3
   

Why do we always hear six million for the Holocaust?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 07:27 pm
Foofie wrote:
dagmaraka wrote:
Ragman, there is a definition of genocide. It was coined in international law by Raphael Lemkin, and embodied in the 1948 Genocide Convention:

Quote:
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.



Where is this going on?

Darfur. Arguably in Iraq (Sunnis vs Shiites and v.v.). The repression of minority peoples like the Karen by the Burmese junta should meet this criterion too..
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 07:49 pm
The definition of genocide that included:
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

The above makes me wonder if making a group prosperous enough to move from lower class to middle class can be used as genocide, since it is common knowledge that middle class folks have fewer children. Can prosperity be used as genocide?

Full employment at decent paying jobs could be used as genocide? Like the fable, King Midas' Touch, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 08:26 pm
no it cannot, because nobody is forcing anyone to 'prosper'. but as soon as it becomes an enforced policy, it is at least an egregious human rights violation.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 10:00 pm
nimh wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Quote:
genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


Where is this going on?

Darfur. Arguably in Iraq (Sunnis vs Shiites and v.v.). The repression of minority peoples like the Karen by the Burmese junta should meet this criterion too..


Wikipedia's Genocides in HIstory page suggests two more cases that are still ongoing: Tibet and West New Guinea / West Papua.

Quote:
Amnesty International has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one-sixth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans, while others had previously specified much higher death tolls.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 09:28 am
dagmaraka wrote:
no it cannot, because nobody is forcing anyone to 'prosper'. but as soon as it becomes an enforced policy, it is at least an egregious human rights violation.


I believe people are good at following the herd/fashion/popular culture. If a group is offered a middle class lifestyle, few would say, "No thank you."

In a generation that population plummets, since people are too busy being conspicuous consumers, rather than having babies.

Also, inter-marriage between groups is a way to effect a sort of bloodless genocide, if the children of the marriage are raised with an identity of the "in" group. The "out" group has been effectively limited. Like the old saying, "Love conquers all."
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 09:36 am
it's still not genocide, unless people are killed and/or forced at a gunpoint.

when you generalize the term and apply it to almost anything, it ceases to be useful.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 10:25 am
dagmaraka wrote:
it's still not genocide, unless people are killed and/or forced at a gunpoint.

when you generalize the term and apply it to almost anything, it ceases to be useful.


My point is the term should include more than killing violently. If populations can be manipulated to being lessened, then it should be identified as genocide.

For example, the buffalo that was needed by Native Americans to survive was killed off. The Native Americans had a lessened population from that ongoing buffalo hunt. No Native Americans were killed in the buffalo hunt. That lessened the Native American population, regardless of the history between the settlers, the Native Americans, and the U.S. cavalry.

The term is still useful, it just includes actions that previously people didn't realize, until it was too late, that a specific population has been downsized effectively.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 10:41 am
no it is not useful. if it was as you suggest, than any war, any oppression, almost any major issue of conflict or tension in history would be called genocide. how is that useful? Genocide is a term that combines a number of crimes, violations, oppression into one word.. It is reserved for most attrocious cases of war crimes and mass murder and extermination, because it comes with strings attached. Every country that signed and ratified the Genocide convention has the obligation to act when acts of genocide are being comitted anywhere in the world. Which is why the term is not being used lightly, and why it IS a big deal when something is called genocide.

But why re-write what has already been written? If you care to, just google definitions of genocide, read how it developed, and why. I also recommend Samantha Power's The Problem From Hell (I think I already did). It sums up that development within 2-3 chapters.

Excerpt from Lemkin's writing (1946)
source: http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/americanscholar1946.htm

Quote:
II: The word "genocide"

Would mass murder be an adequate name for such a phenomenon? We think not, since it does not connote the motivation of the crime, especially when the motivation is based upon racial, national or religious considerations. An attempt to destroy a nation and obliterate its cultural personality was hitherto called denationalization. This term seems to be inadequate, since it does not connote biological destruction. On the other hand, this term is mostly used for conveying or for defining an act of deprivation of citizenship. Many authors, instead of using a generic term, use terms connoting only some functional aspect of the main generic notion of the destruction of nations and races. Thus, the terms "Germanization," "Italianization," "Magyarization" are used often to connote the imposition by a stronger nation (Germany, Italy, Hungary) of its national pattern upon a group controlled by it. These terms are inadequate since they do not convey biological destruction, and they cannot be used as a generic term. In the case of Germany, it would be ridiculous to speak about the Germanization of the Jews or Poles in western Poland, since the Germans wanted these groups eradicated entirely.

Hitler stated many times that Germanization [p. 228] could only be carried out with the soil, never with men. These considerations led the author of this article to the necessity of coining a new term for this particular concept: genocide. This word is made from the ancient Greek word genos (race, clan) and the Latin suffix cide (killing). Thus, genocide in its formation would correspond to such words as tyrannicide, homicide, patricide.


III: An international crime

Genocide is the crime of destroying national, racial or religious groups. The problem now arises as to whether it is a crime of only national importance, or a crime in which international society as such should be vitally interested. Many reasons speak for the second alternative. It would be impractical to treat genocide as a national crime, since by its very nature it is committed by the state or by powerful groups which have the backing of the state. A state would never prosecute a crime instigated or backed by itself.

0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 10:52 am
foofie wrote:
For example, the buffalo that was needed by Native Americans to survive was killed off. The Native Americans had a lessened population from that ongoing buffalo hunt. No Native Americans were killed in the buffalo hunt. That lessened the Native American population, regardless of the history between the settlers, the Native Americans, and the U.S. cavalry.


If the buffalo was killed with the intent to destruct in whole, or in part the native americans, you might be onto something. If it was just hunted and killed for food and fur or for fun, then no. that's a consequence, not intent. Intent is crucial to labeling something genocide.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Sep, 2007 05:24 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
foofie wrote:
For example, the buffalo that was needed by Native Americans to survive was killed off. The Native Americans had a lessened population from that ongoing buffalo hunt. No Native Americans were killed in the buffalo hunt. That lessened the Native American population, regardless of the history between the settlers, the Native Americans, and the U.S. cavalry.


If the buffalo was killed with the intent to destruct in whole, or in part the native americans, you might be onto something. If it was just hunted and killed for food and fur or for fun, then no. that's a consequence, not intent. Intent is crucial to labeling something genocide.


O.K., already. You win! You're completely correct.
0 Replies
 
h4m3d0
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 05:20 pm
Jews in the Media
Time Warner: Norman Pearlstine, owns 50 popular magazines, a Jew

Disney: Ceo, Michael Eisner, a Jew

Viacom: Head of company, Sumner Redstone, A Jew

Warner Music, NBC: Edgar Bronfman Jr. A Jew, his father is President of the World Jewish Counsel.

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch, while not Jewish b ybirth still very pro Israel-Zionist in political beliefs and reporting spin.

The New York Times: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - Publisher, a Jew. Russell T. - Lewis, Ceo and President, a Jew. Michael Golden- Vice chair, a Jew.

The Washington Post: Donald Graham- Ceo, a Jew.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann - Publisher and Chairman, a Jew.


Just a short list, there are many more.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 07:39 pm
Re: Jews in the Media
h4m3d0 wrote:
Time Warner: Norman Pearlstine, owns 50 popular magazines, a Jew

Disney: Ceo, Michael Eisner, a Jew

Viacom: Head of company, Sumner Redstone, A Jew

Warner Music, NBC: Edgar Bronfman Jr. A Jew, his father is President of the World Jewish Counsel.

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch, while not Jewish b ybirth still very pro Israel-Zionist in political beliefs and reporting spin.

The New York Times: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - Publisher, a Jew. Russell T. - Lewis, Ceo and President, a Jew. Michael Golden- Vice chair, a Jew.

The Washington Post: Donald Graham- Ceo, a Jew.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann - Publisher and Chairman, a Jew.


Just a short list, there are many more.


Is there a point here?

It doesn't surprise me that so many Jews are in the U.S. media, since both Old and New Testaments were mostly written by Jews. They have a long history of liking the written word. Interestingly enough, look how many non-Jews "adopted" these religious writings.

I myself have always wondered over what a preponderance of Gentiles in blue collar jobs?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:40 am
Re: Jews in the Media
Foofie wrote:
h4m3d0 wrote:
Time Warner: Norman Pearlstine, owns 50 popular magazines, a Jew

Disney: Ceo, Michael Eisner, a Jew

Viacom: Head of company, Sumner Redstone, A Jew

Warner Music, NBC: Edgar Bronfman Jr. A Jew, his father is President of the World Jewish Counsel.

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch, while not Jewish b ybirth still very pro Israel-Zionist in political beliefs and reporting spin.

The New York Times: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - Publisher, a Jew. Russell T. - Lewis, Ceo and President, a Jew. Michael Golden- Vice chair, a Jew.

The Washington Post: Donald Graham- Ceo, a Jew.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann - Publisher and Chairman, a Jew.


Just a short list, there are many more.


Is there a point here?

It doesn't surprise me that so many Jews are in the U.S. media, since both Old and New Testaments were mostly written by Jews. They have a long history of liking the written word. Interestingly enough, look how many non-Jews "adopted" these religious writings.

I myself have always wondered over what a preponderance of Gentiles in blue collar jobs?


LOL.
0 Replies
 
flaja
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 06:43 pm
I have never heard the term holocaust applied to anyone other than the Jews, so the figure quoted has always been 6,000,000 Jews died in the holocaust.

Furthermore, the crimes against the Jews included things that, to my knowledge, the rest of Germany's victims were not generally (if ever) subjected to- Ghettos and gas chambers.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 07:28 pm
Re: Jews in the Media
h4m3d0 wrote:
Time Warner: Norman Pearlstine, owns 50 popular magazines, a Jew

Disney: Ceo, Michael Eisner, a Jew

Viacom: Head of company, Sumner Redstone, A Jew

Warner Music, NBC: Edgar Bronfman Jr. A Jew, his father is President of the World Jewish Counsel.

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch, while not Jewish b ybirth still very pro Israel-Zionist in political beliefs and reporting spin.

The New York Times: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - Publisher, a Jew. Russell T. - Lewis, Ceo and President, a Jew. Michael Golden- Vice chair, a Jew.

The Washington Post: Donald Graham- Ceo, a Jew.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann - Publisher and Chairman, a Jew.


Just a short list, there are many more.


Citation(s) needed.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 07:30 pm
flaja wrote:
Furthermore, the crimes against the Jews included things that, to my knowledge, the rest of Germany's victims were not generally (if ever) subjected to- Ghettos and gas chambers.

Three pages back, on this thread:

"Between one quarter to one half of the Romani population was killed, upwards of 220,000 people. In Eastern Europe, Roma were deported to the Jewish ghettoes, shot by SS Einsatzgruppen in their villages, and deported and gassed in Auschwitz and Treblinka."

And:

"The T-4 Program was established in order to maintain the "purity" of the so-called Aryan race by systematically killing children and adults born with physical deformities or suffering from mental illness. Officially 75,000 to 250,000 people were killed between 1939 and 1941, including in the first Nazi gas chambers."

Also given in that post was a link to the Wikipedia page on the Romani Holocaust, or Porajmos, where you can read:

"Scholarly estimates of deaths in the Sinti and Roma genocide range from 220,000 to 500,000 [5]. They were herded into ghettos, including the Warsaw Ghetto (April-June, 1942), where they formed a distinct subclass."

And:

"On December 16, 1942, Himmler ordered that the Romani candidates for extermination should be deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau. To the Romani people of Europe, this order was equivalent to the January 20 decision of that same year, made at the Wannsee Conference, at which Nazi bureaucrats decided on the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem.""

And:

"In the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Romani internees were sent to the Lety and HodonĂ­n concentration camps before being transferred to Auschwitz-Birkenau for gassing."
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 07:32 pm
Re: Jews in the Media
h4m3d0 wrote:
Time Warner: Norman Pearlstine, owns 50 popular magazines, a Jew

Disney: Ceo, Michael Eisner, a Jew

Viacom: Head of company, Sumner Redstone, A Jew

Warner Music, NBC: Edgar Bronfman Jr. A Jew, his father is President of the World Jewish Counsel.

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch, while not Jewish b ybirth still very pro Israel-Zionist in political beliefs and reporting spin.

The New York Times: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - Publisher, a Jew. Russell T. - Lewis, Ceo and President, a Jew. Michael Golden- Vice chair, a Jew.

The Washington Post: Donald Graham- Ceo, a Jew.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann - Publisher and Chairman, a Jew.


Just a short list, there are many more.


Citation(s) needed.

Edit, I just did some research and the source of this garbage is most likely

http://www.jewwatch.com/

or some other hate website.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 07:37 pm
nimh wrote:
flaja wrote:
Furthermore, the crimes against the Jews included things that, to my knowledge, the rest of Germany's victims were not generally (if ever) subjected to- Ghettos and gas chambers.

Three pages back, on this thread:

"Between one quarter to one half of the Romani population was killed, upwards of 220,000 people. In Eastern Europe, Roma were deported to the Jewish ghettoes, shot by SS Einsatzgruppen in their villages, and deported and gassed in Auschwitz and Treblinka."

And:

"The T-4 Program was established in order to maintain the "purity" of the so-called Aryan race by systematically killing children and adults born with physical deformities or suffering from mental illness. Officially 75,000 to 250,000 people were killed between 1939 and 1941, including in the first Nazi gas chambers."

Also given in that post was a link to the Wikipedia page on the Romani Holocaust, or Porajmos, where you can read:

"Scholarly estimates of deaths in the Sinti and Roma genocide range from 220,000 to 500,000 [5]. They were herded into ghettos, including the Warsaw Ghetto (April-June, 1942), where they formed a distinct subclass."

And:

"On December 16, 1942, Himmler ordered that the Romani candidates for extermination should be deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau. To the Romani people of Europe, this order was equivalent to the January 20 decision of that same year, made at the Wannsee Conference, at which Nazi bureaucrats decided on the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem.""

And:

"In the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Romani internees were sent to the Lety and HodonĂ­n concentration camps before being transferred to Auschwitz-Birkenau for gassing."


I appreciate your honesty and specificness. This is needed in an age of revisionist history.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 07:56 pm
Re: Jews in the Media
Roxxxanne wrote:
h4m3d0 wrote:
Time Warner: Norman Pearlstine, owns 50 popular magazines, a Jew

Disney: Ceo, Michael Eisner, a Jew

Viacom: Head of company, Sumner Redstone, A Jew

Warner Music, NBC: Edgar Bronfman Jr. A Jew, his father is President of the World Jewish Counsel.

Fox News: Rupert Murdoch, while not Jewish b ybirth still very pro Israel-Zionist in political beliefs and reporting spin.

The New York Times: Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - Publisher, a Jew. Russell T. - Lewis, Ceo and President, a Jew. Michael Golden- Vice chair, a Jew.

The Washington Post: Donald Graham- Ceo, a Jew.

The Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kann - Publisher and Chairman, a Jew.


Just a short list, there are many more.


Citation(s) needed.

Edit, I just did some research and the source of this garbage is most likely

http://www.jewwatch.com/

or some other hate website.


Believe it or not, if one studied the history of boxers (prizefighting) in the 1920's they'd come up with a list of Jewish boxers in the 1920's. Also a list of Jewish gangsters in the 1920's could also be made. I think my point is Jews seem a lot like the rest of humanity, if one can stop believing the residual stereotypes from an earlier era.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Nov, 2007 08:20 pm
Ragman wrote:
cello wrote:
I think it is because a lot of Jews own the media, so they talk about the Holocaust and remind people of it. I don't think the other peoples want to forget or ignore the genocides that happened to them, it is only that the media does not cover those.


Anti-semite horseshit!


Maybe I'm wrong , but aren't Jewish people overrepresented among those who own Hollywood? Is that an anti-Semitic thing to acknowledge?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 02:56:44