A Case In Point – The Race Addicts Defend Hitler


I previously mentioned my plans to stop scrutinizing the race addicts so closely, because debunking their arguments is like shooting fish in a barrel. However, I need to write a quick response to one of the race addicts — a certain Abagond — because his latest blog post is so ludicrous that it cries out for debunking. More importantly, however, his post can serve as an object lesson in showing the absurd places to which the addiction to white racism can bring these commentators in their fevered imaginations.

Note: Abagond writes pretty well, in a somewhat academic style. He sometimes uses also a slightly prosecutorial style: making his points by asking questions, so as to seem reasonable, all the while following up with bullet points that, he thinks, inexorably walk the reader down the path to his conclusion. The problem with this style is the same problem of prosecutors everywhere: you should never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer up-front.

In his latest post Abagond poses the question: “Was Hitler evil?” His premise is that since other whites have done what Hitler did (Abagond’s opinion), is it really fair to characterize Hitler as evil, without making the very same characterization for others? He then lays out 12 points he thinks prove his point that Hitler was simply like any other mass murderer — or mass murdering race — in history.

I’ve copied Abagond’s post, and pasted it below in order to do our debunking in-line in red font in [square brackets], in the text itself. Note: we’d argue with Abagond on his blog if he weren’t censoring our replies to his posts. Censorship is standard operating procedure for the American political left — and for race addicts. They are, after all, so insecure — rightfully — about the strength of their arguments, that they set up echo chambers that allow only supporting viewpoints in.

– * – BEGINNING of ABAGOND’s POST – * –

Was Hitler evil?

Tue 13 Aug 2013 by abagond

hitler-smiling-1

Was Hitler evil?

Most White Americans will say yes: he killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust! [Otherwise stated: you would be very hard-pressed to find a white person anywhere in the world (as long as you don’t consider arabs “white”) who doesn’t say yes. Not to be forgotten is that Hitler’s genocidal machine wiped out many, many others, including Catholics — he was a virulent atheist — gypsies, gays, the handicapped, the “mentally defective,” and others whom Hitler or his minions deemed either defective or inferior for whatever reason.]

But to avoid any double standard we should apply the same moral reasoning White Americans apply to their own history: [But, there’s no risk whatsoever of double standard here anyway. No white person whatsoever pretends in any way that white people are free of blame for crimes against black people. More importantly, they never did so at anytime in my recollection, and I’ve been paying close attention to all this for more than 50 years. So, to “avoid any double standard,” we can simply continue as before to label Hitler as evil, while we continue as before to label white racism, slavery and any other crimes committed by white people against blacks as evil.]

  1. Everyone does it. Tribalism goes back to at least the invention of the spear. History is full of mass killing of civilians: Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Srebrenica, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Gaza, Dresden, Nanking, Tiananmen Square, Stalin, Tamerlane, Alexander the Great,  the Khmer Rouge, Mongols, Assyrians, Iroquois, the killing of Armenians, Kurds, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, Tasmanians, Namibians and on and on. If Hitler killed more people than some others, it was because he had better technology. [Abagond has put together a mish-mash of acts perpetrated in a time of war simply to defeat an enemy — either in the context of self-defense or of conquest — (Hiroshima, Dresden, Alexander the Great, Iroquois, American Indians) and a time of “peace” (Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Kurds, Darfur); as well as acts perpetrated because of ethnic hatreds (Rwanda, Khmer Rouge, Armenians); and a combination of the three (Nanking, Rwanda, Namibians, Kurds, Khmer Rouge). He further says that Hitler killed more people only because technology made it possible. Wrong. Very wrong. Americans had much better — ie nuclear — technology, and used it only twice ever in Japan. If Americans had been set on the idea of eliminating any ethnicity whatsoever, they could have used that technology to do so. Yet, they imposed extremely generous surrender terms upon the Japanese and turned an implacable enemy into a strong friend. Further, Americans firebombed Dresden, Germany to help to end World War II in Europe, but then, again, imposed generous surrender terms on the Germans, and turned an enemy into a friend. Furthermore, the ferocity with which Americans attacked Germans proves pretty conclusively that Americans were not favorably disposed toward Germans because they are of the same race as the majority of Americans. Abagond’s list above proves the exact opposite of Abagond’s point. And, all the way back to Abagond’s original point. No, not everyone does it. No overtly Christian nation has ever tried actually to wipe a people off the face of the earth. They have imposed themselves and their values on non-Christian peoples, and in every case, any individuals who pronounced themselves converted were welcomed “into the fold.” It is only relatively recently — say in the last 50 years or so — that whites, and Christians, have condemned such a practice as wrong. But, they did. And unambiguously. Again, and read it well: White people are still the only identifiable group ever in history to undergo a thorough examination of their treatment of all other peoples, to have found themselves and their behaviors wanting, and to have made serious attempts (including trillions and trillions of dollars as well as favorable treatment of job and college and housing applicants, free food and other considerations) at some kind of restitution.]
  2. Technology made him do it. Anyone with Hitler’s technology would have done the same thing. [Nope. Americans had and still have superior technology. They used it only those two times — nearly 70 years ago — to bring World War II to a more rapid conclusion, then have spent all the subsequent  years doing their level best to prevent any further use of nuclear arms by anyone.]
  3. Europeans kill each other all the time. What’s the big deal? [Never before the 20th Century had there been an idea of wiping an entire people from the face of the earth. Exiling entire peoples? Yes. Taking the land of entire peoples? Sure…that’s called conquest, and, yes, everyone did do it. No one has ever indicated, however, that this is a good thing. No one has ever used it to justify crimes against entire peoples either. Some may have justified it as “necessary,” a point with which many justifiably disagree, but none have ever pretended it was a good thing.]
  4. Jews are racist too. They have forced Palestinians off their land, apply separate laws to them and regularly massacre Palestinian civilians. [The “Jews have forced Palestinians off their land” myth is just that: a myth. The Arabs who are treated the best of any in the Middle East are all Arabs in Israel. The Jews simply returned to land from which they were forcibly removed years before. If Palestinians really want to have a good life, they need only to renounce their oft-stated desire to wipe Israel off the map, get rid of their hatred of the Jews, and cooperate with Israel.]
  5. Americans are no better. They have forced American Indians off their land, applied separate laws to them and regularly massacred American Indian civilians. [No one pretends that Americans are blameless in their treatment of Native Americans. However, again, in the case of Native Americans, there was never any attempt to exterminate them, as Hitler tried to do with the Jews. Did Americans mistreat American Indians? Sure thing. Have whites condemned that treatment as wrong? Yep. Have they tried to right that wrong in the past 50 years? Obviously. Guess what: in all of history, yes, Americans are better. The historical record is absolutely, positively, unambiguous in this regard. Hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid, along with a history in the 20th and 21st Centuries of liberating hundreds of millions of people. It’s a simple, undeniable fact of history: the three greatest things ever to “happen” to the planet are, in order of importance: (1) the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, (2) the Catholic Church, and (3) the United States of America.]
  6. Hitler is not uniquely evil. See above. [Perfectly irrelevant. Evil is evil, whether it’s “uniquely evil” or not.]
  7. Hitler’s intentions were good. He saw the Holocaust as doing the world a favour. [Again, perfectly irrelevant. Presumably many people doing evil — Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Manson, Mugabe, Amin, Bokassa, et al., for example — thought they were doing “good.” So what. People pretty universally condemn these dirtbags today.]
  8. It was the times! The West back then was nakedly racist. [Yep. And the west was coming out of it. As we mentioned here: states of mind are not static. They are always headed in some direction or other. The west was working its way out of its past racism. Whites basically outgrew and got past racism. Again, they are the only ethnic group to have made that voyage. That it didn’t happen overnight is at the crux of Abagond’s peevishness.] Racism had the backing of science. [Like much “science” today, this was, of course, junk science. There is plenty of junk science in every era. See, eg: “Climate Change.”] The book Hitler called his Bible was bought by millions of Americans: “The Passing of the Great Race” (1916) by Madison Grant, a rich New Yorker. The word genocide was not invented till 1943 and not properly defined till after the war – by the winners to condemn Hitler! [What’s the point here? Should the winners have said, “Oops! We were wrong. Hitler was right all along!” Of course not. So they didn’t. Abagond is taking the really strange tack of condemning  the victors in World War II — presumably dominated by white people and white thinking — for condemning Hitler and his evil. Apparently, Abagond figures that white people are capable only of evil, so, in order to be true to themselves, should have embraced Hitler after routing him in the war. This is, of course, incoherent, nonsensical and paranoid.] We should not judge the past by current morals. [Maybe we shouldn’t, but, we do judge the past by current morals. We all hope that our current state of mind is superior to our past. That’s simply a human condition. If we are more clear-eyed today than yesterday — as we all hope we are — then there’s no reason to embrace evil in the past. Abagond has come upon a serious problem with his reasoning. He appears to be of the opinion that whites are irredeemable and must, in order to be honest at least with themselves, embrace Hitler and others who he thinks have acted like all other whites in history. To continue to hold this nonsensical narrative, Abagond is forced to ignore incontrovertible evidence of white progress in cleansing its thinking of racism, or of racial superiority, or of, really, prejudice of any kind! Up to and including prejudice against what is clearly bad and destructive! Bottom line: whites generations ago transformed themselves into likely the least racist ethnicity in the world! What’s astonishing about this, is that whites didn’t have to do this transformation. They were, by all accounts, the dominant ethnic group in the world following World War II.]
  9. We should be grateful. Germans invented the printing press, car, jet plane, rocket, etc. They gave us much of the modern medicine that allows most people to live past 40. Albert Schweitzer and other Germans have helped people in Africa. Condemning Hitler without pointing out all the good Germans have done is unbalanced and hypocritical. [Uhhh…again, what is the point here? I don’t think that anyone condemns Albert Schweitzer or Mozart or the great scientists in German history. But, no one tries to use these positive examples of German contributions to pretend that Hitler was just okay either! Abagond has gone all incoherent here. If he’s really trying to say that whites are trying to argue that Schweitzer justifies Hitler, then he is very wrong. No one anywhere even pretends to try to make that argument. Alright, alright, alright…my statement was an absolute. Presumably someone, somewhere has tried to make that argument. No one whom anyone takes seriously tries to make that argument.]
  10. Get over it! It took place a long time ago. My family did not take part in it. No one you know was affected by it. Why make such a big deal about it? The past is dead and gone. There are more important issues. [Again, whuuuh? The past is not dead and gone. Certain things are dead and gone. White racism for example, but no one tries to pretend that anyone should just forget about the past. Use the past to be sure that bad aspects of the past can never be repeated. ]
  11. It is racist to talk about racism. Talking about anti-Semitism keeps it alive. Condemning Hitler is divisive. [Abagond is just mailing it in here. No one tries to make any of these arguments. Everyone, in one of the few concepts just about everyone agrees with unconditionally, condemns Hitler(*).]
  12. You can dismiss what Americans say about Hitler: they were his enemies; many of their journalists and historians are Jewish; their schools teach patriotic lies. [Dismiss all you want what Americans say, Abagond, your list above contains the word Dresden in it. There can be no doubt about the sincerity of American opposition to Hitler. The principal condemnation of Hitler is not because of the Holocaust, but rather because his mass murders were racially-motivated. Yep. Americans, and all whites worldwide, have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of Hitler’s — a white guy’s — racism. ]

Every single one of these arguments, with the names changed, have been used on this blog to downplay American racism, slavery and genocide. [Not sure what Abagond is trying to say here. Presumably, he’s not trying to pretend that he is downplaying American racism, slavery or genocide. I’m assuming that Abagond means that others have tried to make these points in response to Abagond’s posts. It’s important to note that there are no examples in history of anything resembling “American genocide.”]

W.E.B. Du Bois:

there was no Nazi atrocity – concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood – which the Christian civilization of Europe had not long been practicing against colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world. [W.E.B. DuBois was, of course, simply wrong here. Again, no white person, whom anyone takes seriously, has ever pretended that whites are blameless in their interactions with other ethnicities. Hence whites’ very long history of deep introspection concerning those interactions. Let’s try to express this another way: First, let’s stipulate to DuBois’ (who died in 1963) point. No one except the certifiably insane or the hopelessly paranoid would try to pretend that whites have behaved in the same manner DuBois describes in more than 50 years. Nor could anyone pretend that whites simply one day, as a whole, decided just to cut it out. Huge populations don’t act that way. Populations take time to overcome any widespread state of mind. At the very least a generation. Really, always significantly more. As I have shown many times, whites have been working on shedding any prejudice whatsoever for more than 150 years.]

– * – END of ABAGOND’s POST – * –

Summary — Abagond is doing, above, what race addicts everywhere do in the face of overwhelming evidence that white racism is pretty much dead and gone: twisting and contorting themselves in knots, to try to find white racism absolutely everywhere — even in white condemnations of white racism. They are reduced to this nonsensical extreme. Thank goodness, as more and more people start to see through these mental gymnastics, the more they are turning from them in disgust. It’s a simple truth that we’ve said in these pages numerous times: if a black person, any black person, (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, and (4) interacts well with others, then he or she will succeed in America. That simply could not be said of any actually racist country.

Abagond is doing nothing less, with his his ludicrous post, than attempting to equate all white people with Hitler. The problem is that white people are, and have always been, the most vociferous to condemn Hitler. Read this well: There is simply no possible way for Abagond to reconcile a supposedly racist white race with that same people’s nearly universal and visceral condemnation of Hitler; especially when, as the most powerful people on earth after World War II, it was under no obligation to do so. 

Abagond and others will constantly be lost at sea, trying to justify the unjustifiable pathologies in the black community by frantically pointing in all directions at phantom white racism. However, you’ll never see or hear him address the following undeniable point: white people have demonstrably been embarked on a quest to banish any prejudice whatsoever from their thinking for more than 150 years. In a twist of irony there is only “gay marriage” today, because whites — the least prejudiced, least judgmental ethnic group in the world — are still the majority ethnicity in America today. If that last fact were not the case, there would be nothing even resembling “gay marriage” today.

If you’ve been following our posts for a while, then you know that we don’t approve of the eradication of all judgementalism from anyone’s thinking! 🙂

— xPraetorius

(*) In fact, whites condemn Hitler so completely automatically, that it prevents any ability to assess the Nazi era with any real objectivity. Wounds and passions from World War II are still sufficiently fresh that any attempt to find any good whatsoever in Nazi Germany meets with reflexive condemnation. Otherwise stated: Automatic condemnation is not conducive to writing and recording actual history, which ought to be as objective and scientific a study as possible. Presumably, when several more generations have passed, historians will be able to dig into the Nazi era with less emotional baggage impeding a clear-eyed evaluation.

Do not take this as a justification of any kind for Naziism. I take a back seat to no man in opposing socialism and big central, tyrannical government of any stripe! I simply don’t pretend that Nazi Germany was an unalloyed hellhole throughout its existence. Nor, do I think that was true of Soviet Russia, or even North Korea, Syria, Vietnam or Sudan…or any of the other hellholes in the world. People the world over do their level best to make the best of their circumstances. Some of them even succeed, more or less.

Nota Bene: It appears that Abagond is no longer censoring our replies to his posts. As a result, I would point you to his blog post — here — to see what others are saying as well.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “A Case In Point – The Race Addicts Defend Hitler

  1. You state that the Jews returned to land they had been forcibly removed from years ago. How many years ago exactly? This post has surprised and saddened me somewhat. I suppose that everyone has imbibed in some of the kool-aid at some point in their life.

  2. Colin: I’m certainly open to correction. I admit to being a bit of an Israel-ophile, but that’s mostly because I’m largely a democracy-ophile. Israel certainly SEEMS to be, largely, the only stable country in the Middle East, where there’s some semblance of the rule of law, SOME respect for human rights, as well as changes of leadership on a regular basis.

    My understanding of the founding of the state of Israel was that the post World War II allies carved out the tiny chunk of land that made up pre-1967 Israel and designated it as a Jewish homeland. I’m not sure they really did ANYONE any favors, in that the land so designated — without the Sinai or the Golan Heights or the West Bank sure LOOKS impossible to defend. I was also FAIRLY confident that the establishment of the Jewish homeland simply restored a condition that had existed some time previous to 1948, when, or so I thought, Jews were forcibly removed from the land now known as Israel.

    I do know that people were displaced in the establishment of the state of Israel after WWII, but WWII was pretty much all about the displacement of people. The arrival of VE-Day and VJ Day didn’t stop that from happening.

    So, again, I’m definitely open to correction. I have no conceit that all my notions — either preconceived or otherwise — are correct. I’m LONG past the need to be always right…I’d rather learn. 🙂

    Best,

    — x

  3. “No white person whatsoever pretends in any way that white people are free of blame for crimes against black people. More importantly, they never did so at anytime in my recollection, and I’ve been paying close attention to all this for more than 50 years. “

    I was really looking forward to your logic-based debunking of Abagond’s post, but as the above quote shows, you fell flat on your face at the first logical hurdle. You’ve never seen anybody say whites are free of blame for crimes against blacks so it must be true!!!

  4. Ben: we ALL have only our own observations and perceptions to go on. Let me restate in another way. No one whom anyone takes seriously has EVER suggested “that white people are free of blame for crimes against black people.”

    This is so howlingly obvious that I shouldn’t have to repeat it. That Abagond suggests that there ARE commentators — whom others take seriously — suggesting that whites are blameless, is profoundly irresponsible on his part.

    If you dismissed my entire argument because of a small foray into hyperbole on my part, that simply speaks poorly of you.

    And, yes, if I haven’t heard of it, then it’s likely not out there. Certainly not in any significant way. Not being immodest there, just stating a simple fact.

    Look at no point do I say that NONE of the evils Abagond waxes operatic about exist. I DO make the point that they don’t exist AS A SERIOUS PROBLEM. Slow drivers on the interstate are a problem, just not a serious one, worthy of the angst and hand-wringing the likes of Abagond spend on the dead horse of white racism.

    Best,

    — x

    1. I hear you, you’re saying that your point of view is the right one because it’s the right one. That isn’t logically convincing.

      1. Not sure what you mean here, Ben. All correct points of view are correct at LEAST because they’re correct. I believe that’s a tautology. And, of course, these selfsame correct points of view tend to have all sorts of supporting data, arguments, logic and the like undergirding them. I do take pains to back up the things I say with all that good stuff.

        Best,

        — x

    2. Well, if you must know, your points are extremely silly, you have missed the point on several of your “counter-arguments”, have shown arguments that are historically ignorant, and have completely failed to show any of this logical prowess you promised. And you haven’t established that you are right which is a prerequisite for claiming “rightness”.

      Point by point:

      1) Your response makes no sense – you have tried to show why the “tribalism” argument is silly, but stupidly, and incorrectly, seem to think that it is the argument put forward by that blogger. If the tribalism argument is silly, then it is the white folks who use it that are silly. And you are ignorant – the US had no choice but to “attack Germany” because Germany had declared war on the US. And your argument about nuclear weapons is stupid – by the end of the war, the US still lacked a sufficient number of nukes for them to seriously consider using them to conquer others. they didn’t use them to do so, because they didn’t have enough at the time, as well as primitive delivery systems.

      2) Your point here is simply profoundly ignorant. Germany was the most technologically advanced nation in the world during WWII. They produced jet aircraft, rockets, cruise missiles, and the most advanced tanks, and small arms. They lost because they couldn’t produce enough of these things. Their atomic program was probably sabotaged by those involved in it, but was at one point on a par with America’s. Even if the US had the a-bomb, if the Nazis had been able to produce enough jet fighters, then America’s delivery systems – piston powered heavy bombers – would never have reached their targets to have an effect on the war. Please read more.

      3) Again, you seemed to miss the point here that the blogger is relating arguments given by apologists for racism. So if those who make the argument are wrong – as you believe – then you are agreeing with that point. Plus, I’m not going to list examples of pre-20th century genocides for you – you seem content to be ignorant.

      4) What is your point? It is racists who make the argument that Jews are racist too in order to justify their own racism. Didn’t you understand this?

      5) Yes, tu quoque arguments are silly, but racists are fond of making them. What’s your point?

      6) See above.

      7) Irrelevant? What is irrelevant? The fact that racism apologists use this argument to defend historical racism?

      8) Yes, you have agreed that this is another argument put forward by apologists for racism. Plus, why do you think that just because the word “genocide” wasn’t coined until the mid-1940’s, that this somehow means that it didn’t occur prior to that? Where is this vaunted logic of yours?

      9) LOL. Right, no-one argues that Schwiezer justifies Hitler, but people justify imperialism and the atrocities resulting from it by suggesting that some road or rail line built by colonialists on someone else’s land, or some legal system imparted, balances the injustices.

      10) You got this one right. That is exactly what people of color are saying – except that you seem to think that telling people to “get over it” is equivalent to saying “forget it”. When people say “get over it”, they mean stop using history to guide present-day policy – meaning, don’t be guided by the historical experience. You seem to be agreeing with people of color, but don’t realize it.

      11) Really? No-one is making those arguments? Show me the promised logic here.

      12) I can’t believe what my eyes are telling me from this point of yours. That point in no way is suggesting that America didn’t genuinely oppose Hitler. What on earth are you talking about?

      1. Ben:
        Well, if you must know,

        xPraetorius:
        Actually, that’s the point. I must know. That’s why I’m not stuck in the same 50-years obsolete thinking as you and Abagond. I DO bother to go outside my comfort zone to challenge my thinking. When much, much younger, I used to be a conventional liberal, with the same conventional thinking that you exhibit.

        your points are extremely silly, you have missed the point on several of your “counter-arguments”,

        xPraetorius:
        Nope.

        Ben:
        have shown arguments that are historically ignorant, and have completely failed to show any of this logical prowess you promised. And you haven’t established that you are right which is a prerequisite for claiming “rightness”.

        xPraetorius:
        Nope. Didn’t do that either. “Logical prowess?” Please don’t use nonsensical locutions that people have to interpret.

        Ben:
        Point by point:

        1) Your response makes no sense – you have tried to show why the “tribalism” argument is silly,

        xPraetorius:
        Nope. Didn’t try to do that at all…that I know of. If you’re interpreting that I did, I’ll have to think about it a bit, and you and I will have to be sure that we agree on the definition of “tribalism” to be sure we’re talking about the same thing.

        Ben:
        but stupidly, and incorrectly, seem to think that it is the argument put forward by that blogger.

        xPraetorius:
        Nope. I haven’t been either stupid OR incorrect.

        Ben:
        If the tribalism argument is silly, then it is the white folks who use it that are silly.

        xPraetorius:
        Ummm…ok. That would make sense. Presumably, also the black folks who use it would be silly as well? Whatever…I didn’t use it…again that I know of. See the note a few notes up.

        Ben:
        And you are ignorant – the US had no choice but to “attack Germany” because Germany had declared war on the US.

        xPraetorius:
        Nope. And you call MY arguments silly? Why do you think that Germany declared war on the U.S.? It was because the U.S. had already made it plain through massive aid (see: “Lend Lease”) whom they supported in the spreading war. I really shouldn’t have allowed this post to stay. I’m rather obviously not ignorant — stop calling names, or I will moderate your posts as mentioned above.

        Ben:
        And your argument about nuclear weapons is stupid – by the end of the war, the US still lacked a sufficient number of nukes for them to seriously consider using them to conquer others. they didn’t use them to do so, because they didn’t have enough at the time, as well as primitive delivery systems.

        xPraetorius:
        Neither you nor I know how many nuclear weapons th U.S. had. Doesn’t matter. They could have had a billion of ’em, they OBVIOUSLY didn’t have the desire to use them against anyone. The fact that they never DID use them against anyone ever again kind of supports that conclusion.

        Ben:
        2) Your point here is simply profoundly ignorant. Germany was the most technologically advanced nation in the world during WWII.

        xPraetorius:
        But not AFTER World War II.

        Ben:
        They produced jet aircraft, rockets, cruise missiles, and the most advanced tanks, and small arms. They lost because they couldn’t produce enough of these things.

        xPraetorius:
        And a bunch of other reasons.

        Ben:
        Their atomic program was probably sabotaged by those involved in it, but was at one point on a par with America’s. Even if the US had the a-bomb, if the Nazis had been able to produce enough jet fighters, then America’s delivery systems – piston powered heavy bombers – would never have reached their targets to have an effect on the war. Please read more.

        xPraetorius:
        I knew a LOT of that, and some of that is just false and some is simply conjecture. Please grow up.

        Been:
        3) Again, you seemed to miss the point here that the blogger is relating arguments given by apologists for racism. So if those who make the argument are wrong – as you believe – then you are agreeing with that point. Plus, I’m not going to list examples of pre-20th century genocides for you – you seem content to be ignorant.

        xPraetorius:
        Again YOU seem to miss the point: there are NO apologists for racism whom anyone takes seriously. There DO exist apologists for racism. The wider world views them as harmless cranks, because they are so tiny in number. They’re NOT a big problem in the U.S.

        Ben:
        4) What is your point? It is racists who make the argument that Jews are racist too in order to justify their own racism. Didn’t you understand this?

        xPraetorius:
        I thought my point was pretty clear: white racism is not a big problem in the U.S. anymore, as Abagond and others — who find it under every rock and around every corner.

        Ben:
        5) Yes, tu quoque arguments are silly, but racists are fond of making them. What’s your point?

        xPraetorius:
        Glad you admit it. Abagond and the rest of his followers are very fond of them. Tell them.

        Ben:
        6) See above.

        xPraetorius:
        Ooooookay…

        7) Irrelevant? What is irrelevant? The fact that racism apologists use this argument to defend historical racism?

        xPraetorius:
        Well, thank goodness very FEW of them are out there trying to make that argument, then! Why? Oh, because white racism is not a big problem anymore. Hasn’t been for 50 years.

        Ben:
        8) Yes, you have agreed that this is another argument put forward by apologists for racism. Plus, why do you think that just because the word “genocide” wasn’t coined until the mid-1940′s, that this somehow means that it didn’t occur prior to that? Where is this vaunted logic of yours?

        xPraetorius:
        You’re getting cranky and just tossing things out here. I differed ONLY with the definition of the word. Someone else was using “genocide” for every perceived misdeed ever committed by white people. I believe his term was “mental genocide.” I simply said that there is no evidence whatsoever that there was EVER a concerted attempt — as OFFICIAL American policy — to exterminate an entire people. If that had EVER been American policy, one would think that there would be peoples no longer with us (as a result of extermination, that is — assimilation does not count as genocide in the disappearance of an ethnicity or a people.) Certainly, one would think that there would be evidence of such a government policy — as there is regarding Nazi Germany — it’d be kind of big news.

        Ben:
        9) LOL. Right, no-one argues that Schwiezer justifies Hitler, but people justify imperialism and the atrocities resulting from it by suggesting that some road or rail line built by colonialists on someone else’s land, or some legal system imparted, balances the injustices.

        xPraetorius:
        Again, no one whom anyone takes seriously. Sorry: imperialism is just not in vogue now. Not remotely. No serious commentator is out there suggesting that any good of imperialism balances or outweighs the bad.

        Ben:
        10) You got this one right. That is exactly what people of color are saying – except that you seem to think that telling people to “get over it” is equivalent to saying “forget it”. When people say “get over it”, they mean stop using history to guide present-day policy – meaning, don’t be guided by the historical experience. You seem to be agreeing with people of color, but don’t realize it.

        xPraetorius:
        When you simply refer back to comments as “this one,” I’m not sure what you mean. However, I would urge you not to put words in my mouth. You’ll note that I never told ANYONE to “get over it.” I suggested that they re-assess the extent to which white racism affects American life today, which is very little.

        Ben:
        11) Really? No-one is making those arguments? Show me the promised logic here.

        xPraetorius:
        When you simply refer vaguely back to comments without quoting them or doing something to let me know which comment you’re referring to, I can’t really be sure what you mean. I’m not going to go back to hunt through things to try to find your reference. There IS, after all, quite a bit of text. If you’re referring to those times where I’ve said “No one says [this or that]” I have explained numerous times — on this thread and on Abagond’ site — that I mean “No one whom anyone takes seriously.” Oh, and I DO try to back things up.

        Ben:
        12) I can’t believe what my eyes are telling me from this point of yours. That point in no way is suggesting that America didn’t genuinely oppose Hitler. What on earth are you talking about?

        xPraetorius:
        Abagond’s post represented an attempt to put Hitler and white people in the same pot, stir it all up and say, “See? They’re all the same!” I challenged him on it. If you don’t see that, then you’re not paying attention. Read Abagond’s other posts as well. The same general idea — that white people are pretty much an evil phenomenon who have been a blight on the earth — prevails throughout. I tried to add some color to his thinking.

        Best,

        — x

  5. @ xPraetorius

    I have to agree with Ben. You really felt too sure of your way being right. I don’t see the back up you keep claiming you provided that makes what you say correct.

    On top of that I think you prematurely got your boxers in a bunch and proceeded to read what was not there. He mentions moral reasoning (determining right or wrong) and you state “No white person whatsoever pretends in any way that white people are free of blame for crimes against black people”—This statement assumes that you know what all white people do. Dangerous thinking you accused Abagond of doing.

    1. Yes, I felt sure I was right. I’m pretty sure that everyone else ALSO felt he was right. I tried not to throw out too much stuff … the atmosphere was muddy enough. I thought that my “five points,” and “$17 trillion dollars…” themes were enough to support my point that “white racism is not a big problem in America today.”

      Agreed about the phrase “no white person…”, and I modified it later. I said later that “No white person whatsoever — whom anyone takes seriously — pretends in any way that white people are free of blame for crimes against black people”

      I AM a long-time in-depth observer of national events, trends, etc. I stand by the modified statement.

      Best,

      — x

        1. Tell me: do I have to take them seriously if they refuse to take me seriously? I only give back what I get. Herneith, for example, is a walking snark-fest. How seriously should I treat him?

          I don’t dislike any of them. Their ideas? Yep, I dislike those, but I don’t know any of them well enough to decide whether or not I like any of them. I have dear friends whose ideas I find very disagreeable.

          Either way, I address ideas, not people.

          Best,

          — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s