| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/4 |
| 2005/2/20-22 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:36341 Activity:high |
2/20 My professor said during WW2, about 1/4 of the congressmen/senate/
politicians were publicly supportive of the Nazi regime. Isn't that
kind of high? Can it actually be true, or he's just exaggerating?
\_ Your prof is full of shit. Do your own research on the German-
American Bund and Charles Lindbergh's activities in the late 1930s.
Also look at the isolationist movement and its association with
the Willkie 1940 campaign. There was a fair amount of sympathy
for nazi Germany in the late 1930s; there was far more drive
towards keeping the US out of European conflicts (FDR had to ram
Lend-Lease through Congress against some stiff opposition.) Your
prof is making the very common revisionist mistake of taking three
different but related philosophies (isolationism, the sympathetic
view of the krats, and outright nazi-hugging) and lumping them
view of the krauts, and outright nazi-hugging) and lumping them
into the same brown pot. -John
\_ During the 1930s to the early 40s most people in the country were
for segregation and there were a couple million KKK members. Also,
Charles Lindbergh was publicly for the Nazi regime. So a lot of
people thought that the Nazi regime was doing the right thing.
Charles Lindbergh was publicly for the Nazi regime. So a lot of
people thought that the Nazi regime was doing the right thing.
\_ It goes beyond the racial and anti-semitism. Hitler was seen
as creating prosperity and order to a Europe many Americans
felt was going to heck in a handbasket. When Germans started
invading, Americans felt it was none of their business and
if it was, Hitler was just straightening out the internal
infighting and bickering of those countries stuck in the
remnants of the Depression.
\_ In the 30's, quite believable. Successively less likely after
Poland, Benelux, France, and the Battle of Britain. Stretches
credulity after Pearl Harbor. Are you sure he said during and
not before?
\_ Hint: WW2 started well before Pearl Harbor....
\_ Fair enough. Did the professor say during or at the
start of? During implies through the entire war.
% dict during
During \Dur"ing\, prep. [Orig., p. pr. of dure.]
In the time of; as long as the action or existence of; as,
during life; during the space of a year.
\_ Probably through most of the American part of the war
too. Germany wasn't seen as a pariah state. There was
a lot of appeal to the fascist state to Americans.
\_ This is a pretty provocative claim. Reference please.
\_ In the beginning it was more about anti-communism and the Nazis
reasserting Germany as a top power after being in the shits for
so long after WW1.
\_ Madison Square garden was packed with pro-Nazi rallies. Of
course, most leftists in America were fervent supporters
of Uncle Joe, who was equal to if not worse than the Nazis.
As for anti-communist, you have to remember the Nazi was
the Socialist party in Germany. There are no pronounced
differences between the political tenets of the Nazis
and the Communists, except for a violent overthrough of
the ruling class.
\_ You are misinformed. National socialism advocates state
direction of economic resources, not eradication of private
ownership. Also, militarism and a regimentation of society by
the state is seen as an ultimate goal. Communism, on the other
hand, does not specifically advocate discrimination based on
ethnicity, or the militaristic expansion of the state (rather,
that of the ideology.) The totalitarian state is seen as a
necessary interlude on the way to a utopian "dictatorship of the
proletariat." Maybe you are confusing stalinism with the
nominal communist ideal? As for "rallyes", maybe you are
referring to a February 1939 rally by the German-American Bund
(who were functionally nazis) and associated organizations (such
as the Christian Front.) Read up on HUAC investigations of
Fritz Kuhn and the Bund. -John
\_ Maybe should reread what you wrote, because it is self
contradictory in parts, and flies in the face of history.
I was speaking to the Nazis and Soviets, who politically
were not that different, EXCEPT, as you say, for a violent
overthrow of the ruling class. The notion that there were no
pogroms in Russia is silly.
LOL "confusing stalinism for the communist ideal",
ok comrade!. Maybe on a piece of paper they are
different constructs but we live in the real world.
\_ "no pronounced differences except for a violent overthrow
of the ruling classes" is your wording. You did not say
"Soviets", you said "communism". As for pogroms, (a) do
do point out where I said there were none, (b) these took
place mainly in Czarist times, (c) ethnic discrimination
is not a part of communist doctrine. And why are you
making me out to be an apologist for either ideology? And
what does "LOL" mean? Is this a political science term?
They didn't teach me that at Cal, sorry. Try again,
young padawan. -John
\_ Comrade, we welcome you! - Chicom troll
\_ Comrade John, we welcome you! - Chicom troll
\_ Chicom troll you're back! *snif* We missed you!
Welcome! -John
\_ well I had referred to Stalin in the previous
sentence, so infer what you will. Look, I'm not
interested in debating the finer points of
dialectical materialism with experts such as
yourself. However, what you are doing, perhaps
unwittingly, is trying to draw a distinction
between the Soviets and Nazis in order to
redeem Communism. The mantra is Communism
is really a worthwhile endeavor, moreover none of
20th century mass murderers were Communist but
something else. You ignore historical
\_ Vladimir Ulyanov was a communist. Want to know how
many people he killed? -- ilyas
realities for what someone writes on a
piece of paper (or on Wikipedia, whatever you
read). If you can't see the implicit contradiction
in the second sentence you wrote in the previous
post, maybe your deception is intentional.
If your entire argument rests on my intentional
omission of the hyper-racial component of
the Nazi's flavor of Communism, all I can say
is duh.
\_ The Soviets didn't call themselves communist. -tom
\_ The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics didn't call
themselves communist. -tom
\_ They make a distiinction between the communist
society which is their utopian objective and the
communist party which (should) struggles toward
that goal.
\_ Horse manure. The Soviets were no more
interested in communism than Bush is
interested in "freedom." They used
some of communism's rhetoric to help
themselves sieze power. -tom
themselves seize power. -tom
\_ Did I say they were (or were not)? I just
wanted to point out that the communists in
USSR most certainly do call themselves
communist when they speak English. To say
otherwise would just be silly. But
maybe you wanted say that they did not claim
or consider their society to be in the ultimate
communist phase yet. I took that into account.
\_ You are putting your own words in John's mouth.
(He is no less a fervent anticommie than you are.)
Unless you just choose to define everyone and
every idealogy you dislike as communists, there is no
reason to identify Nazism and communism. Communism
ideal looks to the "next" step after capitalism and
struggles for an "enlightened" society without class
and property gradient. (I am not suggesting that is
desirable). Nazism ideal looks "back" to the age of
noble (= white) savages roaming Nordic forests and
struggles for a planet ruled by pure "Aryans" in
harmony with maiden nature. (On this I disagree with
John.) In practice, the implementation of both
\_ Huh? Why? Isn't that what I said? And thank
you for your assertion, I ought to hang on to the
claim that I am somehow trying to "redeem"
communism. I suppose some people might
equate trying to know facts about a philosophy
with justifying it; it's still funny :-) -John
\_ You said "militarism and a regimentation of
society by the state is seen as an ultimate
goal" (of nazi.) I don't know if that was the
ultimate of Hitler, but it certainly was not
the ultimate nazi ideal.
create regimes that are quite similar and kill lots
of people, but in that they are far from alone.
\_ What you are doing, perhaps unwittingly, is drawing
a destinction between the pro-fascist American Right
and Nazism. By confusing the difference between
Communism and Nazism, you throw FUD into the very
real concerns some in America have about the
growing populist, militarist and violent Right
Wing movement in America. How many shopkeeper
windows have to be smashed before we call it the
American Kristnacht?
\_ You probably meant 'Kristalnacht,' unless you were
making a lame joke along the lines of
'Christ-nacht.' Feel free to go on with your
very real concerns now. -- ilyas
\_ "The best way to talk to a liberal is
with a baseball bat." -Ann Coulter
And more and more people are taking up
her suggestion.
\_ Oh please. While not a huge Ms. Coulter
fan, I must remark you are straying
dangerously close to accusing John Solomon
of being a proto-Nazi because he suggested
the baseball bat as the proper way of
dealing with spammers. Get a clue. I
wonder what Aaron would be in your book.
I guess he can't be a Nazi because he's a
liberal, but he did fantasize about
gang-banking conservatives 50-to-1. Also,
please give me some instances where 'more
and more' people are taking the baseball
bat to their liberal neighbors. Urls
would be nice. -- ilyas
\_ Last I checked Aaron wasn't selling
millions of books and on the news
as a leftie talking head. Let me know
when he is. Also, he is not the
ally of the people in power, you know
the ones with a legal monopoly on force.
Here are a few urls, there are many
more if you bother to look:
http://www.capogallerysf.com
http://csua.org/u/b50 |
| 5/4 |
|
| www.capogallerysf.com On March 19th Lori Haigh, the owner of the Capobianco Gallery was assulte d and severly injured for displaying a piece of art by local artist Guy Colwell. The piece of art titled "The Abuse" depicted the atrocities inf licted upon prisoners at the Abu Gharib prison. SF Weekly article concerning the Mark Mothersbaugh show points out, but never to point of physicial viole nce or death threats. It's someone's thoughts put on canvas for everyone to ex perience. At this time, no one knows what has happened to Lori Haigh. Some claim th at Haigh is now one of the many homeless who roam the city streets. It's also been heard that Lori works in an Oakland factory assembling machin es used by embalmers that are sent to warzones to aid in managing the re mains of the dead. I'm sorry someone punched you in the face, if it had been me, I would have taken a flat nose shovel or cr owbar to your head... After displaying a painting of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, a San Francisco gallery owner bears a painful reminder of the nation's un resolved anguish over the incidents at Abu Ghraib -- a black eye and blo odied brow delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to the art work. only the latest in a string of verbal and physical attac ks that have been directed at owner Lori Haigh since the painting, title d "Abuse," was installed there on May 16. Painted by Berkeley artist Guy Colwell, "Abuse," the painting at the cent er of the controversy, depicts three US soldiers leering at a group of naked men in hoods with wires connected to their bodies. The one in the foreground has a blood-spattered American flag patch on his uniform. In the background, a soldier in sunglasses guards a blindfolded woman. Two days after the painting went up in a front window, someone threw eggs and dumped trash on the doorstep. Haigh said she didn't think to connec t it to the black-and-white interpretation of the events at Baghdad's no torious prison until people started leaving nasty messages and threats o n her business answering machine. "I think you need to get your gallery out of this neighborhood before you get hurt," one caller said. Even after she removed the painting from the window, the criticism contin ued thanks to news coverage about the gallery's troubles. The answering machine recorded new calls from people accusing her of being a coward fo r taking the picture down. Last weekend, a man walked into the gallery, pretended to scrutinize the art work for a moment, then marched up to Ha igh's desk and spat directly in her face. On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Hai gh in the face when she stepped outside. In closing the gallery, Haigh was forced to cancel an upcoming show featu ring counterculture artist Winston Smith. She covered the windows of the gallery with old newspapers from Sept. Among the expressions of support she's received since shuttering the gallery, her favorite is an e-mail whose writer said, "I'm sure that a few and dangerous minds d on't understand that they have only mimicked the same perversity this pa inting had expressed." Outside the gallery on Friday, someone had left a bouquet of flowers alon g with a note reading, "The woman who ran this gallery is a brave and ho norable woman. In spite of t he attackers intentions to censor the gallery, their crime has spurred t he interests of the press, and has caused a worldwide exposure of the pa inting. No doubt, not only the value of the painting will dramatically i ncrease, but people will remember it for ages to come (emotional artisti c expression, regardless of how good or bad, has this effect on art). Yes this painting depicts a very dark period of the United States, but it does not reflect the feelings of most Americans. It does, however, depi ct the actions of some Americans. The behavior of the abusers of the Abu Ghraib prison stem from the illegal actions coming from the Bush admini stration. So if any American objects to this painting as dishonoring and besmirching the United States, consider the source of the dishonor. For evermore, this painting will trigger memories of George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and a few other bad apples. So instead of attacking the symbolic representation of this painting, or the people who display it, why not take action against the few people wh o hold responsibility for the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison (and other US c ontrolled prisons around the world), namely the people of the Bush admin istration, by voting them out of power this November? How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administ ration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such di shonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United Stat es of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison. I'm reprinting it here wit h his permission: Defiant For the Capobianco Gallery Not just elsewhere But right here In North Beach The power of painting To provoke and endure Has called out The old hatreds: Death threats, spittle, A physical attack on a Gallery owner by Detestable little Worms from the fascist can of abuse That's been thrown wide open. When the people Gather, what's been terrifying Turns to dust. And brush strokes Turn into the proverbial Thumbs in the eyes of Censoring war thugs, Because the freedom To create a work of art Is of the deepest affirmation Of the human heart And its very deathlessness Is why no violence can Ever long prevent the beauty Of its truth of liberty from being Triumphant in its struggle Against the lie of the living dead. "The enemy cannot be triumphant in this kind of situation," Hirschman say s "The gallery has to open again." On May 16, according to AP, she installed a piece of artwork by Guy Colwe ll entitled "Abuse." htm) is an elaboration of the torture that went on at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In the foreground of Colwell's painting are two grinnin g US soldiers, one man and one woman, with American flags on their sle eves. The man is holding a cattle prod, and the woman, a cigarette dangl ing from her mouth, is holding electrical wires. Those wires are attache d to the fingers of three naked male Iraqi detainees, who are standing o n cylinder blocks. In the background, two othe r American soldiers in sunglasses are leading a shackled and blindfolded woman into the room. Haigh placed the painting in the front window of her gallery. Two days la ter, "someone threw eggs and dumped trash on the doorstep," AP reported, and "people started leaving nasty messages and threats on her business answering machine." She told AP that she received "about 200 angry voice mails, e-mails, and death threats." So she decided to remove the painting, but still things got worse. One day, someone walked into the gallery and spit in her face. And then on May 27, someone "knocked on the door of the gallery, then pun ched Haigh in the face, knocking her out, breaking her nose, and causing a concussion," AP said. Two days later, she still had a bad black right eye, with purple on the cheek next to the eye, one bandage over the nos e, and another over her right eyebrow. The abuse was too much for her--she has two young kids--so she has closed her gallery down. com, you will see a pictur e of the gallery's front door, with yellow caution tape across the front . "This isn't art-politics central here at all," Haigh told AP. I never set out to be a crusader or a political acti vist." On Saturday, May 29, artists, poets, and other defenders of the First Ame ndment rallied in support of Haigh, her gallery, Colwell, and free expre ssion. "In effect, the attackers, instead of writing 'Jew' on the window, wrote 'Artist' on the window," poet Jack Hirschman, who spoke at the rally, te lls me. "The attack was really something out of the Brown Shirts." "This is all too scary for me," Haigh, who was at the rally, told the San Francisco Chronicle. But the paper said she was "visibly moved by the s how of support" and is "weighing her options." I called the phone number of the gallery and got only this message:... |
| csua.org/u/b50 -> www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2005/02/15/news/community/tueloc02.txt RYAN GARDNER/Gazette-Times Lisa Wells was surprised to be woken up by four men in her front yard thr owing things at her house and threatening her last month. Last weekend,a rainbow peace flag was stolen from in front of her house. Case of mistaken sexuality leaves woman fearful of further threats By KYLE ODEGARD Gazette-Times reporter The rainbow has been adopted as a symbol of the gay and lesbian communiti es, but sometimes a rainbow is just a rainbow. In a case of mistaken identity, a family reportedly was subjected to midd le-of-the-night gay-bashing because of a rainbow-colored flag hanging ou tside their house. Lisa Wells, 46, said the flag with the word "pace" written on it, Italian for "peace" was a reminder of her family's recent travels in Europe. The flag apparently didn't bring Wells' family peace on this side of the pond, though. Four men fled from her property, she said, but one turned a nd spewed anti-gay rhetoric. He told me I s hould read the Bible," Wells wrote in an e-mail. The men also took dog treats hanging on the fence and threw them at her h ouse, she added. I was really scared," Wells said, standing on her porch Mo nday. Her fear was compounded because her husband was out of town, but h er two sons, age 11 and 8, were in the house. A Corvallis police officer responded that night, but didn't find anything , and there was no evidence of property damage, said Lt. Noble said the hateful speech in the original incident would be protected by the Oregon and US constitutions, but could be used to prove a crim e of intimidation. The case also apparently included the possibility of trespassing, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct, Noble said. "We take all threats to a person's safety and public order offenses serio usly. The police department occasionally receives reports like this, how ever, my perception is that many of these types of incidents go unreport ed to the police," Noble wrote in an e-mail last week. Wells appeared particularly frustrated by one of the suspect's so-called Christian values, since she's a Unitarian Universalist lay minister on c ampus. As a pluralist, she seeks for truth and God through all religions , including Christianity. "Jesus preached love, he preached charity, he preached compassion. Intimidation and hate are the antithesis of that," Wells said. Wells said her gay friends immediately recognized how the rainbow flag co ntributed to the mess. We don't hang flags like that in front of our house,'" Wells said. Lesbians expect a level of harassment if they are projecting that they're gay, even in Corvallis, Wells said. "In Corvallis or on campus, depending on the territory or the environment , (homosexuals) could receive anything from a real warm welcome to getti ng called derogatory remarks," threats of violence or acts of violence, said Christian Matheis, program advisor for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-S exual and Trans) Services Office at Oregon State University. "Probably a week doesn't go by where I hear of a student (getting harasse d regarding homosexuality) ... There are many incidents of this daily, weekly and monthly, but they don't get reported," he said. Matheis, who identifies himself as "queer," said people think police don' t do enough to protect lesbians and gays. Over the weekend, a faculty member sent out an e-mail announcement to all undergraduate students about open job positions, including a position w orking with racial minority lesbians and gays, Matheis said. Students who responded to the job postings wrote back to the entire stude nt population, in some cases with derogatory slurs, bigotted and homopho bic comments, he added. |