Yuku free message boards

I think the interesting question is why the IHR thinks this facile comparison, to whatever extent it is accurate, serves their argument?

Quote:

---

Jug, the IHR has done some basic comparison and contrast.

---

So basic, it would seem, as to be effectively meaningless.

Quote:

---

Only the Jews think that they are the victims in the history of the world.

---

Really? Indeed, I saw an implicit straw man argument in their proposed analogy, but not one nearly so blatant and bizarre. I guess I have more faith in the IHR's honesty than you do.

In my view, there are two underlying purposes behind this discourse.

The first, as you so correctly point out, is to build and dismantle a straw man - though I don't personally see anywhere, even implied, the suggestion that Jews think they are the only victims, let alone in the history of the world (overstating a little, are we?).

Rather, the straw man on which this argument clearly depends is the position that the Nazis were the first to legislate racism. No one has ever made such a claim, hence correcting it stands as a pointless exercise. However, refuting such a straw-man serves IHR's agenda of whitewashing Nazism, insofar as this agenda compels them to look for ways to excuse or rationalize whatever Nazi iniquities they are unable to deny, inviting the conclusion that if nothing the Nazis did was unprecedented, Nazism is therefore no worse than any of its predecessors. In particular, they are careful to draw their precedents from countries with which the reader might be expected to identify.

The flaw, of course, is that if no one is accusing the Nazis of having invented legal racism with the Nuremberg laws, clearly the argument of exceptional Nazi depravity - even as regards these laws alone - stems from something else.

Which brings us to the second, and more subtle subterfuge evident in this discourse, which lies in the invited assumption that the Nuremberg laws are strictly comperable to the U.S. state laws to which the IHR compares them. These U.S. laws would only fully qualify as "precedents" to the Nuremberg laws if, indeed, as their argument would have it, the Nuremberg laws were nothing more than "laws prohibiting marriage between persons of different races".

Were they? Only if one starts from the assumption that the Jews are a race - an assumption that was believed by the Nazis, and is no doubt still believed by the neo-Nazi elements of the IHR. An assumption that was itself enshrined into the Nuremberg laws, in a manner that was wholly unnecessary in the case of the American laws in question which dealt with genuine visible racial categories and distinctions. And this assumption - that the Jews are a racial group, and hence that the Nuremberg laws genuinely did prohibit marriages between "races" in the same manner as these U.S. state laws - is evidently one that the IHR would rather tacitly invite the reader to accept than they would argue or support.

Quote:

---

Negroes were not citizens in the United States until after the Civil War, nor were Indians until 1924. And despite Negro citizenship, there were still anti-miscegenation laws on the state level and other racist legislation at federal, state, and local levels until the 1960s.

So Nazi Germany is hardly unique in racist laws. The Pentagon was built in 1942 with Colored and White bathrooms but few elevators. They didn't want fat generals and they didn't want Negroes using the White latrines. On military bases today, facilities are segregated for men and women, of course, but also for officers, enlisted, and civilians.

---

Did you even listen to what I said, Mr. Smith?