Whoopi Goldberg suspended from “The View”…

[TragicMonkey]

I might go so far as to say that anyone on The View has not made any point worth making for years, but that's another broader point.

It's no worse than this messageboard, really. We'd produce the same sort of crap if five or six posters here were selected to sit around and talk, televised. At least those old biddies produce entertainment for a wider audience, and presumably their antics are sufficiently successful at selling Glade plug-ins or mesothelioma class action lawsuits or whatever their advertisers are.

 

[crescent]

I am seeing some posts along the lines of "Race is a social construct and not a scientific thing so anyone who thinks hatred if Jews is not racism must be an idiot".

This seems to ignore decades of education in America that strong emphasized that Jewishness is not a race, not a racial distinction. I mean, there's a line to walk here. We are saying that being Jewish or not is not a racial distinction, but that being bigoted against Jewish people is racism. I don't think that it is crazy to understand that some people struggle with that distinction.

 

[Thermal]

It's no worse than this messageboard, really. We'd produce the same sort of crap if five or six posters here were selected to sit around and talk, televised. At least those old biddies produce entertainment for a wider audience, and presumably their antics are sufficiently successful at selling Glade plug-ins or mesothelioma class action lawsuits or whatever their advertisers are.

Well, yeah, agreed. Which is why I welcome opposing POVs, as long as they are presented in good faith.

 

[shuttlt]

I am seeing some posts along the lines of "Race is a social construct and not a scientific thing so anyone who thinks hatred if Jews is not racism must be an idiot".

This seems to ignore decades of education in America that strong emphasized that Jewishness is not a race, not a racial distinction. I mean, there's a line to walk here. We are saying that being Jewish or not is not a racial distinction, but that being bigoted against Jewish people is racism. I don't think that it is crazy to understand that some people struggle with that distinction.

Pre-civil rights it was advantageous for Jewishness not to be a race and there was campaigning to view it as a religion. I think that that had a lot to do with immigration from Eastern Europe and wanting to avoid anti-Semitic concerns with that issue. That then went away and civil rights law then meant protections came with it being seen as a race.

 

[crescent]

Pre-civil rights it was advantageous for Jewishness not to be a race and there was campaigning to view it as a religion. I think that that had a lot to do with immigration from Eastern Europe and wanting to avoid anti-Semitic concerns with that issue. That then went away and civil rights law then meant protections came with it being seen as a race.

It also allowed a couple of decades where the U.S. could be critical of the Nazi's antisemitism and be supportive of Israel while still tolerating legally enforced racial segregation here at home.

That said, by the 1970's we were taught that racism is a kind of bigotry. So was sexism, anti-Semitism, and other beliefs - but those were clearly not racism as I was taught in the 1970's. That in no way excused antisemitism, it just wasn't considered racism. It was another flavor of bigotry and was equally bad.

We were taught that the Nazis thought it was a racial thing and that was just another thing demonstrating how wrong they were.

Now there seems to be push to change that a bit, and that's not really wrong either. But is seems understandable that some will be slower than others to get the changed concept.

 

[ahhell]

In these discussions, I always like to point out that my grand father's naturalization papers list his race as "Irish" a few years later, my equally Irish grandmother's was listed as white.

Race is a slippery concept without much merit.

As noted by Crescent, its all bigotry, I like to call it xenophobia. Its a thing inherent to human beings, who the other is and the reasons we give for why, is really incidental. Its all an expression of the same impulse. Its all bad and I struggle to figure out why its important that we call it racism or not.

 

[shuttlt]

Its all bad and I struggle to figure out why its important that we call it racism or not.

Because it is politically useful to do so? Godwin's law happens for a reason. Slavery, and the Nazis are two cultural weapons of great utility. For that to work, you need an un-nuanced meme of an idea that they represent. The usefulness of both comes with their capacity to kill off debate. I would say, the reason it can't be broadened is to restrict who this weapon can be wielded against. You'd also dilute its power - that is already happening.

 

[theprestige]

Skeptoid:

"At its core, Nazism was a far-right ideology"

Everybody always says this, but I have my doubts. At its core, Nazism was fascism plus the Hitlerite perversion (anti-semitism).

At its core, fascism is statist, totalitarian, and progressive. It and communism were both seen as making progress in systems of human government. Both were hailed as improvements over liberal democracy, that would usher in a new age of human society, better than the preceding ages. And both were statist and totalitarian. The only real conflict between fascism and communism were over the details of how the totalitarian state would be ushered in, and the revolutionary dogma that would justify it. And of course, which of the two would actually enter the history books as humanity's next stage of social evolution.

Communism won over fascism, but both ended up losing to liberal democracy. Because neither one was actually the progress it claimed to be, and totalitarian states turn out to be pretty fragile.

 

[shuttlt]

"At its core, Nazism was a far-right ideology"

Everybody always says this, but I have my doubts. At its core, Nazism was fascism plus the Hitlerite perversion (anti-semitism).

The issue I always have with this is that left and right mean a wide variety of things to different people. It's left in some definitions and right in others.

 

[ahhell]

"At its core, Nazism was a far-right ideology"

Everybody always says this, but I have my doubts. At its core, Nazism was fascism plus the Hitlerite perversion (anti-semitism).

At its core, fascism is statist, totalitarian, and progressive. It and communism were both seen as making progress in systems of human government. Both were hailed as improvements over liberal democracy, that would usher in a new age of human society, better than the preceding ages. And both were statist and totalitarian. The only real conflict between fascism and communism were over the details of how the totalitarian state would be ushered in, and the revolutionary dogma that would justify it. And of course, which of the two would actually enter the history books as humanity's next stage of social evolution.

Communism won over fascism, but both ended up losing to liberal democracy. Because neither one was actually the progress it claimed to be, and totalitarian states turn out to be pretty fragile.

There's an argument for fascism being a synthesis of socialism and nationalism, at least in Il Duce's formulation. I find it an amusing concept considering Marx's infatuation with Hegel and what not.

 

[Venom]

Again, this would really depend on what the purpose of the exercise was.

The concept of race does seem to have some functionality, at least. For instance, sickle cell anemia is associated with a certain “group” of people. I think using “race” to define that group has meaning, even if technically wrong. In this case, “blacks” is shorthand for “a certain population with roots in Africa who share certain genetic traits and predispositions”.

Richard Dawkins has a whole section on race in “The Ancestor’s Tale”. I may review it for pertinent passages.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. It's known that the sickle cell trait is distributed through much of West and Central Africa and West Asia. If those categories were lazily shortened to "African" and "Asian" or "Black" and "Asian" on medical records, would you suspect an Egyptian or Japanese of being at higher risk of sickle cell disease? Probably not. That'd be an association error. My suggestion was to cut down these categories to make more sense for situations like this.

 

[theprestige]

The issue I always have with this is that left and right mean a wide variety of things to different people. It's left in some definitions and right in others.

For me, left-right is a meaningless continuum anymore. Statism-individualism and totalitarianism-libertarianism make more sense. Even progressive-conservative makes more sense.

 

[Venom]

At its core, fascism is statist, totalitarian, and progressive. It and communism were both seen as making progress in systems of human government. Both were hailed as improvements over liberal democracy, that would usher in a new age of human society, better than the preceding ages. And both were statist and totalitarian. The only real conflict between fascism and communism were over the details of how the totalitarian state would be ushered in, and the revolutionary dogma that would justify it. And of course, which of the two would actually enter the history books as humanity's next stage of social evolution.

Stalinism was statist and totalitarian. Communism is stateless and classless in its traditional conceptualization. People associate communism with totalitarianism because of "Communist" leaders like Stalin who didn't think the seizing the government part of the plan was a means to a transition. But of course he was an opportunistic, power-hungry autocrat like most and the habit stuck with nearly every Soviet-inspired movement that came after him.

The critique of capitalism that spurred socialist movements of the 19th century wasn't that liberal democracy needed to be replaced, but that capitalism didn't deliver on its hope of liberty and equality and all that liberal democracy supposedly stands for.

 

[shuttlt]

For me, left-right is a meaningless continuum anymore. Statism-individualism and totalitarianism-libertarianism make more sense. Even progressive-conservative makes more sense.

Maybe for that purpose it makes no sense. I always think of it as the thinking around liberte, egalite, fraternite behind the French revolution. Politics that is the descendant of that and is aiming at some version of that utopia, is Left. Everything else is Right. It's the politics of the perfectibility of man and society as the source of human evil. We will remake the world comrades, and from that new world will rise a new and better Man.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For me, left-right is a meaningless continuum anymore. Statism-individualism and totalitarianism-libertarianism make more sense. Even progressive-conservative makes more sense.

Two variables at right angles to each other. The result is four poles, but in a two party system that doesn't work.

The answer is to accept that no pole is a good place to be in. We need some conservatism and some progressivism. We also need some statism and some individualism. IOW, the best place is in the middle. But that's also the worst place because it requires compromise. And if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that compromise is bad!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Communism won over fascism, but both ended up losing to liberal democracy. Because neither one was actually the progress it claimed to be, and totalitarian states turn out to be pretty fragile.

We shall see about that. Last time I looked, China was not a liberal democracy. And half of the US isn't that enamored to it either.

In a few years India is expected to overtake China as the World's most populous nation. Under Narendra Modi, India is experiencing democratic backsliding towards a type of nationalism described as 'almost fascism'.

According to one study, "The BJP government incrementally but systemically attacked nearly all existing mechanisms that are in place to hold the political executive to account, either by ensuring that these mechanisms became subservient to the political executive or were captured by party loyalists." Scholars also point to how the Modi government has used state power to intimidate and stifle critics in the media and academia, thus undermining freedom of expression and alternative sources of information. There have been several reports of the Modi government to be as an authoritarian conservative government

China and India together currently make up 36% of world population, and they are not the only authoritarian countries with large populations. At one time democracy seemed to be winning, but since 2010 the number of democracies and autocracies has stabilized. I wouldn't surprised if the trend reverses in the next few years.

Number of Democracies

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You can rationalize any racism as being about something else, so that there is no such thing as real racism, it’s always an excuse.

I didn't say that.

Complex human behavior almost always has multiple motives even at the individual level, and it’s guaranteed at the societal level. Racism was absolutely at play in Nazi Germany.

But to much lesser extent than is generally assumed. As you say, human behavior is complex - but in many cases it's not that complex.

According to Wikipedia, racism is defined as:-

the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

To put it bluntly, racists believe they are genetically superior to other 'races'. But does this describe Hitler, or Nazis in general?

Understanding Hitler’s Anti-Semitism

What Hitler says is that abstract thought—whether it’s normative or whether it’s scientific—is inherently Jewish. There is in fact no way of thinking about the world, says Hitler, which allows us to see human beings as human beings. Any idea which allows us to see each other as human beings—whether it’s a social contract; whether it’s a legal contract; whether it’s working-class solidarity; whether it’s Christianity—all these ideas come from Jews. And so for people to be people, for people to return to their essence, for them to represent their race, as Hitler sees things, you have to strip away all those ideas. And the only way to strip away all those ideas is to eradicate the Jews. And if you eradicate the Jews, then the world snaps back into what Hitler sees as its primeval, correct state: Races struggles against each other, kill each other, starve each other to death, and try and take land

Does this sound like someone who thinks he is superior to the Jews, or was he afraid of their superiority?

He says from the very beginning, what we have to do is destroy the Jews; strip away the artificial political creations that the Jews are responsible for; and let nature just take its course. And what he means by nature’s course is [that] the stronger races destroy the weaker races...

He wasn’t really a nationalist. He was a kind of racial anarchist who thought that the only good in the world was for races to compete, and so he thought that the Germans would probably win in a racial competition, but he wasn’t sure. And as far as he was concerned, if the Germans lost, that was also alright... At the end of the war, Hitler said, ‘Well the Germans lost, that just shows the Russians are stronger. So be it. That’s the verdict of nature.’

So Hitler was primary an anarchist who wanted to burn the whole World down. Not just Jews, but government, religion, science, society and even our humanity - everything - until we became animals fighting for territory. The Jews were just a scapegoat, something to concentrate all the impediments to anarchistic freedom into, all assigned to a single entity that can then simply be eliminated (in his mind). But why the Jews? Because centuries of antisemitism had made them the logical vessel. According to the Bible they killed Christ. In the Merchant of Venice a Jewish moneylender insisted on his pound of flesh. Everybody knew the Jews were secretly controlling everything - richer, smarter, superior to the poor slobs under their thumb. So they were a natural for Hitler to attach his hatred of everything civilized onto.

But most people don't want to burn the World down, they want to make it better for themselves and others. So Hitler offered the German people another reason to discriminate...

So, Hitler uses popular frustrations to come to power. He uses the Great Depression to come to power. He presents himself precisely as a German nationalist who is going to get the German economy going, who is going to bring Germans inside the borders of Germany. That’s how he presents himself, but that is a lie. He’s quite consciously manipulating German national sentiment to get to power...

You talk of 'complex' human behavior, but here it's quite simple. Germany had just gone through the Great Depression with massive unemployment, hyperinflation and extreme poverty. The common people were hurting, and receptive to any solution that promised to improve their lot. And who were the banksters of the day, the rich who 'deserved' to be eaten? Hitler knew who to target.

But the problem is that you don’t have to see the world rationally to be very powerful, and in fact certain kinds of circular ways of seeing the world, like anti-Semitism, can inform you day to day. They can keep you going... even though they’re not really true...

So in December of ’41, when Hitler faces this unbeatable alliance basically of the British, the Americans, and the Soviets, he interprets that as the Jewish international conspiracy, which of course it wasn’t—the Jews had nothing to do with that whatsoever. But he interprets it that way, and he says, ‘Ah-hah! This is what I’ve always said, that all the world powers are controlled by the Jews, therefore they’re lining up against us,’ and then that becomes an argument for escalating the Final Solution.

Hitler didn't think he was superior to the Jews. In fact he knew he wasn't. That's why he spent so much effort trying to eliminate them. And in the end he lost - in large part because he imagined them to be more powerful than they were.

Hitler wasn't a racist. He didn't think he was superior to the Jews by way of having better breeding. But the Jews represented everything about civilized society that was forcing him to act 'human'. Now you may think this shows complex motives and desires, but I suggest it wasn't that complex. Hitler had a troubled upbringing, but the primary reason he became radicalized is what happened to him as a young man in WWI

He was present at the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele, and was wounded at the Somme. He was decorated for bravery, receiving the Iron Cross, Second Class, in 1914. On a recommendation by Lieutenant Hugo Gutmann, Hitler's Jewish superior, he received the Iron Cross, First Class on 4 August 1918, a decoration rarely awarded to one of Hitler's Gefreiter rank. He received the Black Wound Badge on 18 May 1918...

Hitler described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery. His wartime experience reinforced his German patriotism and he was shocked by Germany's capitulation in November 1918. His bitterness over the collapse of the war effort began to shape his ideology. Like other German nationalists, he believed the Dolchstoßlegende (stab-in-the-back myth), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field", had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders, Jews, Marxists, and those who signed the armistice that ended the fighting – later dubbed the "November criminals".

Without this catalyst I very much doubt that Hitler would have formed the views he did. And if the Jews hadn't been a convenient target he would have latched onto some other 'cause'. This is why I say it wasn't about racism. You put a man on a battlefield of unspeakable horrors and make him a hero, then whip it away with a 'stab in the back'. Then you wonder why he becomes hell-bent on killing and burning the World down.

 

[Shadowdweller]

No

Hitler believed wholeheartedly in German genetic and cultural superiority. This is crystal clear if you bother reading his personal and public writings. Will provide citations if I can find my copy of Mein Kampf. The Jews were his rationalization for why Germany had lost out in the colonial era and in WW1. It wasn't because Germans had failed...it was because others with nefarious intent were sabotaging them.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Hitler wasn't a racist. He didn't think he was superior to the Jews by way of having better breeding. But the Jews represented everything about civilized society that was forcing him to act 'human'. Now you may think this shows complex motives and desires, but I suggest it wasn't that complex. Hitler had a troubled upbringing, but the primary reason he became radicalized is what happened to him as a young man in WWI

Ok, first off: Racism isn't actually the belief that one particular "race" is superior to others (that would be white, black, whatever supremacy), although it's almost always coupled with that belief. Racism is the belief that a fundamental (genetic) characteristic called race exists and inherently determines worth, industry, mental capacity, or similar characteristics.

1 : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.

What Hitler has to say on race and miscegenation:

Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent.

History furnishes us with innumerable instances that prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity, that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher culture. In North America, where the population is prevalently Teutonic, and where those elements intermingled with the inferior race only to a very small degree, we have a quality of mankind and a civilization which are different from those of Central and South America. In these latter countries the immigrants—who mainly belonged to the Latin races—mated with the aborigines, sometimes to a very large extent indeed. In this case we have a clear and decisive example of the effect produced by the mixture of races. But in North America the Teutonic element, which has kept its racial stock pure and did not mix it with any other racial stock, has come to dominate the American Continent and will remain master of it as long as that element does not fall a victim to the habit of adulterating its blood.

In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:

(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;

(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.

Pretty damn clear that he believes that 1) some sort of race or breed exists, and 2) determines some sort of inherent worth. So, I'm sorry but no...Hitler was absolutely a racist.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Nazi were all about fighting The Great Replacement, just like the "we are not really Racists" of today.