Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims

Yay it's finally finished. Btw Mods don't you think its time to close this thread since the OP has been answered and the slave trade discussion has ended, just a suggestion.

 

lol... this whole thing would have been solved several pages ago if somone had bothered to actually read what was posted and understand it.

 

Grrr Slip don't tempt people. :woo:

 

I'm still looking for a subject I can argue with him on knowing that I'll know more about it than him and be able to win.

I can't find it.

 

LOL!

you can all rest assured that my missus beats me at this same thing all day long... :cry:

 

I'm sure he couldn't argue with you about what you ate this morning.
I mean when you get Slip serious he busts out all these amazingly long articles and links and I can barely keep up yet alone argue.

 

Why does a person's personal belief's affect fact? If I tell you that I hate mathematics, then tell you that 2+2=4, does that mean nobody should listen to me because I hate mathematics? It doesn't make sense.

Fact and personal belief are not connected. If Satan wrote a book on college algebra, even though everyone hates Satan, college algebra is college algebra. The accuracy of the information presented is independent of the person presenting it.

You fail to mention why they did this. Did they sign this statement because they beleived it? Did they sign the statement because they felt it would be advantageous to their career to be seen publically supporting this statement? Were they threatened in any way to force them to sign the statement?

I disagree because of what is posted above. The validity of information is independent of the person who presents it.

 

Which to a certain extent is why I asked Buckeye Blue if he could actually refute any of what Tony Martin has written in regards the Jews and the slave trade.

I could care less for the guys politics frankly... but it appears that his methodology in arriving at the results is rather valid. I do realize that one has to consider his political or ideological motivations - but I think his work in regards to the Jews and the slave trade in Suriname is still valid despite his nonsensical antisemitism.

The situation (not directed particularly at CKava of course) reminds me of people that refuse to see the brilliance of some of the German field marshals and their strategies during WWII.

While on one hand... without a doubt the absured ideologies of Nazi Germany were despicable... on the other hand the strategy of Field Marshals like Erwin Rommel and his leadership of the Deutsches Afrika Korps were brilliant in the military sense. Recognizing that doesn't mean that I concur with the Nazi's antisemitism or ideology... it means that I'm able to recognize that there is inherent value in brilliant military strategy.

edit: and yes ironically I realize that I've used a Nazi to support my point in a thread where I was accused of antisemitism.

 

If a noted BNP member were to write history of Europe you would be correct to automatically be sceptical of the accuracy of the book. Of course it could be that this BNP member produced an excellent work of scholarship not based on his personal beliefs however I would certainly be willing to put a bet on this not happening. As you have pointed out in other threads people always are looking at things from a certain position and its unlikely that someone who is passionate about a topic enough to promote a completely discredited anti-semitic pamphlet as essential reading is going to have composed a fair assesment of the Jews involvement in the slave trade!

Im not dismissing that he may have some decent information but what I'm arguing is that its very likely that any information he does have can be found in a better more credible and less anti-semitic source. I wouldn't quote say a presentday supporter of Polpot if I was trying to provide a fair assesment of the extent of genocide under his regime.

On top of this from the reviews I have read most of the main jist of his arguments are discredited and it is only the widely accepted historical facts which nobody disputes that are of value. Again since these are widely accepted and not disputed then perhaps a more respected source would be more convincing!

Unlike you I don't believe in mind reading so I can only assume they signed a statement condemning his pamphlet because well... they didn't support what it said. Alternatively maybe they all were secret anti-semites who supported his views and just didn't want the public to catch on or they were all afraid of what the Anti-defamation league would do them and so felt the need to distance themselves. Who knows? Personally I would stick with the fact that he was publishing silly anti-semitic nonsense and they didn't agree with it but like I say Im not a mind reader.

Who do you think threatened them? What advantages did anyone who signed the statement receive? Do you know anything about this or are you wildly conjecturing?

And Slip you know I do agree with not dismissing things out of hand and I seriously hate people being overly PC about topics but I have to say that arguing for Tony MArtin as a credible source of information is the same kind of argument that could be used in defence of holocaust deniers like David Irving. Some of the research they do is good but that doesn't mean they don't completely wreck it by twisting everything so far to their agenda that their research cannot really be taken seriously.

 

Slip,

When I apologized for my contribution, I was not conceding the substance of my positions. I felt that having an ongoing screaming match in front of others was rude and that I was partly to blame, yourself being the other person.

Just so I am clear, are we or we are not going to move on? Because when you direct you arguments to or about me, I believe that you either want to continue this or you are directing some parting shots.

If you truly are interested in the truth about Tony Martin, there is a wealth of information available, including his defenses for his stances. I am assuming that you do not know about the man as he is not exactly a household name.

If you spend enough time researching and still would have no qualms about using him as an historical authority, please let me know. I promise not to take that discussion any further.

 

Skepticism is always warranted, regardless of the source. It is when we suspend critical thought that we become trojaned with disinformation.

On the converse, there's little to be served by dismissiveness that is not also served by healthy skepticism.

 

Last I checked that was your perogative.

No one ever said you were.

Apologize for yourself if you like. I on the other hand couldn't really give a rats ass. If you had read and understood what I posted (as CKava pointed out) initially then much of this long winded argument of yours wouldn't have really had to waste MAP bandwidth.

Not sure what it is your on about. You came in... implied that I was an antisemite... failed to back it up with even a single, solitary bit of evidence... and that's right where it's at.

Who cares if he's a household name or not? That has nothing to do with the issue. If I were you I'd be more careful in my assumptions... you've already shown how erroneous they can be.

Like I said... if you can point out specificially where his data on the Jews involved in the slave trade is wrong (as in a false methodology used to obtain such data or academically wrong)... then please do so. If not... I don't think there really is much to discuss because you haven't a leg to stand on in that regard.

 

when i learned history at school (not that long ago) i distinctly remember being told that the jews were given a state of there own, becasue of the massive amount of displacement that occured,

i think this is the specific part of history books that should be explained, that they were infact given somone elses state and displaced all the local arabs themselves.

the way our history books told it, they were given a large piece of totaly uninhabited land. (this is just a lie)

i'm all for telling the truth in history classes but its important to tell the whole truth, not just the parts of the truth that look at the actions of your country favorably. we did not go to them on bended knee and offer them some of our land, we gave them somone elses land then gave them money and guns to kill the lands current inhabitants.

 

Jews were given a land under British administration, who got it from the Ottoman Empire. UN resolution called for a Jewish and an Arab state. While neither states were devoid of either Arabs or Jews, the partition tried to parcel the land according to the majority population. Thats why even then the Arab state was not contigious.

 

Good grief, apparently its not over. I can only guess this gets back to your ego argument. I suppose its also your perogative to steal my position and claim it as yours all along. I think its only fair that I charge you rent for it.

But let me ask three questions:

1. If you are an authority on this subject, how come you didn't know that the "huge" argument put you squarely in the camp with the racists?

2. If you did know that, what possessed you to make that argument at all?

3. Do you acknowledge at all that your current position is simply stealing the position I had all along? Incidentally, I consider immitation the sincerest form of flattery, even from you.


BTW, you seemed to puff up when someone said you know everything (or words to that effect). I am sure it felt good to you. I have known two people who really are that smart, and they didn't rely on google searches for their info. If anyone ever jokingly said to either of them "you know everything" they would have been embarrased.

And finally, it is refreshing that you admit that you don't care about dragging people along for our little disagreement. Along with the little boy throwing snowballs then shouting "game over" I will add the man screaming into his cell phone at a restaurant. Way to put other's first!

Seriously, lets drag this discussion somewhere else. I know you don't care, but its pretty clear that others are losing patience.

 

1) The previous occupiers, Britain and the Ottomans, did not engage in ethnic cleansing. The Jews did, as they had long planned to do.

2) Palestine was not Britain's property to give away. Jews knowingly accepted stolen property.

3) Present-day Israel is far larger than that originally granted by the UN partition plan.

4) You knew all of this already.



"The compulsory transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is MORE than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." - David Ben Gurion, founding father of Israel.

 

If you're so concerned about the feelings of others and how they're losing patience. Stop posting.

Unless of course you can refute what's been posted (Jews involved in the slave trade).... which you haven't (and I suspect can't) or to prove me an antisemite... which you haven't and obviously can't.

It was you who came in calling names essentially and calling what I've shown to be historical fact false yet when it came time to put your money where your mouth was... you were found wanting - not only unable the historical refute historical fact that Jews were involved in the slave trade... but also unable to back up your antisemitism accusations.

End of story.

 

this might be alittle of topic, but could anyone provide an answer,

why is hatred of jewish people given a special label, antisemitism, yet all the other ethnic groups in the world have to put up with good old fashioned racism?

proabley a stupid question, if so, feel free to give a stupid answer.

 

not a stupid question at all... I don't know the exact answer... but semitic peoples are more than just Jews...

 

That's interesting isn't it! So Arabs are semites too? Puts a new spin on the anti-semitism label.