• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Charlottesville (merged)

You could easily argue Nazism was one of Germanies ideologies that was sought to be removed. Placing people in a school to 'reeducate' them, followed by tests and questionnaires to ensure they don't possess certain thoughts and beliefs, jailing those they felt did or ostracizing them to prevent them from advancing in life, etc.. certainly fits well within a cultural genocide perspective, reminescent of residental schools, soviet/chinese 're-education' camps, etc.

Ideology is part of culture, trying to remove ideology from a group is trying to destroy part of it. Not saying it wasn't wrong to do so, just that it does pass the litmus test for cultural genocide.
And I would counter that ideology has been responsible for many, many past wrongs. Some ideology needs to be eradicated, culture be damned.
 
I challenge anyone to find anything credible that shows that eliminating Nazi ideology is tantamount or comparable to cultural genocide. Not supported by anything I am aware of other than white supremacists and new nazis who claim some sort of cultural genocide against themselves.

A terrible comparison.
 
Cultural genocide was the least thing the Nazi's did. The Soviets practised cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Arabs were masters at cultural genocide and the fundamentalist Sunnis still promote that as an ideal. Britain used cultural genocide as a tool in particular cases. Generally if they were having major issues with a particular group. Their preferred method was to engage with the leadership or a minority, empower them and let them run the show.
 
Cultural genocide was the least thing the Nazi's did. The Soviets practised cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Arabs were masters at cultural genocide and the fundamentalist Sunnis still promote that as an ideal. Britain used cultural genocide as a tool in particular cases. Generally if they were having major issues with a particular group. Their preferred method was to engage with the leadership or a minority, empower them and let them run the show.
The families of 6,000,000 victims might argue that point. Agreed on what the Soviets did, and the various Arab factions are still, as you suggested, employing that concept. British culpability pales, especially in the 19th century, in the face of 20th and 21st century acts and ideology.
 
The families of 6,000,000 victims might argue that point. Agreed on what the Soviets did, and the various Arab factions are still, as you suggested, employing that concept. British culpability pales, especially in the 19th century, in the face of 20th and 21st century acts and ideology.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself. Cultural genocide is leaving the majority of the people alive while erasing their history, something the Muslims, Soviets and the Chinese Communist excel at. The Nazis preferred to skip that bit and go straight to genocide as you noted.
 
Just a quick comment from a German-Canadian. Nazism was never a part of German culture. It was a political movement which briefly occupied a period of Germany's history. Germany has more than enough culture to spare without trying to shoehorn the Nazi movement into it.

My German culture is still alive and well. Eradicating Nazism did not kill my homeland's culture; it revived it. Those who think of Nazism fondly have never experienced its true horrors and are living in a fantasy world.

$.02 🍻
 
And that's notwithstanding that my people will drink Scotch and Cola. 😢

But then there's the beer. :giggle:

🍻
 
Cultural genocide was the least thing the Nazi's did. The Soviets practised cultural genocide and ethnic cleansing. The Arabs were masters at cultural genocide and the fundamentalist Sunnis still promote that as an ideal. Britain used cultural genocide as a tool in particular cases. Generally if they were having major issues with a particular group. Their preferred method was to engage with the leadership or a minority, empower them and let them run the show.
Much like Rome did to the Gauls, Vandals, Franks etc
 

Attachments

  • lee.jpe
    lee.jpe
    22.6 KB · Views: 0
I had no idea who Sacagawea was until I saw this story and did a search.
Neither had I.


Descendants of Sacagawea say the statue is offensive​

"It depicts our ancestor as if she was a dog going along on the trip,"
 
"It depicts our ancestor as if she was a dog going along on the trip," Abrahamson said at the time.

Or, you know, depicting a culture based on slavery who sold children.
 
Also no worris I was commenting on a quote from the story, not directed at you.

Thanks, Jarn. So early in the day, I was afraid I might step on a political land-mine. :)
 
Neither had I.


Descendants of Sacagawea say the statue is offensive​


That's really too bad because their accomplishments and Sacagawea's story are quite inspirational even though there is an overtone of its being a precursor to the whole Manifest Destiny thing and, of course, the usual attitudes engrained in American society at the time. I can see where the statue was not particulalry flattering of her while on the other hand that she was included on the piece at all would have been a very progressive thing back in 1919 when it was put up.

Being an immigrant to North America, I have no dog in the hunt of preserving historic icons but on the other hand I feel a sense of loss that we are taking down statues of people, who made a mark on history, just because they were people of their time and had beliefs some now find offensive. Strangely as we tear down statues of John A Macdonald, we're putting up statues of Louis Riel - I fail to see the logic in that.

:unsure:
 
That's really too bad because their accomplishments and Sacagawea's story are quite inspirational even though there is an overtone of its being a precursor to the whole Manifest Destiny thing and, of course, the usual attitudes engrained in American society at the time. I can see where the statue was not particulalry flattering of her while on the other hand that she was included on the piece at all would have been a very progressive thing back in 1919 when it was put up.

Being an immigrant to North America, I have no dog in the hunt of preserving historic icons but on the other hand I feel a sense of loss that we are taking down statues of people, who made a mark on history, just because they were people of their time and had beliefs some now find offensive. Strangely as we tear down statues of John A Macdonald, we're putting up statues of Louis Riel - I fail to see the logic in that.

:unsure:

We should be outraged that the French Canadian contribution to the L&C expedition was not represented!

The French Canadian Contribution to the Lewis and Clark Expedition: Taking the Measure of a Continent​


Saint Louis, a small settlement at the mouth of the Missouri, would be Lewis and Clark’s starting point. There they recruited French Canadians familiar with the river to act as guides, pilots, interpreters and hunters. These French Canadians were the unsung heroes of an expedition that could not have succeeded without them. Lewis, for example, never took any significant action unless accompanied by Georges Drouillard, described as “a man of much merit” in his journals upon the expedition’s return. There is no question that the Lewis and Clark Expedition constitutes an episode in the history of French North America.

 
Back
Top