Ken Burns: U.S. & the Holocaust

[carmenjonze]

If we were going to list antisemitic leaders starting with 1970 going backwards we would be here all night.

Especially if "we" included the conservative whites writing antisemitic bills, antisemitic immigration policies, shutting Jewish people out of universities, schools, and entire neighborhoods.

I think but could be wrong that JFK might make that list.

Source, please.

Please leave aside the whuddubboutery. JFK was not a commiebaiter.

Thankfully people evolve over time.

Hm, do they, tho? Which people are you talking about?

Your entire party leverages a violent mob that relies on threats of civil war, 1950s Red Scare/Lavender Scare commiebaiting, and distinct, easy-to-recognize forms of antisemitism to grow itself.

You personally are a commiebaiter in the style of Joe McCarthy, as if 1952 never ended. Nice going.

[bird]

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...

There is, as you know, no such thing as race, period. Glen should know this.

[bird]

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

The Prof laid out excellent commentary.

I would add that you can start with the so-called Gospel of John which is highly anti-Semitic. It and the Apocalypse of John were allegedly debated whether they were “scripture” at Nicaea. Imo, neither should have been included. Furthermore the probable earliest Christian writing is not the Gospels but the Acts of the Apostles which establishes Paul’s bona vides, again, allegedly.

[ProfX]

Especially if "we" included the conservative whites writing antisemitic bills, antisemitic immigration policies, shutting Jewish people out of universities, schools, and entire neighborhoods.

Remember, the Burns doc is not about the Holocaust itself, there have been many good documentaries on that subject. It's about the U.S. response, and in particular something I've pointed to many times ... many Jews tried to escape Europe in the 30s, including Otto Frank (Anne's dad), and the U.S. shut the door on them, refusing to allow them in as refugees.

The 1924 Immigration "Reform" Act, drafted by eugenicists and nativists, pretty much shut down immigration of a variety of groups from Europe, but Jews for sure. In their hour of need, the Jews could not escape to the U.S. In the 30s, a number of anti-Semitic pricks at the State Department like Long who basically refused to increase the refugee quotas.

As I've said, people should read Mein Kampf. It's a monstrous vision, the work of a diseased mind; but what I find relevant in it is that Hitler notably cites with approval a number of American eugenicists, and points to U.S. policies like our Native reservations as "inspirational" for his vision for Germany.

This is even before we get to groups like the Bund who openly supported the Nazis ... or the America First Committee, whose leaders like Lindbergh and Henry Ford did so tacitly.

[carmenjonze]

There is, as you know, no such thing as race, period. Glen should know this.

Well, I would put it this way. There isn’t, but there is. Race is a social construct and social constructs are real in that they exist.

Racism is also real as rain, as doling out gimme’s and goodies based on so-called/supposed race is built into our laws and social structures.

Those of us who are visibly racialized, whose communities have to contend with and beat back the ass-end of racism, can attest to this.

Biological race is a concept that belongs right in the trash; same for these ever-shifting legal definitions. Especially when it comes to that concept of white.

The whole country is based in these constructs. And yes I also agree fully that Glennfs knows this.

All conservative whites know the hoax they play on themselves about their supposed superiority. It’s mostly government-manufactured with the addition of the flimsy cultural lies these people tell themselves.

[ProfX]

So, I was just talking about race as a social construct, the other day, and I often note this.

Social constructs can have social reality, even if they are not scientifically or biologically real or valid. Money is a social construct.

Disney Bucks: they had a picture of Mickey Mouse on them. They were accepted as legal tender in the Disney parks, but once you were outside ... the cashier was NOT going to take something with Mickey's picture on it. Like GoU says, it IS like Tinkerbell, it has value as long as everybody claps to keep it alive. But, as Ike often said, if society collapses, the only thing your gold bricks are worth is throwing at somebody's head. This is even without getting into things like crypto.

Yes, race is a fiction, but Hitler's claim of an "Aryan Race" was the biggest joke pulled ever, there never was any such thing. He himself did not belong to his heroic fantasy of blonde-haired, tall, blue-eyed supermen whose greatness built all of European civilization. And, as I've said, there is no such thing as a "Semitic race" either. There are Semitic languages and cultures, yes (Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages) ... but not a Semitic "race". But the Third Reich built policies around this racial pseudoscience.

[bird]

CJ and ProfX,

Yes, of course, the social construct is real meaning that human react psychologically and socially to it. Then again virtually anything becomes a social construct outside of physics.

So, how do humans cast off constructs that are either negative or serve no purpose? I am thinking that humans, in the aggregate, either will not or cannot do that. It strikes too deeply into the psyche. Individual humans can change but massive change is very hard to do.

[ProfX]

Well, policy change requires political action and pressure.

But as for changing social schema and structures, I don't know what can do it other than a) social movements and b) education.

There is of course this argument that there's no point in combatting racism, all we can do is change the law to outlaw racist policies. Dunno. I think we can and should do both. But you can't change racist thought and belief through legislation ... that's true.

I try and participate in both.

Of course, if education has the ability to educate about race stripped out of it, and social movements are stripped of their ability to protest and express alternative ideas in public space .... weird how the gubinator of Florida has that as two of his policy agendas. Or not, as the case may be.

[carmenjonze]

CJ and ProfX,

Yes, of course, the social construct is real meaning that human react psychologically and socially to it. Then again virtually anything becomes a social construct outside of physics.

The way I'd put it is, biological race is a fiction, and racist laws, policies, and social norms are definitely realities that affect millions and millions of people. And that's just in this country, alone.

Racist laws and policies imo are what show just how contrived and manufactured these ideas about biological race really are.

They can also be repealed. Many have been. Others have cropped up in their place. A simplified example is the end of discriminatory housing laws in 1968...and now we've got legalized predatory lending that, hmm, just so happens to disproportionately affect people of color.

I also think and have observed that the big conservative and TERF freakout against transgender children and adults is that their existence reminds them that their gender norms are every bit as contrived as their race norms. Actually, all of "LGBTQ" reminds them of that. This includes the "lesbian, gay and bisexual" (LGB) trans-exclusionary TERFs who have NEVER dealt well with the idea of socially-constructed as opposed to the biological essentialism handed down to us from eugenics.

This is playing out more violently in the UK than it is in the US. But there is PLENTY US-based TERFism that stems from a certain form of 70s separatist feminism.

It reminds me of conservative-Christian theological problems with the existence of other religions. It reminds them that no, there is not just one God. If there was, no other religions would exist.

So, how do humans cast off constructs that are either negative or serve no purpose? I am thinking that humans, in the aggregate, either will not or cannot do that. It strikes too deeply into the psyche. Individual humans can change but massive change is very hard to do.

I suppose I fall into the camp that changing individual humans is a waste of time. Or, speaking for myself, a waste of my time. That takes talents of persuasion I don't have, so I don't try and leave that to others who do, like my educator friends or my organizer friends. It also comes from being a grown-up kid of Civil Rights kids, who really bought into the notion that if we can just show them that we're just like them, they'll change their minds.

No, they will not. That strategy also, imo, was also a gargantuan waste of time, and a waste of a whole generation. Because frankly, we're not just like the types of people who make these kinds of policies, laws, rules, etc. They are ruthless because they choose to be that way. It makes more sense to me -- personally --to root out the poison where it has had the most deliterious effects, which is in the imposition of punitive laws that have subjugated hundreds of millions of people.

- more -

[ProfX]

I also think and have observed that the big conservative and TERF freakout against transgender children and adults is that their existence reminds them that their gender norms are every bit as contrived as their race norms. Actually, all of "LGBTQ" reminds them of that. This includes the "lesbian, gay and bisexual" (LGB) trans-exclusionary TERFs who have NEVER dealt well with the idea of socially-constructed as opposed to the biological essentialism handed down to us from eugenics.

BTW, apparently JK Rowling's next novel is going to feature a character who apparently is "persecuted" for her transphobia. I wonder if the character's name is going to be KJ Crowling, ...

Ya know, JK, ... people disagree with you about your TERFism, but nobody's cancelled, persecuted, or victimized you for it because they criticized you for it. Ok, fine, there are the occasional nuts who say your HP books are tools of the Debbil, but go on ignoring those people.

You made yourself a public figure, which is fine, and so if you're going to make "pronouncements" on trans people ... expect feedback. They don't enjoy being cast as predators or inauthentic, which is basically your view of transwomen and transmen.

[carmenjonze]

Well, policy change requires political action and pressure.

But as for changing social schema and structures, I don't know what can do it other than a) social movements and b) education.

There is of course this argument that there's no point in combatting racism, all we can do is change the law to outlaw racist policies. Dunno. I think we can and should do both. But you can't change racist thought and belief through legislation ... that's true.

I try and participate in both.

Of course, if education has the ability to educate about race stripped out of it, and social movements are stripped of their ability to protest and express alternative ideas in public space .... weird how the gubinator of Florida has that as two of his policy agendas. Or not, as the case may be.

Well, these conservative whites don't want their grandchildren learning about the kind of social movements that thwarted them. Especially in the wake of the George Floyd protests, which galvanized the whole world.

They also don't want their grandchildren learning that great-grandpa's business advertised in the KKK newsletter or the Citizen's Council paper.

They don't want their grandchildren learning that great-grandpa's pharmacy called the cops on a Black guy because he sat in a seat at the lunch counter.

And they sure as hell don't want them finding out the guy sued and won.

[carmenjonze]

- more -

Related to all this for me is why these same white supremacists are banning The Diary of Anne Frank, along with Heather Has Two Mommies, Toni Morrison, and Gandhi.

They, along with white and nonwhite antisemites are the ones who tell us that Jews are shaking them down for reparations munny. They're the same people claiming as they did 40 years ago and 30 years ago and 20 years ago and 10 years ago that it's the gays that are after your children.

That was after centuries of claiming Black men were after their children. :problem:

They are the ones after children. Glennfs himself calls it "love" when an 18 year old guy screws a 15 year old girl.

The ADL was formed after these people lynched Leo Frank under the same pretexts that they did Black men: he raped a white girl.

Conservative whites are are the groomers, they are the predators.

[bird]

Power holders and theomythology. One uses the other to hold and/or expand power.

Struggle is necessary and the end is never in sight because it cannot be in sight due to humans.

[Number6]

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.

Thanks for the history lesson. From what I understood growing up it was about the Christians blaming the Jews for Jesus' death. It seems it's more about cementing Christianity's hold in Europe by demonizing the Jews and thereby eliminating or marginalizing them.

[ProfX]

Well, there is a more complex part to the story I haven't touched on yet.

Pauline Christianity is now the definitive version which has become the dominant faith of billions at this point.

But it seems there were many early Christian sects, one of which I find particularly interesting.

The Ebionites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים‎ (or אֶבְיוֹנִם‎‎)[1] ebyonim, ebionim, meaning 'the poor' or 'poor ones') as a term refers to a Jewish Christian sect, which viewed poverty as a blessing, that existed during the early centuries of the Common Era.[2][3] The Ebionites embraced an adoptionist Christology, thus understanding Jesus of Nazareth as a mere man who, by virtue of his righteousness in following the Law of Moses, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses".[4] A majority of the Ebionites rejected as heresies the Orthodox Christian beliefs in Jesus' divinity, virgin birth and substitutionary atonement; and therefore maintained that Jesus was born the natural son of Joseph and Mary, sought to abolish animal sacrifices by prophetic proclamation, and died as a martyr in order to move all Israel to repentance.

Beyond voluntary poverty, the Ebionites were said to practice religious vegetarianism and ritual bathing. They insisted on the necessity of following the Written Law and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount; used one, some or all of the Jewish–Christian gospels, such as the Gospel of the Ebionites, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible; and revered James the Just as an exemplar of righteousness and the true successor to Jesus (rather than Peter), while rejecting Paul as a false apostle and an apostate from the Law.[5][6][7]

[snip][end]

They seemed to view the Pauline Christians as the heretics, but once the Paulines became the upper hand, both they and the Gnostics (really flip sides to each other) were in turn declared the heretics, and extirpated. They probably emerged from the Essenes, and accounts of them suggest a similarity....

The bottom line is the Ebionites do not seem to have viewed Jesus as anything more than a mortal prophet and Rabbi within the Jewish tradition. Not part of the Godhead/Trinity, not someone out to start a new faith. Now if you were trying to "sell" a different version of "Christ" ... well, they were, as they say ... the 'competition'. And possibly a threat. There is a great scene in the Last Temptation of Christ which deals with this, when "Paul" meets Jesus, who is confused because it seems Paul of Tarsus is lying about him.

Bart Ehrman, the Biblical scholar, goes into a lot of these topics in his books. I really like his work.

I think this early encounter between the Pauline Church Fathers and the Ebionites set the history of conflict for the next thousand years, & more. There was a fear of "Judaizers". Which in turn required making sure that remaining Jews were kept subordinated and subjugated.

[bird]

Well, there is a more complex part to the story I haven't touched on yet.

Pauline Christianity is now the definitive version which has become the dominant faith of billions at this point.

But it seems there were many early Christian sects, one of which I find particularly interesting.

The Ebionites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים‎ (or אֶבְיוֹנִם‎‎)[1] ebyonim, ebionim, meaning 'the poor' or 'poor ones') as a term refers to a Jewish Christian sect, which viewed poverty as a blessing, that existed during the early centuries of the Common Era.[2][3] The Ebionites embraced an adoptionist Christology, thus understanding Jesus of Nazareth as a mere man who, by virtue of his righteousness in following the Law of Moses, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses".[4] A majority of the Ebionites rejected as heresies the Orthodox Christian beliefs in Jesus' divinity, virgin birth and substitutionary atonement; and therefore maintained that Jesus was born the natural son of Joseph and Mary, sought to abolish animal sacrifices by prophetic proclamation, and died as a martyr in order to move all Israel to repentance.

Beyond voluntary poverty, the Ebionites were said to practice religious vegetarianism and ritual bathing. They insisted on the necessity of following the Written Law and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount; used one, some or all of the Jewish–Christian gospels, such as the Gospel of the Ebionites, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible; and revered James the Just as an exemplar of righteousness and the true successor to Jesus (rather than Peter), while rejecting Paul as a false apostle and an apostate from the Law.[5][6][7]

[snip][end]

They seemed to view the Pauline Christians as the heretics, but once the Paulines became the upper hand, both they and the Gnostics (really flip sides to each other) were in turn declared the heretics, and extirpated. They probably emerged from the Essenes, and accounts of them suggest a similarity....

The bottom line is the Ebionites do not seem to have viewed Jesus as anything more than a mortal prophet and Rabbi within the Jewish tradition. Not part of the Godhead/Trinity, not someone out to start a new faith. Now if you were trying to "sell" a different version of "Christ" ... well, they were, as they say ... the 'competition'. And possibly a threat. There is a great scene in the Last Temptation of Christ which deals with this, when "Paul" meets Jesus, who is confused because it seems Paul of Tarsus is lying about him.

Bart Ehrman, the Biblical scholar, goes into a lot of these topics in his books. I really like his work.

I think this early encounter between the Pauline Church Fathers and the Ebionites set the history of conflict for the next thousand years, & more. There was a fear of "Judaizers". Which in turn required making sure that remaining Jews were kept subordinated and subjugated.

Not to mention the creation of Pauline Christianity as the state religion of Rome meant utilizing the state’s monopoly of violence against those deemed heretical and thereby enemies of the state. Yes, there were emperor’s that did not accept Christianity but once power is conferred it is difficult to dislodge.

I have read much of Ehrman’s work as well.

[bradman]

Caught part of, i think it was, the first episode.

15 minutes in it was fairly obvious Burns was taking this in a new direction.

[bradman]

Oh ya......

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ken ... 20073.html
Ken Burns Compares DeSantis’ Martha’s Vineyard Shipment of Migrants to the Holocaust: ‘Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook’ (Video)

In his treatment and manipulation of Venezuelan migrants as “political pawns,” Ken Burns sees similarities in the actions of Florida governor Ron DeSantis and those of Hitler in Nazi Germany. “This is coming straight out of the authoritarian playbook,” Burns said.

+

“All of your documentaries are about history,” Berman began, “but all of them also make you think about where we are. We woke up to the news this morning that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida sent two planeloads of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard off the coast of Massachusetts, including kids and whatnot. And I’m not saying, this is not a 1-for-1, this is not a parallel here in any way, but it does address some of the same themes that are part of this documentary.”

Sitting with co-director Lynn Novick, Burns agreed.

“Well, it’s the abstraction of human life. It’s basically saying that you can use a human life that is as valuable as yours or mine or Lynn’s and to put it in a position of becoming a political pawn in somebody’s authoritarian game. This is coming straight out of the authoritarian playbook,” he said.

The documentarian then pointed to other instances in DeSantis’ governance that has highlighted his refusal to participate in the democratic process.

“This is what’s so disturbing about DeSantis, is to use human beings, to weaponize human beings for a political purpose – it’s like when somebody disagrees with him in Florida, like the Walt Disney Company, he punishes them,” Burns continued. “This is not the actions of a person participating in a democratic process in which there’s an exchange of ideas. This is about punishing political enemies, putting on shows, political shows, political theater. And in this case, this is with the lives of human beings.”


Bringing it back to his latest project with Novick, Burns agreed that the themes he explores through history are very resonant today, for better or worse.

“What we find in our all films is that the themes that we engage in the past are present today,” he concluded. “And so when you look at the story that we’re telling of the U.S. and the Holocaust, you understand that the time to save a democracy is before it’s lost. We promise you.”

[ProfX]

Is DePutin an authoritarian and was this action such an action? Yeah.

I'm cautious about incautious Holocaust comparisons, but I would say DePutin's actions certainly are representative of the kinds of things that over time build up to and can lead to genocide.

For sure, it was treating a whole bunch of people. migrants, as pawns, not as humans with rights. Forcibly relocating them without their permission or even the knowledge of where they were going. Dumping them some place without any concern or assistance. So yep. It is the beginning.

[Glennfs]

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

Yes if there were any but unfortunately all we have is politicans being politically expedient

[gounion]

Yes if there were any but unfortunately all we have is politicans being politically expedient

How do you know that? Can you read their minds, read their hearts?

[Glennfs]

Especially if "we" included the conservative whites writing antisemitic bills, antisemitic immigration policies, shutting Jewish people out of universities, schools, and entire neighborhoods.



Source, please.

Please leave aside the whuddubboutery. JFK was not a commiebaiter.



Hm, do they, tho? Which people are you talking about?

Your entire party leverages a violent mob that relies on threats of civil war, 1950s Red Scare/Lavender Scare commiebaiting, and distinct, easy-to-recognize forms of antisemitism to grow itself.

You personally are a commiebaiter in the style of Joe McCarthy, as if 1952 never ended. Nice going.

Why do you keep asking for sources when you are afraid of looking at links you might disagree with

[bradman]

Is DePutin an authoritarian and was this action such an action? Yeah.

I'm cautious about incautious Holocaust comparisons, but I would say DePutin's actions certainly are representative of the kinds of things that over time build up to and can lead to genocide.

For sure, it was treating a whole bunch of people. migrants, as pawns, not as humans with rights. Forcibly relocating them without their permission or even the knowledge of where they were going. Dumping them some place without any concern or assistance. So yep. It is the beginning.

From the interview and what i understand so far, Burns equated it to an authoritarian government and not a Holocaust/Hitler comparison. Seems like that was done by CNN.

Click bait.

[carmenjonze]

Why do you keep asking for sources when you are afraid of looking at links you might disagree with

:problem:

You keep repeating this stupid, stupid question already knowing the answer.

I’ve already told your stupid troll ass, show your work, vote your sources, or live with being challenged by the people you look down on.

Thinking I’d be afraid of internet links is just your white supremacist insecurity trying to assert itself.

It’s where you guys came up with the word “spooks.” :problem:

[Motor City]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BRG97Vo_D4

New Ken Burns documentary 'The U.S. and the Holocaust' examines America's response

A new documentary from Ken Burns and his colleagues premiers this Sunday on PBS. It is a different window into the Holocaust with a focus on the U.S. and raises troubling questions about this country’s history and actions. Burns is calling it the most important film he will ever make. ....