In history class, you read the textbook and listen to the lectures, then get tested. The task is to remember not only facts, but their interpretations in the broader context of history.
We don’t do this (solely) to venerate the past. We teach and study history so that we can avoid past mistakes. However, there’s a hole in this theory.
It’s easy to reprogram the interpretations of facts to lead to future errors. If a caveman goes out on a hunt, and comes back empty-handed, is it because (a) he went during the heat of the day or (b) the camel-god is wrathful?
Let’s stumble through history with humanity:
The Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat said on Tuesday in Washington that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)opposes the immediate presence of Jews and gays in an independent Palestinian state, according to reports in The Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard.
When asked by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor and columnist for The Daily Caller, whether a Jew could be elected Mayor of Ramallah in an independent Palestinian state, Areikat said: “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”
Areikat added that “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future.”
In an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, Weinstein wrote that, “Similar comments coming from an Israeli official would merit worldwide condemnation. But we hear nothing from the world community when the Palestinian ambassador to the US calls for a Jew-free state. – Jerusalem Post
What was the lesson of WWII?
In the public schools, the same places they teach you all sorts of falsehoods, they say that it was a lesson in crushing tyranny.
More astute observers realize WWII was fallout from the French Revolution, and a wave of liberalization across Europe that targeted ethnic states and wanted to make them more like the then-new Soviet Union.
If anything, the lesson of WWII was that our time is defined by a clash between liberals and nationalists.
In Palestine, they are speaking the truth: two ethnic groups cannot occupy the same space.
Oddly, the Israelis are speaking the same truth; they also want to separate from Palestine.
This is the lesson of WWII as well, and the lesson of the ongoing collapse of America.
This isn’t about “black crime”; it’s about our lack of an identity, and a standard of values and behavior held in common, when we get rid of ethnic homogeneity.
It’s not socially polite or politically correct to say that, but it’s more honest than blaming minorities for the failing of a stupid concept: diversity.
Maybe this time we will learn from the past.
43 queries. 0.829 seconds
This article seems to suggest that there is no qualitative difference between the races, and that Blacks and other “colored” groups would function quite well, perhaps as well as Whites, were they to left to rule themselves in a nationalist State.
Such a suggestion is, of course, inaccurate. No amount of of resources will ever change the inherent differences between the races.
I will agree, though, that when one examines WWII, the Liberalism vs. Nationalism context is quite valuable. Not only was Roosevelt a liberal, but the “good” old 19th century Tory Democracy concept seems – to this amateur history student – to be embodied in Baldwin, Chamberlain and Churchill. Of course, only the latter was a rabid war-monger with personal failings too numerous to describe.
On a related note; while reading a biography about FDR, I learned that he spent many summers in (Imperial) Germany as an adolescent, in the spa’s that his class liked to frequent. Evidence, in the form of testimonies, letters and diaries, shows that he was rabidly anti-German and that he and his family spent a good deal of time looking down on the local Germans and making statements of the kind that would probably be considered “Hate Crimes” today, were they made regarding any non-White group.
“Of course, only the latter was a rabid war-monger with personal failings too numerous to describe.”
You like the word “rabid” don’t you? it appears again, later.
Does the usage of “Of course…”, denote the assumption that “we all agree”?
A “warmonger”? Because he was tasked with taking on Germany in WWII?
“…with personal failings too numerous to describe.”
What are you? The Voice Of God? How many personal failings do you have?
This reminds me of a line in the movie: Battle Of Britain, where the British ambassador takes umbrage at the German ambassador’s description of Churchill, which is curiously similar to yours.
He says merely:
“Clearly, you do not know the man!”
Anyway: I revere the late Sir Winston, as many, many people do, who were actually around, when the results of his influential leadership were still extant. I was eleven, the day he died. The entire country mourned his passing.
So much for your callous, uninformed dismissal of a great man.
Historian Ralph Raico makes him sound pretty “rabid.”:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/churchill-full.html
Having read at least a dozen books about “the man”, including Randolph Churchill’s biography of his father, I am still filled with revulsion for a man who, by all these accounts, was a liar, an opportunist, a warmonger and a drunkard.
Yes, I do have many personal failings. I am not, however, a public person who is/was responsible for decisions that affect millions. For such a person, any failings must be considered, since his/her entire personality will affect the decisions made.
The words “of course” denote that the other persons I listed do not (to my knowledge) fall into that category. I’m quite convinced that you understood that, but chose to ignore it in order to make a point, such as it was.
No, I am not the voice of God, I am merely expressing an opinion, something that – judging from your other posts on this site – often seems to make you quite angry.
I admire Sir Winston. What can I say?
Such men are needed, from time to time.
For all the bloody good it did, in the long run.
He did his best; of that I am certain.
Would that more people did.
I’m sure that he gave his all for what he thought was right. As for you last line: I couldn’t agree more. Most of us, myself most certainly included, fail at that far too often.
Gallipoli, WWI. All I’m saying, other than that his voice might have been very influential in the decision not to give the two ships to the Ottomans as agreed and paid for, which lead to drawing the Ottomas into the war and spreading the conflict beyond Europe.
Btw, Crow, I fully share you distaste for people who use “I think we can all agree…”, which is the left’s usual attempt at steamrolling the opposition. It drives me nuts. In that war, I’ll stand back to back with you anyday. :)
That’s the spirit, EN!
Glad you could see it.
Relieved you understood.
If racial differences exist to the degree you suggest, it would be apples and oranges to compare the two, wouldn’t it?
I think African self-rule would work better than diversity, and preserve the uniqueness of African people.
Do we need to get into the ugliness of qualitative differences, as you say, when the principle that makes everyone better off is so clear?
I don’t agree that it would be apples and oranges, more along the lines of different types of the same product, with distinct qualitative differences. African self-rule would be better for everyone, I believe, and it might make it possible for Whites to wash away the stigma that it’s “all our fault”.
Actually pointing out the elephant in the room was probably a naive thing to do. I should have better gauged the general direction of this site.
My apologies for wasting your time and bandwith. :)