halialkers: (Default)
This one deals with religion, if you want to create a flamewar of atheist v. Christian, this is not the place to do so and any such comment threads will be frozen when they start.

Now....forward to the post:

I think one of the forgotten goods of history has been the actions of the Pope John XXIII during the Shoah. Pius XII was and is a bit controversial, but John XXIII should be one of the Righteous Among the nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XXIII

He was one of those who saved the honor of the Church.

Others who deserve mention are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

^This man was one of the leaders of the German resistance to the Nazis.

Then there's ol' Pius XII himself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#The_Holocaust

He hid Jews in the monasteries of the Church, saving them from Nazi evil.

And last but not least is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews where Denmark deliberately defied the Nazis and saved most of its Jewish population.

Even in the midst of darkness and evil, there was light. And the light was good.
halialkers: (Default)
Time for a good old school rant on Slobodan Milosevic:

My opinion on such men as Hitler and Stalin is that they are remembered for targeting white men with methods traditionally used on non-whites without anyone much giving a fuck at the time. Mr. Milosevic rose to power and committed horrific acts of ethnic cleansing, ending the 20th Century in Europe as it had begun, with trouble and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. However I think a good chunk of that is the Slavic double standard. It's been my experience that Slavic powers as a rule get called on things that evidently are just fine for Germanic or Romance-speaking nations to do.

While Russia and Serbia behaved monstrously to their subjects, it bothers me that the ethnic cleansing and expulsion of Germans from places they had lived in for centuries was perfectly kosher. Milosevic in the 1990s did precious little different from the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War II, which were quite content to expel any and all ethnicities deemed "hostile" to the future peace of Europe in order to redraw the map. Yet somehow one is acceptable and the other isn't.....

While Milosevic did evil, and was responsible for one of the last of the 20th Century massacres, I do wonder why the expulsion of the Germans a time ago was considered acceptable then by the very powers that deigned to lecture the Slavs...
halialkers: (Default)
If the Nazis and the Soviets had been dictatorships with non-white victims, nobody would have really given a crap here in the Anglosphere. It's only because their victims were white that anything negative is said about them at all. It's why you never hear of Imperial Japan and what it did, or Mao's evils, or Pol Pot and the most evil dictatorship in all of history, or Idi Amin Dada or Bokassa or any such non-whites who did horrifically evil and barbaric acts.

But because the Nazis and Soviets treated white men as white men were accustomed to treating non-whites, Anglosphere media cryeth "Oh, how totally dreadful and horrible!" "Pol Pot who?"

....

>.
halialkers: (Default)
I dedicate this post in the Forgotten Evils to the first German genocide of the 20th Century.

The Kaiser's army was dealing with the Herero, a pastoralist African tribe. The Herero got a little too feisty in the German view of things, and so the Kaiser's army resorted to the simple expediency of killing any of them that chose not to surrender immediately. The minimum estimate of how many Herero died in this was half of them. The maximum puts it just shy of three quarters of them. A neighboring people, the Namaqua, were also victims in this, losing half of their own population.

Colonialism in Africa later led to use of the same methods in Europe on "white" men, which IMHO, was the real crime of Hitler and Stalin in terms of how they've been interpreted. As long as the victims were brown folk, that was fine. When pink folk started dying the same way, the same behavior became atrocious and horrible, despite having been such all along:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide


 


halialkers: (Default)

In the memory of the Christian Armenians ethnically cleansed in 1915, I offer these few simple words:

"Kyrie eleison,
Christie eleison,
Kyrie Eleison,
Christie Eleison."

"Our father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on Earth as it is in heaven,
lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. Amen."


 

halialkers: (Default)
Three questions that need answering.

First: Is economic inequality a civil rights issue? Not so long ago, a scandal broke where minors were being incarcerated to boost the profits of privately-owned for-profit prisons. The children imprisoned were disproportinately poor and this was true regardless of race. The civil rights leaders were nowhere to be found in that situation, despite the fact that economic inequality is pernicious and not limited to racial boundaries. This, also, despite the fact that economic inequality drives the Fundamentalist movements worldwide, as reactions against it. Why is the Jena Six incident considered civil rights but children who are poor who are imprisoned for greedy evil bastards to make profits off of that somehow not?

Second: Why is it that genocide is an evil thing to do but cultural genocides and ethnocides are acceptable government policies in the developed world? The idea that there are nation-states is a pretty fiction, but no more and no less. Spain has the Basques, the Catalans, and the Castilians and the Galicians. France has the Basques and Catalans and Gascons and Bretons and Italians and Alsatians. The US has my old saw, the Indian peoples, whom we attempted to destroy their cultures thereof. Now....given that eliminating entire peoples because we don't like their cultures is wrong (as in the Shoah and the Killing Fields), why is eliminating the cultures themselves somehow not wrong?

Third (and finally): Why have there been pages and pages on the crimes of one Adolf Hitler of Branau Am Inn and virtually nothing on the crimes of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, at least in English-language media? I can name seven Holocaust scholarship books off the top of my head. I can only name one that dealt with the Soviet slave labor camp system, virtually none that touch on Soviet behavior in Eastern Europe and on Soviet ethnic cleansing, and damned fewer yet that will touch the nature of Soviet scientific evils, including a plan to shape a "New Soviet Man." Since Hitler's Master Race was almost cartoonishly evil, how again, is the Soviet Union's history of atrocities and evils done in the name of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," somehow not? Why the volumes on the Holocaust and the slaughters in Russia, but not even a box's worth of equal social history on the Gulag and Soviet ethnic cleansing?

Profile

halialkers: (Default)
halialkers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
34567 89
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 23rd, 2017 04:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios