|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 10, 2009 1:14:50 GMT -5
Dear all,
Forgive the sheer randomness but as you know, I like to try to understand American culture. Recently I had a nasty encounter with the culture barrier, leading into some nasty misunderstanding. Its about Nazi-ism and its cultural influences and the uses and meaning of its symbology in modern society. In Holland, its a very strong taboo, and forbidden by law. Anything that could be perceived as too 'Nazi' will be frowned upon. Bringing the hitlergreeting can get you into serious trouble, the gesture is only shown when either expressing Nazi sentiments or expressing the deepest possible disgust at a person or institution (e.g. drunks versus the police and riots, it basically conveys disgust, repulsion, disrespect, whatever you might feel towards a dictator). Also Nazi symbology is probably the only graffiti that will be painted over very fast by town governments. (And will get mention in the local newspaper) To illustrate how very much alive the Nazi taboo is... A few weeks ago there was a riot about a statue for a monument to commemorate American losses during the liberation of the Netherlands. It involved a cast bronze bald eagle, the image of which was rejected for being too similar to the eagle on the Nazi flag, which would be an insult rather than an honor to the fallen soldiers. (The bald eagle doesn't really look like the eagle on the Nazi flag, the association is a tad absurd.)
I found out the U.S. is extremely loose and nonchalant on context less use of it. So... I would love to hear some cultural perspective, it'd really help me understand things better. What does Nazi symbology mean in the US? Why this difference, I know where the Dutch mentality came from, the question is mainly about the American one. How can an offensive gesture associated with a very dark page in history become part of popular culture? (Will it be the same with Osama Bin laden in 60 years?) Do Americans even get anything about WWII in Europe and how Nazi propaganda worked, how they ever contrived to pull off the Holocaust without anyone stopping them?
BDSP Vorchia
|
|
|
Post by thundertail on Apr 10, 2009 6:14:54 GMT -5
*thinks of how to put this* I guess the best way to explain us to you is to say that we think progressively. We do not let the grudges of the past get in the way of the future. We move on; and just as technology is moving at a faster and faster pace, we also move on and change our ways of thinking.
Sure there are Nazi groups like 'Skinheads' and the like, but they are groups based on hate and predjuice(sp?); and are throwbacks to constructive ways of thinking. Most of us have put the atrocities of Hitler behind us and moved on. I know that it is unwise to forget such things, for if we do we are doomed to repeat them; but the greatest power we can hope to have is forgiveness. Because the world is not so forgiving, the Germans have been struggling ever since Hitler to make a new name for themselves - and they still have his legacy chained to thier necks!
In America, those friends I have treat the artifacts of that era as if they were certain war memorabilia, and they have a value as such. But there is always those who think that just because we posess such objects we are bad. Not many people want to forgive what happened, so they blame us instead of those who started it.
Other friends who had relatives in that time tell me of the hatred and atrocities placed on thier fathers and grandfathers back then - and Americans treated them no better than Hitler treated thier captives! Some japaneese friends tell how thier parents remember the concentration camps they were sent to, and some germnan American friends tell how thier relatives were hounded and questioned almost daily by US government officials of the day.
I think it's much better if we ALL put aside the animosity of the past and concentrate on the issues of the present. The past is gone, and can't have a bearing on ones' life today. The present is scary and unsure enough without having people that hold grudges messing things up as well!...
"Ok, I'm done... (pant!)"
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 10, 2009 10:14:44 GMT -5
*thinks of how to put this* I guess the best way to explain us to you is to say that we think progressively. Well over here the U.S.A. is viewed as quite conservative on many matters actually... We do not let the grudges of the past get in the way of the future. We move on; and just as technology is moving at a faster and faster pace, we also move on and change our ways of thinking. I'm not so sure if I have really observed that attitude in American culture, when it comes to technological progress yes but when it comes to historical, religious and cultural topics, 'progressive' doesn't seem to be applicable. Sure there are Nazi groups like 'Skinheads' and the like, but they are groups based on hate and predjuice(sp?); and are throwbacks to constructive ways of thinking. Most of us have put the atrocities of Hitler behind us and moved on. I know that it is unwise to forget such things, for if we do we are doomed to repeat them; but the greatest power we can hope to have is forgiveness. Forgiveness is a great good, but with forgiveness and acceptance come the hard lessons learned that should not be forgotten, lest no relapses (like neonazi-ism) occur... Constructive thinking it seems to me, is to remember the past, use its lessons and fight for what is now and what will be. Because the world is not so forgiving, the Germans have been struggling ever since Hitler to make a new name for themselves - and they still have his legacy chained to thier necks! I have to say the relations of Germany with other European countries are quite aimable. Also there is a lot of tourism of Dutch to Germany (and a lot more from Germany to the Netherlands). There would be precious few who would blame modern day Germans for what happened in WWII and or would judge them by it. Of course if there's a European or World soccer tournament and we happen to be pitched against our neighbors, there will be certain sentiments of patriotism on both sides. But once the match is done, Dutch and Germans will be nice to each other again. But there is always those who think that just because we posess such objects we are bad. Depends on the object... I can understand the historical interest in collecting war memorabilia. Its not a problem. (As long as its not a 'shrine to the beloved Nazi ideology') Not many people want to forgive what happened, so they blame us instead of those who started it. Like I said, there is and should be forgiveness. Its not as if an entire people or their descendants can be blamed for the atrocities of a system of government. Other friends who had relatives in that time tell me of the hatred and atrocities placed on thier fathers and grandfathers back then - and Americans treated them no better than Hitler treated thier captives! I know. There is still a lot of human cruelty in the world even today. Its very sad. Some japaneese friends tell how thier parents remember the concentration camps they were sent to, and some germnan American friends tell how thier relatives were hounded and questioned almost daily by US government officials of the day. I always considered a pity that my education regarding history is limited and at times entirely too one sided. Like I learned alsmot everything I know about WWII outside of Europe from sources other than my history classes... Its kinda bad. Same with many other things really. Hence my attempts to try to fill the knowledge gaps! I think it's much better if we ALL put aside the animosity of the past and concentrate on the issues of the present. The past is gone, and can't have a bearing on ones' life today. The present is scary and unsure enough without having people that hold grudges messing things up as well!... The past is gone but must not be forgotten, nor must it be dwelled upon indefinitely, grudges serve no puprose. I believe knowledge of the past can help people make a better future. Sadly history often repeats itself despite the lessons learned before. Anyway thank you for taking the time to figure out a reply. I really need to figure this all out. BDSP Vorchia
|
|
|
Post by thundertail on Apr 10, 2009 20:52:51 GMT -5
...And of course, those were my own opinions of things; also those of my peers. (The Nazis didn't do anything to us, personally; so why hold a grudge for the things done in the past?...)
I'm sure that others in America may have other views on the subject. There are opinions all over the board on this subject, let me tell you! Some from 'let's get on with things' to 'we will never forget', as well as anything in between; but I guess Nazism is a subject each person has to deal with on thier own way...
I'm sure everyone will get over it sooner or later!
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Apr 11, 2009 4:56:50 GMT -5
I found out the U.S. is extremely loose and nonchalant on context less use of it. So... I would love to hear some cultural perspective, it'd really help me understand things better. What does Nazi symbology mean in the US? It basically means the same in the US as it does in Europe. Why this difference, I know where the Dutch mentality came from, the question is mainly about the American one. Thundertail rightly points out that the Nazis did not get a chance to ravage the American populace in the same way that they did to other European countries. If they did, the American attitude towards these things might be more severe. How can an offensive gesture associated with a very dark page in history become part of popular culture? (Will it be the same with Osama Bin laden in 60 years?) Do Americans even get anything about WWII in Europe and how Nazi propaganda worked, how they ever contrived to pull off the Holocaust without anyone stopping them? Firstly, most Americans probably wouldn’t intellectually admit to understand the core of Nazi propaganda methodology because it’s actually being used by the American Right ever since the 1960s. – Namely, the tactic of demonizing social undesirables and leftists as threats to traditional society, values, and the American Way of Life. This paranoia complex of attributing contemporary problems to treasonous and perverted elements within society (Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Cosmopolitanists, Intellectuals, Feminists, etc.) doesn’t simply treat these elements as people who “simply disagree,” but rather as an evil force that must be warred upon (preferably through legal and verbal means here in America – we’re still a law-abiding people) and ultimately defeated if America is to be saved. As evidence, I point to demagogues like Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Also, let me refresh some of you folks to this thread that I posted a while back. Of course, you see lots of conservatives in this country show genuine disdain towards Nazis in large part because of their atrocious behavior, but will then turn around and exhibit some of the same kinds of dehumanizing, tribal, us-versus-them mentality that drove the Nazis to do what they did. Secondly, there’s a strain of thought in this country that if you let “free market” conditions apply to ideas, then (many people think) the sensible ones will prosper while the dumb ones (like Nazism) will fail. Basically, they don’t think it’s right to censor anything and that people are smart and mature enough to make the right decisions. They’re right to a degree since most people don’t openly associate with Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan, but as I pointed out before, a lot of these people don’t reject the underlying thought processes that power fascism. And of course, Americans have not shown themselves to be the sharpest tool in the shed; see our thirty-year romance with Reaganism - the reason why we're suffering economically today. Thirdly, and this is related to the one above, people take the First Amendment right almost religiously. Most people in this country see the Constitution not as a social contract but as some sort of God-given document that is almost as important as the Bible. People will defend this right vociferously, even if they happen to disagree with it (see every instance of the ACLU defending Neo-Nazis and their like in the American justice system). Of course, this isn’t consistently applied. See how many Americans treat pornography or anything related to sex. And of course, none of the above even talks about the millions of closet racists (let’s not even talk about the folks who are proudly racist) in this country who, while publicly condemning Neo-Nazis, share a lot of their concerns at some level and aren’t personally threatened by Neo-Nazis. *thinks of how to put this* I guess the best way to explain us to you is to say that we think progressively. We do not let the grudges of the past get in the way of the future. We move on; and just as technology is moving at a faster and faster pace, we also move on and change our ways of thinking. Is there anything in that quote that isn’t a mere platitude? Sure there are Nazi groups like 'Skinheads' and the like, but they are groups based on hate and predjuice(sp?); and are throwbacks to constructive ways of thinking. Most of us have put the atrocities of Hitler behind us and moved on. Take a look back at the previous election. Part of the Republican strategy was to label Obama as a Muslim. Obviously, the guy is not, but the fact that Republicans shamelessly thought that it would work as an election tool (and indeed it continues to be a recurring attack on Obama even now that he’s president) shows that they are perfectly OK with demonizing a group. Read that again. An entire wing of the United States political party system has no problem demonizing an entire group of people! As long as there are legions of people who subscribe to gibbering irrationality like this, we can never call ourselves a progressive nation. This mentality is the kernel of fascism, and it abounds in the United States. It’s leveled at Muslims, Gays, Hispanics, and in a lot of areas (more than most white Americans are willing to admit) people still harbor that kind of mentality against blacks. The fact of the matter is, the thinking of the past is not gone. And it’s irresponsible to act as if it is. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 15, 2009 12:38:00 GMT -5
I knew I could count on a well thought through response from Aric. Thank you! ^_^ Thundertail rightly points out that the Nazis did not get a chance to ravage the American populace in the same way that they did to other European countries. If they did, the American attitude towards these things might be more severe. Indeed… It’s the only way it makes any sense really… And the U.S.A. never has been invaded, much less occupied by a foreign aggressor so maybe its hard for an American to imagine the cultural impact such may have on other countries. This paranoia complex of attributing contemporary problems to treasonous and perverted elements within society (Muslims, Gays, Liberals, Cosmopolitanists, Intellectuals, Feminists, etc.) doesn’t simply treat these elements as people who “simply disagree,” but rather as an evil force that must be warred upon. Yeah I have always found that a strange tactic… How can an argument without an argument stand and get so much support?? (At the same time many Dutch have fallen into paranoia against the Muslim minority, its happening here too, there’s this growing political party that demonizes Islam and its followers…) Secondly, there’s a strain of thought in this country that if you let “free market” conditions apply to ideas, then (many people think) the sensible ones will prosper while the dumb ones (like Nazism) will fail. Sometimes I find the U.S.A. very scary, even scarier because my own country copies so much from the U.S.A... I am not saying I would oppose ‘free market’, its just that it can have such disastrous results… Take a look back at the previous election. Part of the Republican strategy was to label Obama as a Muslim. Obviously, the guy is not, but the fact that Republicans shamelessly thought that it would work as an election tool (and indeed it continues to be a recurring attack on Obama even now that he’s president) shows that they are perfectly OK with demonizing a group. Ohh yeah. I found that worrying too. What I found even more worrying is that people will pick up this ‘argument’ and use it to motivate their vote instead of the candidate’s politics and plans... I mean its incomprehensible to me how this can even play a role in any sensible person’s choice. Then again I realize it may be hard to retain a personal opinion under the constant pressure of the media, which gives 10 times an overdose to any U.S. citizen in the year of the elections. If something is repeated often enough, people will believe it and act accordingly… >_< For a country that is so keen on ‘Freedom’, there’s an awful lot of media terrorism going on to force ideas upon people.
|
|
aquila
Dolphinback
pet me!
Posts: 12
|
Post by aquila on Apr 15, 2009 21:48:36 GMT -5
As other have mentioned already, the primary reason for the lack of extreme distaste for groups like the neo-nazis is probably because the US suffered very little comparatively speaking than did European nations. The totality of US casualties during the war was ~400k, while in Europe than number is in the millions upon millions. Europe is also the region that spawned Nazism, so there is an extremely close tie between the two that simply does not exist in the US. Remember that we entered the war to fight the Japanese, not the Germans. If anything, the group of people that Americans would feel the most disgust for would be radicals within the US saying that Japan should create a new empire and kill the round-eyed Americans. That, I think, would pull some strings.
But primarily, it is because Americans do not have the kind of national memory about the Nazis that Europeans do. Without this national memory, there is not much to build off of for disgust outside of what you would expect for a normal group of radicals.
And that last part is very important, here they are just another group of radicals. While countries in the past have had their fair share of hate groups, things like neo-nazis have existed for quite some time in the US. Things like the KKK are carbon copies of the neo-nazi movement, and it has existed since the 1800's. And seeing as how we have been desensitized (for the most part) to groups like the KKK so long as they don't go out and kill people, neo-nazis can line up with the rest of the hate-groups that populate America.
So I guess what I am saying is that there is nothing special about Nazis to set them apart from the myriad of other hate groups in America, so it follows that there is no special reaction to them.
It should come as no surprise that a group of people demonizes another group of people to polarize the population and garner support among its own base. This is not something unique to Nazis or neocons, this has been done throughout the entirety of human history and goes beyond the "right." Does PETA not demonize those who do not agree with them? Do a variety of other radical left-wing organizations not do the same? What is important to remember is that it is radicalism that breeds these kind of tactics, not any particular sociopolitical ideology. It is for this reason that I do not feel that your comparison to the American right and Nazism is fair.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Apr 16, 2009 0:19:42 GMT -5
As other have mentioned already, the primary reason for the lack of extreme distaste for groups like the neo-nazis is probably because the US suffered very little comparatively speaking than did European nations. The totality of US casualties during the war was ~400k, while in Europe than number is in the millions upon millions. Europe is also the region that spawned Nazism, so there is an extremely close tie between the two that simply does not exist in the US. Remember that we entered the war to fight the Japanese, not the Germans. If anything, the group of people that Americans would feel the most disgust for would be radicals within the US saying that Japan should create a new empire and kill the round-eyed Americans. That, I think, would pull some strings. Indeed, when Time Magazine was set to published its Man of the Year issue for 2001, rumors that Osama Bin Laden might be chosen set off quite a bit of outrage. Remember, Time named Hitler and Stalin as Men of the Year at various points. Those two undoubtedly did far more damage and harm than Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and yet somehow Time manages to back off of making Bin Laden Man of the Year despite the fact that 2001 is best remembered for the 9-11 attacks. It should come as no surprise that a group of people demonizes another group of people to polarize the population and garner support among its own base. This is not something unique to Nazis or neocons, this has been done throughout the entirety of human history and goes beyond the "right." Does PETA not demonize those who do not agree with them? Do a variety of other radical left-wing organizations not do the same? What is important to remember is that it is radicalism that breeds these kind of tactics, not any particular sociopolitical ideology. It is for this reason that I do not feel that your comparison to the American right and Nazism is fair. Yes, PETA is a fringe group, but they don’t wield the kind of power that Republicans or their base do. And that can be said of most left-wing fringe groups as well. Right wing insanity and bigotry is far more mainstream. Rush Limbaugh gets millions of listeners and can get Republican politicians to kow-tow to him on his show. The only left-wing demagogue who could match that is…. Wait…. Oh yeah, there is none. Maybe Ralph Nader, but he isn’t as virulent or as socially influential (or perhaps the correct word is representative?) as Limbaugh. In order to even get the majority of Left-wing radicalism, you have to go to a college campus. To get the majority of Right-wing extremism, all you have to do is turn on your radio. Perhaps I should have qualified my statement in that Right-wingers obviously aren’t the only people to subscribe to those kinds of beliefs, but that only with the Right do you see this kind of thinking more widespread and prominent. Not to mention far more vociferously paranoid, conspiratorial, and pathological. Forgive me if I find your attempt at equivocation to be unconvincing. And out of curiosity, I’d like to know whether PETA has helped to enact legislation that discriminates against millions of people as the Right has done in campaigning against same-sex marriage or whether they have a political party behind them that automatically treats an entire group of people as terrorists the way the Republicans do towards Muslims. - Aric
|
|
aquila
Dolphinback
pet me!
Posts: 12
|
Post by aquila on Apr 16, 2009 2:08:52 GMT -5
First off, "right" is a vague blanket term covering a group of people that hardly forms a cohesive entity and varies greatly in its ideology and practices.
While PETA was an example of radicalism that does not predominate the left, I made it clear that it is one group. The fact of the matter is that you cannot label the "right" as a paranoid, xenophobic and bigoted entity as a whole as it is multifaceted and what you are outlining are but parts to it. Large parts, which I will address below, but parts nonetheless. It would be like me calling the left a collection of communists. It is true when you address specific groups, but not for the "left" as a whole.
But I do not deny that the "right" or rather certain political figures and organizations in the right use peoples insecurities to further their agenda. As I said earlier this is an integral part of politics and is used in many ways by many different people and organizations. And while the "right" has its share of these entities, so too does the left.
Speaking in general terms, what you are referring too is a group using people's insecurities to further their own cause. That is the crux of this, and my point is that every political entity does this. What changes is what the organization is catering to. In the right you have people who fear an attack on what they perceive to be a "traditional values" (whatever they feel falls withing that very broad and nebulous category) and so any organization would play on these insecurity to advance themselves. In this case that would mean putting the blame on someone (likely the "evil left") as being the propagators of these attacks.
But the left is not free of using such tactics. Going back to what I said before, the strategy is the same, it is merely the subject matter that changes. The likes of Bill Maher and Micheal Moore play on peoples fears of what they perceive to be injustices (in some cases real in other cases not real, that is beside the point) or whatever particular thing gets a rise out of a particular leftist group. (I concede that the left is more fractiousness than the right) the point is, both side use people fears to gain political support. That is how things like Nazi Germany are created. It does not matter what it is the people fear or are uncomfortable with, (with fundies it would be the gays, conservatives the socialists, socialists the capitalists and so on and so forth. Every group has another group they dislike/fear.) all that matters is if a person or group of people channel that fear to gain political authority. And in that respect, the left and right are not far off from each other.
And it was for this reason that I said that the comparison was unfair, because it assumed that it was what people were fearing that lets these regimes rise, because it is the fear itself that does that, and this fear is not specific to the right.
To put it another way; while it is true that the right as a whole is more prone to have the xenophobic and bigoted philosophies you outlined, that does not translate into a state like Nazi germany. It takes someone to cultivate and channel these fears to do so. In this way, the right and left on the same. For every limbagh (or however you spell his name) there is a Maher. For every O'Rielly a Moore. It does not matter what scares you, all you need to do is be scared (or uncomfortable, and so on) for someone to manipulate you and gain political power. You need look no further than the communist revolutions to see how radical leaders can take a fundamentally sound idea (Marx was not insane, he loved capitalism and thought that it was the best of all systems to precede it. He just felt that communism could transcend capitalism, and that is the direction humanity should move in) and pervert it into your USSR's and PRC's. My point is more that this is not a right wing phenomena, and it is not the nature of the idea itself that creates the hysteria needed to turn a country in the wrong direction.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Apr 16, 2009 6:11:33 GMT -5
First off, "right" is a vague blanket term covering a group of people that hardly forms a cohesive entity and varies greatly in its ideology and practices. True. But when you’re talking about a politically-empowered Right, it largely revolves around the Republicans and the various groups like evangelicals that compose their base. It becomes much less nebulous than you’re implying. While PETA was an example of radicalism that does not predominate the left, I made it clear that it is one group. The fact of the matter is that you cannot label the "right" as a paranoid, xenophobic and bigoted entity as a whole as it is multifaceted and what you are outlining are but parts to it. Large parts, which I will address below, but parts nonetheless. It would be like me calling the left a collection of communists. It is true when you address specific groups, but not for the "left" as a whole. Again, true when talking about the whole, and indeed I should have qualified my statements. But let’s be honest, conservatism’s center of gravity is pretty much as I described. Pointing to the outliers does not change that. But I do not deny that the "right" or rather certain political figures and organizations in the right use peoples insecurities to further their agenda. As I said earlier this is an integral part of politics and is used in many ways by many different people and organizations. And while the "right" has its share of these entities, so too does the left. Speaking in general terms, what you are referring too is a group using people's insecurities to further their own cause. That is the crux of this, and my point is that every political entity does this. What changes is what the organization is catering to. In the right you have people who fear an attack on what they perceive to be a "traditional values" (whatever they feel falls withing that very broad and nebulous category) and so any organization would play on these insecurity to advance themselves. In this case that would mean putting the blame on someone (likely the "evil left") as being the propagators of these attacks. But the left is not free of using such tactics. Going back to what I said before, the strategy is the same, it is merely the subject matter that changes. The likes of Bill Maher and Micheal Moore play on peoples fears of what they perceive to be injustices (in some cases real in other cases not real, that is beside the point) or whatever particular thing gets a rise out of a particular leftist group. (I concede that the left is more fractiousness than the right) the point is, both side use people fears to gain political support. That is how things like Nazi Germany are created. It does not matter what it is the people fear or are uncomfortable with, (with fundies it would be the gays, conservatives the socialists, socialists the capitalists and so on and so forth. Every group has another group they dislike/fear.) all that matters is if a person or group of people channel that fear to gain political authority. And in that respect, the left and right are not far off from each other. And I did not deny that in my response to your post. The thrust of my reply was to impress upon you the sheer ubiquity of that kind of thinking in the “Right” and how much more frequently you see it manifest itself not in just right-wing extremist groups like the Klan or the Christian Identity movement but in mainstream conservative thought. I already gave the example of the heinous attack on Obama by labeling him a Muslim which assumes that it’s bad to be a Muslim to begin with. Again this was done by a major political party during a presidential campaign! Seriously. I get – and agree – that you see the same kind of mentality on “both sides” of the political spectrum. I did not dispute that the last time around. What I am telling you – and which you either ignored or did not understand (probably because of the way I put my argumentation together) – is that the so-called Right does it more simply because much of their tenets are more widely assumed to be true by greater numbers of people that the Left can even dream of. This politically empowers them and thus allows them to act in a more concretely proto-fascist manner than the Left currently can. And it was for this reason that I said that the comparison was unfair, because it assumed that it was what people were fearing that lets these regimes rise, because it is the fear itself that does that, and this fear is not specific to the right. Even in my first post, I made an effort to show just how much more acceptable bigotry was in mainstream conservatism than it was in whatever mainstream liberalism there is. There is no equivocation on this point. In fact, you agree with me just below: To put it another way; while it is true that the right as a whole is more prone to have the xenophobic and bigoted philosophies you outlined, that does not translate into a state like Nazi germany. It takes someone to cultivate and channel these fears to do so. Yes, which is why hate speech of the sort you see flying around in Republican campaign trails, conservative blogs and airwaves, and in right-wing screeds are so dangerous. Not because that kind of nonsense only comes from the Right but because it’s so much more acceptable to many mainstream Americans than the idiocy coming from the Left. Vorch lamented above, “Do Americans even get anything about WWII in Europe and how Nazi propaganda worked, how they ever contrived to pull off the Holocaust without anyone stopping them?” Maybe its cognitive dissonance or something, but people don’t associate their own thinking with the sort that greased the tracks of the cattle trains. In this way, the right and left on the same. For every limbagh (or however you spell his name) there is a Maher. Out of curiosity, how exactly is Bill Mahr equal to Rush Limbaugh? Is this to mean you think Mahr is a hateful fear-monger? I mean, I know he doesn’t subscribe to the germ-theory of disease, but by-and-large he seems rational, which is more than one can say about Limbaugh. For every O'Rielly a Moore. Out of curiosity, what makes you think O’Reilly is comparable to Michael Moore? I certainly hope you’re not just randomly picking names and putting them beside each other. Do you think that I’m randomly picking groups and issues and putting them aside each other for comparison? It does not matter what scares you, all you need to do is be scared (or uncomfortable, and so on) for someone to manipulate you and gain political power. You need look no further than the communist revolutions to see how radical leaders can take a fundamentally sound idea (Marx was not insane, he loved capitalism and thought that it was the best of all systems to precede it. He just felt that communism could transcend capitalism, and that is the direction humanity should move in) and pervert it into your USSR's and PRC's. My point is more that this is not a right wing phenomena, and it is not the nature of the idea itself that creates the hysteria needed to turn a country in the wrong direction. Hold on a minute. It does matter what scares you – Or rather why something scares you. Just because you’re scared of something doesn’t mean any action you take is automatically fear-mongering. The insidious part about bigotry is the way it feeds on prejudice and ignorance. . When you see massive crime rates in inner cities, it is not bad to be afraid or outraged at the disorder and violence. But when you take that as license to fear black people and regard them as violent simians who will ruin neighborhoods and rape white women, then that is unjustified fear. When you hear about a massive category 5 hurricane heading to the East coast, it is not demagoguery to mobilize people into action, but it is socially-deleterious hate-mongering to blame gays for it (See Pat Robertson’s comments on the matter). Some fear is based on pragmatic realities while others are based on irrationality and prejudice. Not all fear is equal in their origins or the degree to which they can serve as pretexts for hate-speech. So, in fact, it does matter what scares you. Seriously Aquila, I thought I had already straightened all of this out in my last post. Of course I don’t think the potential for totalitarianism is exclusive to the Right. But I brought up the Right because many if not most of its prominent members and leaders exhibit the very kind of dangerous thinking that gives birth to fascism more so than the current crop of leftists if only because leftists don’t have as much political or social capital as the Right. And you seem to agree with me on this point! Contrast this to the Democrats who are often pejoratively labeled as liberals but in fact the Democratic Party’s center of gravity is solidly moderate despite notable liberals like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. So when Vorch asks why people in America don’t crack down on the kernels of bigotry, I replied that it’s because there’s a hell of a lot of people in this country who subscribe to it to some degree. And I used the Right because there’s a quantitative excess of it there. That ubiquity means that the Right and the Republican party currently have the most potential to actually become the Fascist Party of America. And again, since it seems I can’t stress this enough, this does not mean that they’re the only ones with that potential, just the ones with the ability to actually translate their madness into public policy. I mean seriously, when did Communists of the sort you see on University campuses actually get to implement their stupidity on a large scale in America? The answer, you’ll find, is never. As of yet, that is. However, you do see it happening time and time again from the Right (specifically the Religious Right in my following example), perhaps the most notable example as of late has been the numerous states to have passed constitutional amendments forbidding same-sex marriage. Our commies would love to have that kind of influence over our electorate. But the fact of the matter is, they don’t, and because of that they’re bitter pills storming the halls of academia instead of flying red flags down Main Street. What I am trying to impress upon you for the second – if not third – time is that despite the fact that you see a conspiratorial paranoia complex directed at minorities and groups in folks of all political stripes, there is no equivocation on who does it more. Hence, why I used the Right as the consummate example for Vorch’s question with regards to American society. - Aric EDIT - Whoops! I was so intent on responding to Aquila that I completely overlooked Vorch's response! I knew I could count on a well thought through response from Aric. Thank you! ^_^ Thank you. Thundertail rightly points out that the Nazis did not get a chance to ravage the American populace in the same way that they did to other European countries. If they did, the American attitude towards these things might be more severe. Indeed… It’s the only way it makes any sense really… And the U.S.A. never has been invaded, much less occupied by a foreign aggressor so maybe its hard for an American to imagine the cultural impact such may have on other countries. Yeah, I already pointed out that American's are very vitriolic towards Osama Bin Laden (and deservedly so). And Bin Laden didn't even affect us as badly as Hitler did to European countries. Yeah I have always found that a strange tactic… How can an argument without an argument stand and get so much support?? Ah, there's no logical argument behind that, but there doesn't need to be when you're appealing to fear and prejudice. It's almost purely a gut-reaction. In order to do the moral and sensible thing, you actually need to stop and think about it, which is rather difficult to do when you're afraid or enraged with hate. (At the same time many Dutch have fallen into paranoia against the Muslim minority, its happening here too, there’s this growing political party that demonizes Islam and its followers…) It doesn't help that there are indeed elements within Islam that make it unsavory. They give ammunition to those who want to paint all Muslims in a negative manner rather than just the ones actually doing things like arranged marriages and honor-killings. Sometimes I find the U.S.A. very scary, even scarier because my own country copies so much from the U.S.A... I am not saying I would oppose ‘free market’, its just that it can have such disastrous results… Hah. I actually do oppose the "free" market. Deregulation only gives them license to engage in economic chicanery. I agree with the Czech Prime Minister (or President?) in that there needs to be global standards and regulations so that unscrupulous capitalists can't simply relocate their shenanigans to another part of the globe. Take a look back at the previous election. Part of the Republican strategy was to label Obama as a Muslim. Obviously, the guy is not, but the fact that Republicans shamelessly thought that it would work as an election tool (and indeed it continues to be a recurring attack on Obama even now that he’s president) shows that they are perfectly OK with demonizing a group. Ohh yeah. I found that worrying too. What I found even more worrying is that people will pick up this ‘argument’ and use it to motivate their vote instead of the candidate’s politics and plans... Politicians will often do what it takes to get elected, including fear-mongering. And if there are enough people who are prejudiced or bigoted, and believe that it is acceptable to be so, then there will be some politicians who will take advantage of that. I mean its incomprehensible to me how this can even play a role in any sensible person’s choice. Sensibility has nothing to do with prejudice. You should know this by now. Then again I realize it may be hard to retain a personal opinion under the constant pressure of the media, which gives 10 times an overdose to any U.S. citizen in the year of the elections. I don't know about that. People have a way of filtering news and ideas in a way that appeals to and reinforces their presuppositions. If something is repeated often enough, people will believe it and act accordingly… This cannot be understated. No matter how many times Obama says he isn't Muslim, there are still people saying that he is.... For a country that is so keen on ‘Freedom’, there’s an awful lot of media terrorism going on to force ideas upon people. This may be a case where there's so much freedom that it makes civilized discourse impossible - Aric
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Apr 21, 2009 5:46:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Apr 21, 2009 16:48:03 GMT -5
Good grief..... 0.o
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2009 20:22:48 GMT -5
As others have mentioned before it probably has a great deal to do with the lack of a national memory about the Nazis along the lines of countries in Europe. The US mainland was basically untouched by the war. I think that the only civilian casualties in the continental United States were out camping and were victims of one of the Balloon bombs sent to America from across the Pacific Ocean.
I could go on a big rant about there being a general ignorance of history in the United States as well, but that's another discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Vorchia on Jun 1, 2009 22:35:53 GMT -5
Yes I figured... Lucky you I guess?
Go ahead and rant about US history btw, I might learn something. ;-)
P.S. I would have replied sooner but the T of P wasn't letting me in. (AKA I couldn't come up with my password and we can't post without an account, grrr....)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2009 21:27:54 GMT -5
Yes I figured... Lucky you I guess? Go ahead and rant about US history btw, I might learn something. ;-) P.S. I would have replied sooner but the T of P wasn't letting me in. (AKA I couldn't come up with my password and we can't post without an account, grrr....) The United States was fairly lucky (see the quote from Otto von Bismarck in my sig) in its development. The US has generally been safe from invasion from the outside so for a good part of our history we could afford for isolationism to be popular.
|
|