in the classroom.

[snip]

It is also supplemented by extensive interviews with Holocaust survivors and historians, most prominently Deborah Lipstadt, an influential Holocaust scholar and currently the U.S. State Department’s special envoy on antisemitism. Lipstadt delivers what the directors saw as the film’s most haunting conclusion: that the Nazis achieved their goal of permanently crippling the global Jewish population, which has not been fully replenished in the decades since the Holocaust.

The American focus means the film takes 30 minutes to arrive in Germany. The timeline begins not with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power but with the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, an American law that set national quotas on all immigrants to the country and would come to factor heavily into U.S. refugee policy during Europe’s mass expulsion of Jews.

The filmmakers take a wide sweep in establishing the racist political climate of the time, discussing the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 19th century; Theodore Roosevelt’s love of eugenics; Henry Ford’s public campaign of antisemitism; and Jim Crow laws, which rendered Black people second-class citizens and which Hitler would eventually draw from when crafting his own race laws.

[sni]

As it details the horrors unfolding in Europe, the film focuses on the rise of Nazi-sympathizer movements on the homefront, including the America First Committee, and breaks down the tensions within the State Department, where antisemitic officials in positions of power undermined efforts to intervene diplomatically on the behalf of Jews.

The film also discusses divisions within the American Jewish community over whether to let in so many Jewish refugees. Twenty-five percent of American Jews at the time didn’t want to let any more in, some because they looked down on the Eastern European refugees as poor and unassimilated, and others because they were scared of making life worse for the Jews still in Europe if they spoke out too forcefully.

“It took me a while to really get my mind around the idea that there was a significant voice within a powerful Jewish American community that [believed] we shouldn’t say too much because it will just stir the pot and awaken more antisemitism,” Novick said.

[snip]

And also, Novick said, because the filmmakers have noticed the rise of various far-right, white supremacist ideologies, including many figures who espouse Holocaust denial. “It’s a never-ending battle that has to be fought,” she said. The film itself doesn’t engage with such denialists.

[snip]

The producers asked JTA not to give away the details of the film’s ending — an unusual request for a Holocaust documentary. But the reason is that Burns and his team don’t end with the camps’ liberation in 1945. Instead, they come up to the present, in unexpected ways.

“Most of our films come up to the present,” Burns said. “And we would be remiss if we did not take on this most gargantuan of topics, and not say that this is rhyming so much with the present.”

When asked why the film makes some of the connections it makes, Burns quoted a line Lipstadt delivers in the film: “If ‘the time to stop a Holocaust is before it happens,’ then it means you have to lay on the table the ingredients that go into it. Maybe these ingredients don’t add up to it… But if you’re seeing people assembling, in the kitchen, the same ingredients, you’ve got to say, you cannot wait until the meal is prepared.”

[snip][end]

I think I know how the documentary is going to end. I think I know who will get upset by it. That's cuz I'm psychic.

As a Jewish man do you have any personal opinion on why Jewish people have been so maligned throughout history.
It truly baffles me.

[ProfX]

I would argue most anti-Semitism up until the 19th century was largely driven by Christian theology, particularly ideas like supercessionism, and deicide (the Catholic Church accused the Jews of killing Jesus up until they finally revoked this doctrine in the 1960s). There was this idea that Jews were somehow enemies of the Christian faith. Therefore, various conspiracies would often be attributed to Jews. They were accused of creating and spreading the Black Plague to Christians by poisoning the wells of Europe - this is literally where the phrase "poisoning the well" comes from. There were all kinds of strange rumors that in the Talmud, Jews secretly declared Gentiles to be their "cattle" who could be manipulated or subjugated, this is why it was often burned at public burnings in the Middle Ages. There was a widespread rumor that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzoh - the source of the infamous blood libel.

Another aspect of this was that, because of Church rules regarding moneylending, Jews were sometimes the only people in Christendom doing banking, and this created a lot of hostility toward them. It's where Shakespeare's Shylock stereotype comes from, the evil usurious moneylender who if he can't get a pound of gold, will take a pound of your flesh, instead. Jews become associated with greed, usury, and exploitation (as if no other groups have these traits ... )

All of this I think converges in the late 19th century with the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's a forgery: full stop. Historians have said it's almost entirely plagiarized from another work by Maurice Joly. It looks like the Protocols were first forged and disseminated by the Tsarist Secret Police, the Okhrana, in Russia. The Protocols purport to be a meeting of Jewish rabbis in elders in a cemetery in Prague, where they hatch a series of "protocols" for how they will take over and rule the world. Henry Ford believed they were real, he published them in his Dearborn Independent in the 1920s; so did his buddy Adolf Hitler, he too thought they were real.

So there's one other thread that I think ties into this. And it's key to understanding the Holocaust. I think the other thing that happens in the 19th century is that a eugenicist, "racial" viewpoint also becomes part of anti-Semitism. Increasingly, people like Wilhelm Marr argue that Jews are not just a different ethnic, religious, or linguistic group; no, instead they are a "Semitic race" which is both inferior and antithetical to the "Aryan race" (supposedly and so-called) of other Teutonic Germans. There is literally a difference "in the blood," in the genes. So Hitler's hatred of the Jews was driven by his belief in the Protocols, in this weird belief that Jews were intrinsically part of some "Judaeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy against the West; and finally this strange view that Jews were a different "race" than that of other Germans, and not only that but that "race" was intrinsically antithetical and dangerous to the racial purity of so-called "Aryans".

BTW ... as I've said many times, the Germans felt this way about handicapped and disabled people (who were the first targets of the T4 Aktion program), gays, some other European groups (like the Slavs of Eastern Europe), and Gypsies/Romani ... so this "Aryan supremacy" doctrine had other targets ... it's just that the largest and most targeted group were Jews.

All this converges in the late 30s and early 40s ... and then the Final Solution.

There are STILL white nationalists today who claim Jews are not "really" white or are somehow enemies of the "white race" ... because they are actually "Semites" (though to be clear, Semite is an ethno-linguistic group, not a race); these ideas did not die when the Third Reich ended.

[carmenjonze]

I would argue most anti-Semitism up until the 19th century was largely driven by Christian theology, particularly ideas like supercessionism, and deicide (the Catholic Church accused the Jews of killing Jesus up until they finally revoked this doctrine in the 1960s). There was this idea that Jews were somehow enemies of the Christian faith. Therefore, various conspiracies would often be attributed to Jews. They were accused of creating and spreading the Black Plague to Christians by poisoning the wells of Europe - this is literally where the phrase "poisoning the well" comes from. There were all kinds of strange rumors that in the Talmud, Jews secretly declared Gentiles to be their "cattle" who could be manipulated or subjugated, this is why it was often burned at public burnings in the Middle Ages. There was a widespread rumor that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzoh - the source of the infamous blood libel.

Another aspect of this was that, because of Church rules regarding moneylending, Jews were sometimes the only people in Christendom doing banking, and this created a lot of hostility toward them. It's where Shakespeare's Shylock stereotype comes from, the evil usurious moneylender who if he can't get a pound of gold, will take a pound of your flesh, instead. Jews become associated with greed, usury, and exploitation (as if no other groups have these traits ... )

All of this I think converges in the late 19th century with the publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's a forgery: full stop. Historians have said it's almost entirely plagiarized from another work by Maurice Joly. It looks like the Protocols were first forged and disseminated by the Tsarist Secret Police, the Okhrana, in Russia. The Protocols purport to be a meeting of Jewish rabbis in elders in a cemetery in Prague, where they hatch a series of "protocols" for how they will take over and rule the world. Henry Ford believed they were real, he published them in his Dearborn Independent in the 1920s; so did his buddy Adolf Hitler, he too thought they were real.

So there's one other thread that I think ties into this. And it's key to understanding the Holocaust. I think the other thing that happens in the 19th century is that a eugenicist, "racial" viewpoint also becomes part of anti-Semitism. Increasingly, people like Wilhelm Marr argue that Jews are not just a different ethnic, religious, or linguistic group; no, instead they are a "Semitic race" which is both inferior and antithetical to the "Aryan race" (supposedly and so-called) of other Teutonic Germans. There is literally a difference "in the blood," in the genes. So Hitler's hatred of the Jews was driven by his belief in the Protocols, in this weird belief that Jews were intrinsically part of some "Judaeo-Bolshevik" conspiracy against the West; and finally this strange view that Jews were a different "race" than that of other Germans, and not only that but that "race" was intrinsically antithetical and dangerous to the racial purity of so-called "Aryans".

BTW ... as I've said many times, the Germans felt this way about handicapped and disabled people (who were the first targets of the T4 Aktion program), gays, some other European groups (like the Slavs of Eastern Europe), and Gypsies/Romani ... so this "Aryan supremacy" doctrine had other targets ... it's just that the largest and most targeted group were Jews.

All this converges in the late 30s and early 40s ... and then the Final Solution.

There are STILL white nationalists today who claim Jews are not "really" white or are somehow enemies of the "white race" ... because they are actually "Semites" (though to be clear, Semite is an ethno-linguistic group, not a race); these ideas did not die when the Third Reich ended.

They can't even define "the white race," because there is no set definition. Especially not in this country. Not in Latin American countries, not in old colonizer countries, and sure as heck not in Europe.

This country got in a world of trouble trying to play the pure blood game. TF is "one drop" of blood...

[carmenjonze]

As a Jewish man do you have any personal opinion on why Jewish people have been so maligned throughout history.
It truly baffles me.

Well, I think this is a lie you tell yourself.

You're not baffled as to why conservative whites would commit mass murder when a perceived color line was crossed.

Antisemitism is not the same hatred as infamous white-conservative race/color hatred. But they are related, and often intertwined.

And they are always imposed legally and in public policy by the same group of people: conservative whites.

[Glennfs]

My wife's grandmother was a polish catholic who lived almost 100 years. She blamed Jews for killing Christ.

It just seems that people need someone to hate

[Glennfs]

Well, I think this is a lie you tell yourself.

You're not baffled as to why conservative whites would commit mass murder when a perceived color line was crossed.

Antisemitism is not the same hatred as infamous white-conservative race/color hatred. But they are related, and often intertwined.

And they are always imposed legally and in public policy by the same group of people: conservative whites.

Can you occasionally give that a rest.

[carmenjonze]

I love all his work, but I think for obvious reasons this is one I'm really keeping an eye on.

Ken Burns’ PBS documentary ‘The U.S. And The Holocaust’ asks hard questions about how Americans treated Jews and immigrants during wartime
https://www.jta.org/2022/09/02/culture/ ... ng-wartime

Looking forward to this.

The American focus means the film takes 30 minutes to arrive in Germany. The timeline begins not with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power but with the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, an American law that set national quotas on all immigrants to the country and would come to factor heavily into U.S. refugee policy during Europe’s mass expulsion of Jews.

The filmmakers take a wide sweep in establishing the racist political climate of the time, discussing the Chinese Exclusion Act of the 19th century; Theodore Roosevelt’s love of eugenics; Henry Ford’s public campaign of antisemitism; and Jim Crow laws, which rendered Black people second-class citizens and which Hitler would eventually draw from when crafting his own race laws.

Haha so Ken Burns has been reading my posts, then. lol

Seriously, though, this is something to purchase when it comes out.

[carmenjonze]

Can you occasionally give that a rest.

you have actual neo-nazis, neo-Confederates, alt-right, and white nationalists running your party and its propaganda arms.

Since you guys are trying it again as I write this, and you plan to vote for it, I see no reason why I should, ever.

Go tell them to give it a rest. Maybe I'll think about it.

[carmenjonze]

My wife's grandmother was a polish catholic who lived almost 100 years. She blamed Jews for killing Christ.

It just seems that people need someone to hate

All this is is a rationalization for extremist antisemitism.

It's how extremist antisemitism thrives and proliferates.

[Glennfs]

All this is is a rationalization for extremist antisemitism.

It's how extremist antisemitism thrives and proliferates.

No I was affirming what the prof said about Catholics blaming jews for killing Christ

[ProfX]

So the Catholic Church finally issues this encyclical in the mid-1960s ... it absolves the Jews of deicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostra_aetate

Following an approach by Jules Isaac, a French-born Jew who was associated with the Seelisberg Conference of the International Council of Christians and Jews, in which, he claimed that what he called "Christian antisemitism", had prepared the way for the Holocaust, a sympathetic Pope John XXIII endorsed the creation of a document which would address a new, less adversarial, approach to the relationship between the Catholic Church and Rabbinic Judaism.

[snip][end]

So you may have heard of so-called "traditionalist" Catholics who repudiate the Second Vatican Council; that would include Mel Gibson's Papa, btw; this means, most notably, they reject the absolution of Nostra Aetate.

Unfortunately, as I've stated earlier, Martin Luther's views on the Jews, especially late in life, were not any better, and thus it's not like all this can be laid on the Catholic Church; Protestants often shared in the same views.

... anyhoo, historically, assuming the man existed, ... many historians find the Gospel accounts, well, ridiculously ahistorical. The Pontius Pilate of history wouldn't have hesitated to crucify anybody, Jews included, and would hardly need to be forced to do so by a baying or crying mob. This practice of offering some person up to be released while crucifying another instead (i.e. Jesus vs. Barabbas) ... there are no examples of that.

If the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus killed, they would have sentenced him to death by stoning. The fact that he was crucified shows, of course, he was considered a threat to the Roman Empire. He was executed by Romans for the charge of sedition, a crime against the Empire; this idea that there were Jews asking for him to be crucified, crying or baying for it to the procurator ... made up nonsense.

In fact, if you truly understand the attack on the moneychangers in the Temple ... assuming it was a historical event ... you can see why he was crucified. Because their function in the temple was to change Israelite shekels for Roman denarii so Jewish pilgrims could pay the Temple tax to Rome. Every time Jews went to the temple, they were paying a tax for the upkeep of their oppressor, the Roman Empire and the emperor ... this is the REAL reason why the moneychangers were unpopular. And exactly why Jesus' attack on them would have been seen as the crime of sedition.

[Glennfs]

you have actual neo-nazis, neo-Confederates, alt-right, and white nationalists running your party and its propaganda arms.

Since you guys are trying it again as I write this, and you plan to vote for it, I see no reason why I should, ever.

Go tell them to give it a rest. Maybe I'll think about it.

It would be just as easy to constantly bring up inner city gang violence.
Some people are just rotten and their race ha sds nothing to do with it.
8 killed 46 wounded in Chicago this weekend

[carmenjonze]

No I was affirming what the prof said about Catholics blaming jews for killing Christ

Dismissing antisemitism with a statement like "It just seems that people need someone to hate" is a version of the mindless "that's just the way it is."

No, it is not just the way it is.

People choose to believe this trash. They do not have to believe this trash.

[ProfX]

My wife's grandmother was a polish catholic who lived almost 100 years. She blamed Jews for killing Christ.

It just seems that people need someone to hate

The problem with putting this on individuals, her grandma or anybody else, is it kinda overlooks that that was Church DOCTRINE up until the mid-1960s.

Visit a lot of Medieval cathedrals, you'll frequently see this set of allegorical statues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_and_Synagoga

"Ecclesia" or the Church is often depicted as a triumphant, powerful, victorious female.
"Synagoga" or the Synagogue of the Jews is depicted as a shamed, fallen, sinful woman who bows her head to the other woman.

The imagery, the symbolism, the message is clear: with the arrival of the Church, the Jews are obsolete at best, and a threat at worst.

People were marinated in these ideas and symbols for centuries; it wasn't just that "people need someone to hate".

[Glennfs]

The problem with putting this on individuals, her grandma or anybody else, is it kinda overlooks that that was Church DOCTRINE up until the mid-1960s.

She was of that generation born prior to 1920. Evidently in Poland Jewish people were widely hated because of church doctrine.

[ProfX]

Not just Poland.

There is a reason Rome and many other cities had a Ghetto. You've heard of the Warsaw Ghetto, but there were Ghettoes for Jews in Rome, cities throughout Italy, and throughout Europe.

[Glennfs]

Dismissing antisemitism with a statement like "It just seems that people need someone to hate" is a version of the mindless "that's just the way it is."

No, it is not just the way it is.

People choose to believe this trash. They do not have to believe this trash.

You surely know history far better than I do. But, it seems no matter how far you go back humans have always picked a group of people to hate.
I know you've heard of pecking order. It isn't a phrase it is true. In the chicken coup the chickens will pick out one chicken and over time will peck it to death. Usually takes a few weeks.
Seems we aren't much different than chickens.

[gounion]

It would be just as easy to constantly bring up inner city gang violence.
Some people are just rotten and their race ha sds nothing to do with it.
8 killed 46 wounded in Chicago this weekend

It has a lot to do with the surroundings. When you have few ways out of a situation, people can go bad. But I don't believe anyone is born that way.

I just read some things about Al Capone, for instance. He wasn't raised as a thug - his dad was an honest laborer. But Capone fell in with the "wrong crowd".

[gounion]

You surely know history far better than I do. But, it seems no matter how far you go back humans have always picked a group of people to hate.
I know you've heard of pecking order. It isn't a phrase it is true. In the chicken coup the chickens will pick out one chicken and over time will peck it to death. Usually takes a few weeks.
Seems we aren't much different than chickens.

You mean, how you look down on liberals as going to destroy our nation? Your support of Trump is just to keep us from destroying everything?

You mean like that?

[carmenjonze]

It would be just as easy to constantly bring up inner city gang violence.

Well, you're lazy, so I am not surprised you would choose the quickest, dirtiest white-nationalist stereotype there is.

Some people are just rotten and their race ha sds nothing to do with it.
8 killed 46 wounded in Chicago this weekend

Never said "race" has anything to do with it. Race is not chosen. Conservative ideology is. Conservative ideology in the service of white supremacism is also chosen. It's also your nistory.

Fact is, this country is purposefully biased against nonwhites and has a deep streak of antisemitic laws in addition to anti-Black/anti-racial minority laws.

Writing off these policy choices as "some people are just rotten" is lazy thinking and does not explain the situation.

Conservative whites were the ones who set these policies in motion against the Jewish people.

Not simply during WW2 but from the outset of this country before it was even a country.

No other group made those immigration laws, no other people devised race-restrictive lending and rental coveneants against Jews, no other people excluded Jews from higher education. Only one.

Say, did you know Joe McCarthy just so happened to be a raging antisemite? You shouldn't be. No other people targeted Jewish professors and intellectual during Red-bating Commiebaiting Central: HUAC and the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

[carmenjonze]

The problem with putting this on individuals, her grandma or anybody else, is it kinda overlooks that that was Church DOCTRINE up until the mid-1960s.

It also is meant to sidestep just how deep the religious antisemtism goes, and how deep the policy/legal antisemitism goes.

This is why they don't want The Diary of Anne Frank taught.

[Glennfs]

Well, you're lazy, so I am not surprised you would choose the quickest, dirtiest white-nationalist stereotype there is.



Never said "race" has anything to do with it. Race is not chosen. Conservative ideology is. Conservative ideology in the service of white supremacism is also chosen. It's also your nistory.

Fact is, this country is purposefully biased against nonwhites and has a deep streak of antisemitic laws in addition to anti-Black/anti-racial minority laws.

Writing off these policy choices as "some people are just rotten" is lazy thinking and does not explain the situation.

Conservative whites were the ones who set these policies in motion against the Jewish people.

Not simply during WW2 but from the outset of this country before it was even a country.

No other group made those immigration laws, no other people devised race-restrictive lending and rental coveneants against Jews, no other people excluded Jews from higher education. Only one.

Say, did you know Joe McCarthy just so happened to be a raging antisemite? You shouldn't be. No other people targeted Jewish professors and intellectual during Red-bating Commiebaiting Central: HUAC and the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

If we were going to list antisemitic leaders starting with 1970 going backwards we would be here all night.
I think but could be wrong that JFK might make that list.
Thankfully people evolve over time.
Gotta run good conversation with everyone tonight I truly enjoyed it.

[gounion]

If we were going to list antisemitic leaders starting with 1970 going backwards we would be here all night.
I think but could be wrong that JFK might make that list.
Thankfully people evolve over time.
Gotta run good conversation with everyone tonight I truly enjoyed it.

You mean a politician could have been against gay marriage in the eighties, but in favor of it in the 2010's?