Surviving the selection process at Auschwitz..

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Shoah-Business...

#31

Post by Scott Smith » 04 Jan 2003, 22:09

Dan Weakley wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Dan Weakley wrote:Okay, your worldly experience notwithstanding, why on earth would you discredit the revelations of Primo Levi? One thing I have discovered in reading the stories of Jewish inmates of the camp system is a notable absence of malice and hatred in their writings, as if they make a particular effort to seperate their just bitterness towards the Nazi's and try to relate their story in a dispassionate manner, all which leads me to believe they are more interested in influencing the reader with the facts, and to show that it is not a personal vendetta that drives them but an intense desire to ensure their story is not forgotten.
It is more theology than history. At best it is hearsay, as any honest cross-examination would show. Proprietary-history, however, does start with the premise that the experiences of one's people are unique.

I posted this on the Old Forum a couple of years ago:
Scott Smith wrote: Comrade Wiesel is mistaken if he thinks that his pain and suffering is any better than anybody else's. I'm sorry but welcome to the human race. But this really speaks more to Wiesel's own personal insecurities than anything else. It is kind of sad, really.

Having said my piece about Elie Wiesel's crusade, let me reiterate my own belief and hope:

We are just studying history here. I have said all along that we have to study history objectively and without emotion to understand ourselves-who we are, where we came from and where we intend to go.

This requires a certain degree of tolerance! History should be divorced from theosophy, in my opinion. I prefer to determine my own values and ethics, thank you. And if everybody could do that the world would be a much more reasonable, mature and safer place for all of us. Civilization is a learning-process and intellectual freedom is crucial to that.

We can't learn and progress if, for example, key historical people like Adolf Hitler are reduced to mere cardboard-cutouts of Evil.

Sincerely,
Scott
Peace is forged through tolerance and mutual respect. An agreement to disagree.

Has Mr. Wiesel or Mr. Levi "earned the right" to Hate because their people were mistreated by the Germans? We cannot force anyone to forgive. But they don't have a collective right to anything on this planet greater than anyone else. Their theology is their business.

But public space is mine too.
:)
Hmmm....Where should I start? It is more theology than history

Really? I think not. Theoelogy does not even factor into the equation. His comment "He would spit at Kuhns prayer" clearly shows a contempt for religion.
One may have a contempt for religion and still be a Believer of a dogma. But "theology" is perhaps not the correct word. Theology is the study of God, and there is certainly something irreligious about the Holo-Cult. I guess it depends on one's definition of Diety and what criterion separates the orthodox Believers from the heterodox Deniers. Some area between Groupthink (an organizational, mass, or group-psychology) with traditional Theosophy is meant. The Holocaust is much more than a myth, much less than a religion, or something having its own God(s). The Holocaust certainly has its own Martyrs and Devils, Saints, Sinners, and Spectators; it also has Believers and Deniers and Skeptics.
At best it is hearsay, as any honest cross-examination would show

Come now Scott. Hearsay? I think this is first-hand knowledge, gleaned through experience (and an intense suffering that lends one to not easily forget and which we could barely imagine)
Admittedly it may be unfair comparing Primo Levi with Elie Wiesel, the latter who seems to have bested Truman Capote in inventing "fictional nonfiction," though Wiesel was certainly not the first to "novella the Holocaust."

Nevertheless, if Levi did not experience something himself then it is hearsay. There is one thing with art, or even writing history, which is not claimed to be a primary source, but that is something entirely different with mythology, and particularly if it involves accusations. An honest cross-examination by a skeptical inquirer would reveal what someone knows and how they come to know it. Evaluating the originality of sources is fundamental for the critical-historical method.
Again, this argument seems to be headed in the direction as if the Jews have some monopoly on suffering. They certainly do not. When i speak of "earning" a right to hate I am speaking of someone who suffered grievous injustices and bodily harm. I am speaking as though that individual has the right, for him or herself, not as a spokesperson for their race. Forgiveness is a personal issue in this regard.
Yes, but why are they telling us about it if not to pontificate? To Testify!
When you state that "we need to study history objectively and without emotion" I agree, and I am certainly impressed by the level of factual retelling of events, devoid of emotion, that I read in these first hand accounts. My hatred would probably be palpable and seep from the pages were it I who suffered in the same fashion and had a story to share.
It might seem that way but let's separate Art from History. There is a fine line here between documenting suffering and generating Greuelpropaganda. Skepticism is more than justified with accusations, however impious to Victims and Victimology that this stance might be seen as for some.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 04 Jan 2003, 23:34, edited 1 time in total.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#32

Post by Charles Bunch » 04 Jan 2003, 23:33

Erik wrote:Mr. Bunch wrote:
The evidence for the attempted annihilation of Jews, and for their gassing at places like Auschwitz, doesn't depend on evidence such as this. But testimonial evidence of this sort from literally hundreds of Auschwitz prisoners provides a wealth of detail on the operation of the camp and how the system of death within it functioned.
To suggest that Levi, and the many others, created such scenes out of whole cloth, bespeaks of a view of these people which transcends any claim to intellectual skepticism.

I’ve read Primo Levi’s “If This Is a Man”, i e, “Survival in Auschwitz” (“Se questo e un uomo”)
in a swedish translation of an edition dated 1976. This edition has an “afterword”(?), which was added to an Italian school edition in1958.
On side 216 of the swedish edition Mr Levi says that he didn’t know about the crematoria and gas chambers when he was at Monowitz, but found out first afterwords, “when the whole world found out about them”(this last is my translation from Swedish of a part of a sentence I noted down).

But he may have heard what he considered rumours, while in the camp(I don’t remember reading it in the book – the reading was “cursory”!)? Since these rumours were “true” – i e “found out” (see above) to be true – maybe he “knew” already in the camp, without being aware of it?
Well, I don't think we should waste too much time commenting on your note made during a "cursory" reading.

I suspect there is a problem with it, since discussion of crematoria and gas chambers occur in the book.

As for whether it was a rumor, of course it was a rumor, since Levi did not see first hand the facilities.

But it was a rumor that was true, just as other rumors well circulated in the camp were true, such as the attempt on Hitler's life, the Normandy invasion, the progress of the Russian counter-offensive, and the destruction of Krema IV in Birkenau.
Last month one of the crematoriums at Birkenau had been blown up. None of us knows (and perhaps no one will ever know) exactly how the exploit was carried out: there was talk of the Sonderkommando, the Special Kommando attached to the gas chambers and the ovens, which is itself periodically exterminated, and which is kept scrupulously segregated from the rest of the camp. The fact remains that a few hundred men at Birkenau, helpless and exhausted slaves like ourselves, had found in themselves the strength to act, to mature the fruits of their hatred.

Survival in Auschwitz
Primo Levi
Simon & Schuster
1996
p. 149
I see and hear Kuhn praying aloud, swaying backwards and forwards violently. Kuhn is thanking God because he has not been chosen. Kuhn is out of his senses. Does he not see Beppo the Greek in the bunk next to him? Beppo is twenty years old and is going to the gas chamber tommorrow and he knows it and lies there looking at the light without saying anything and without even thinking anymore. Does Kuhn fail to realize that the next time will probably be his turn? Does Kuhn not understand that what happened today was an abomination, which no propitiatory prayer, no pardon, no expiation by the guilty can change?

If I was God, I would spit at Kuhns prayer.
(My emphases.)

Still, he “knew”, didn’t he? Like Kuhn and Beppo?
Yes.
...the important thing for the Lager is that the most useless will be eliminated.
(from what?)
From the presence of the living.
But is it “rumours”?
It was at the time. It was also true.

Today is working Sunday, Arbeitssonntag: we work until 1:00 PM, then we return to camp for the shower, shave and general control of the skin diseases and lice. And in the yards, everyone mysteriously knew that the selection would be today. Rumors circulate, the young tell the young only the old will be chosen. The healthy tell the healthy only the ill ones will be chosen. Specialists will be excluded. German Jews will be excluded. Low numbers will be excluded. You will be chosen. I will be excluded.
(My emphases.)

Chosen for/excluded from what? Gas chambers?
I.e., from death? Or delousing?
Chosen for death, and excluded from the selections for death.

Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?

Mr Bunch wrote:
But testimonial evidence of this sort from literally hundreds of Auschwitz prisoners provides a wealth of detail on the operation of the camp and how the system of death within it functioned.


Death of men or of lice?
So Erik thinks those Jews selected who left and were never seen again were just deloused? Perhaps that was just preliminary to being released, eh Erik?

Perhaps one day you'll get the balls to actually make a point.


User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#33

Post by Scott Smith » 04 Jan 2003, 23:39

Charles Bunch wrote:Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?
I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for them and the other 25 million who were forcibly deloused with water, steam and poison gas during the war.
:)

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#34

Post by Charles Bunch » 04 Jan 2003, 23:39

Erik wrote:Mr Bunch wrote:
Quote:
What is the motivation and purpose of the alleged “hate speech” that needs laws against it being disseminated and to suppress its abuse and denigration of truth?

So Erik equates laws passed against the public denial of the Holocaust with Bradley Smith's and CODOH's denial of the Holocaust and it's implicit claim that Jews have lied about it?

Quote:
Does it try to set apart a zone of hate – sickly cowardly hate – for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jews?

So Erik equates hating those who attempted genocide with antisemitism?

Quote:
As the Christ killer generation has passed from the scene, what Jews personify and what persists in the Jews has changed. What Jews personified in year 0 – at Calvary – is not what a different generation of Jews personify today.

So Erik believes the Jews killed Christ, and are as deserving of hatred as those who sought to exterminate the Jews of Europe? Or is Erik asserting that both the Christ Killer charge and the genocide charge are false?


With Erik it is difficult to tell, since he seems to prefer thoughtless words to thinking.
“So Erik equates…?”
“So Erik believes…?”
“With Erik it is difficult to tell…”!

And then Mr. Bunch tell’em what Erik prefers!
No, Mr. Bunch told 'em what your comments seem to indicate.
I was actually trying to “think” with “thougthless words”.

No, it says you substituted thoughtless words for thinking.
Isn't it relevant to ask? Bradley R. Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust are a travesty and a repudiation of all that a university should stand for when falsehood is disseminated and truth is suppressed.
What does this MEAN? Who is suppressing what? What ”Debate” is ”Open”? Are there any historical déjà-vu’s around? Can we learn from history? Jewish history? Revision of the Bible readings?
The spreader of falsehood is suppressing truth.

Rather than asking incomprehensible questions, you might consult the link provided with the excerpt from Dr. Silber's letter. Of course that would greatly restrict the scope of your meaningless questions.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#35

Post by Charles Bunch » 04 Jan 2003, 23:53

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?
I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for them and the other 25 million who were forcibly deloused with water, steam and poison gas during the war.
:)
And did those 25 million undergo selection for their "delousing", a selection from which they did not return?

No argument, not matter how baseless, is too shameful for a denier of the Holocaust to utter.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#36

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Jan 2003, 01:15

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?
I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for them and the other 25 million who were forcibly deloused with water, steam and poison gas during the war.
:)
And did those 25 million undergo selection for their "delousing", a selection from which they did not return?
Obviously not. But that thesis has not been demonstrated in each individual case with the Holocaust, either.
No argument, not matter how baseless, is too shameful for a denier of the Holocaust to utter.
Oh come on, Chuck--truce, now. It is a new year and all.
:)

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#37

Post by Erik » 05 Jan 2003, 01:30

Mr. Bunch wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't it relevant to ask? Bradley R. Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust are a travesty and a repudiation of all that a university should stand for when falsehood is disseminated and truth is suppressed.



What does this MEAN? Who is suppressing what? What ”Debate” is ”Open”? Are there any historical déjà-vu’s around? Can we learn from history? Jewish history? Revision of the Bible readings?



The spreader of falsehood is suppressing truth.

Rather than asking incomprehensible questions, you might consult the link provided with the excerpt from Dr. Silber's letter. Of course that would greatly restrict the scope of your meaningless questions.
You are right about the link provided with the excerpt. It seemingly ”restricts” the scope of Dr. Silber’s letter, to Bradley R. Smith and his Committe for Open Debate on the Holocaust and his/its right to advertise in Campus newspapers.
A university should have as one of its purposes to teach students the difference between the search for truth and false propaganda. No newspaper -- and certainly no newspaper on the campus of a university -- is under any obligation to advertise and perpetuate vicious lies. Bradley R Smith's advertisement is a repudiation of learning, a violation of civil discourse and libelous harassment.
The problem is that the scope of the first and the last sentence of this paragraph are much greater than the middle sentence seems to give occasion to. The bigness or “hullabaloo” of the words seems unwarranted, since an American Campus newspaper can advertise or perpetuate whatever it wants under protection of the First Amendment( can’t it? I’m asking an American lawyer, ain’t I?), and consequently to turn down any advertisement and perpetuation it wants, from the same American freedom.

Dr. Silber seems to be claiming the right of a university to “teach” with the pedagogical instrument of censurship – a Higher Right, emanating from Truth and Responsibility, and with a priority over any Amendment.
The advertisement begins by misunderstanding the idea of the university. It is not merely to promote intellectual freedom, but also to promote intellectual responsibility in the pursuit of truth. It is contrary to the ideal of the university to promote deliberate lies. It is also contrary to the propose of the university to participate in libeling individuals.
Would Dr. Silber have drawn this sword for Jesus Christ? Against the alleged libels and lies of a liberal theologian?

Perhaps he would have – a 100 years ago, or so.

Well, the times they are a-changing. Newer and tenderer churches want protection from Truth and Responsibility. And their wordy soldiers raise their bullying buts from their learned chairs, since they are not there “merely to promote intellectual freedom”.
Just as surely as a student newspaper would be reluctant to run an advertisement in favor of the flat earth theory and no university would hire a professor who advocated the flat earth theory, anyone who cares about the truth is under an obligation to think twice before offering a platform to those who systematically lie by denying the Holocaust. Those lies are at the heart of the advertisement submitted by Mr. Smith.


There is of course a great irony – "historical" irony – in the attempted irony of the flat earth allusion, when you consider the historical “protection” such world views of yore have enjoyed from doctors of churches and “higher” learning.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#38

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 Jan 2003, 01:58

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?
I'm sure it was a traumatic experience for them and the other 25 million who were forcibly deloused with water, steam and poison gas during the war.
:)
And did those 25 million undergo selection for their "delousing", a selection from which they did not return?
Obviously not. But that thesis has not been demonstrated in each individual case with the Holocaust, either.
On the contrary, that is what the evidence shows.
No argument, not matter how baseless, is too shameful for a denier of the Holocaust to utter.
Oh come on, Chuck--truce, now. It is a new year and all.
But the lies and denial are the same, aren't they Smith!

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#39

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 Jan 2003, 02:22

Erik wrote:Mr. Bunch wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't it relevant to ask? Bradley R. Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust are a travesty and a repudiation of all that a university should stand for when falsehood is disseminated and truth is suppressed.



What does this MEAN? Who is suppressing what? What ”Debate” is ”Open”? Are there any historical déjà-vu’s around? Can we learn from history? Jewish history? Revision of the Bible readings?



The spreader of falsehood is suppressing truth.

Rather than asking incomprehensible questions, you might consult the link provided with the excerpt from Dr. Silber's letter. Of course that would greatly restrict the scope of your meaningless questions.
You are right about the link provided with the excerpt. It seemingly ”restricts” the scope of Dr. Silber’s letter, to Bradley R. Smith and his Committe for Open Debate on the Holocaust and his/its right to advertise in Campus newspapers.
And of course you've left out the most crucial part - the veracity of Smith's comments in his ad about Wiesel.
quote]A university should have as one of its purposes to teach students the difference between the search for truth and false propaganda. No newspaper -- and certainly no newspaper on the campus of a university -- is under any obligation to advertise and perpetuate vicious lies. Bradley R Smith's advertisement is a repudiation of learning, a violation of civil discourse and libelous harassment.
The problem is that the scope of the first and the last sentence of this paragraph are much greater than the middle sentence seems to give occasion to. The bigness or “hullabaloo” of the words seems unwarranted, since an American Campus newspaper can advertise or perpetuate whatever it wants under protection of the First Amendment( can’t it? I’m asking an American lawyer, ain’t I?),
No they cannot.

Student newspapers are not media organs owned by the students. Universities have the right to control them if they wish.

But even if your point were correct, Silber made no comment about whether a campus newspaper has the right to publish such an ad or not. His point was that such newspapers had no obligation to print them.
and consequently to turn down any advertisement and perpetuation it wants, from the same American freedom.
Any newspaper has the right to refuse an ad. There is no right to run ads or to be published.
Dr. Silber seems to be claiming the right of a university to “teach” with the pedagogical instrument of censurship – a Higher Right, emanating from Truth and Responsibility, and with a priority over any Amendment.
He has long educated students who have a rather infantile and incomplete understanding of the First Amendment, one you seem to share. The only censorship precluded by the Constitution of the United States is censorship by the government. Every owner of a media outlet in the United States and everywhere else in the world, as far as I know, exercises censorship every day in deciding what stories will be covered, what articles will be written, even what letters to the editor will be published. It is precisely their right to make such decisions without government interference which the First Amendment protects. So there is no other priority, higher or otherwise, involved.
The advertisement begins by misunderstanding the idea of the university. It is not merely to promote intellectual freedom, but also to promote intellectual responsibility in the pursuit of truth. It is contrary to the ideal of the university to promote deliberate lies. It is also contrary to the propose of the university to participate in libeling individuals.
Just as surely as a student newspaper would be reluctant to run an advertisement in favor of the flat earth theory and no university would hire a professor who advocated the flat earth theory, anyone who cares about the truth is under an obligation to think twice before offering a platform to those who systematically lie by denying the Holocaust. Those lies are at the heart of the advertisement submitted by Mr. Smith.


There is of course a great irony – "historical" irony – in the attempted irony of the flat earth allusion, when you consider the historical “protection” such world views of yore have enjoyed from doctors of churches and “higher” learning.
How is it ironic to juxtapose such a protected lie with an enlightened system for discovering truth?

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002, 01:39
Location: North

#40

Post by witness » 05 Jan 2003, 02:28

**** ?
***** ***** **** ?
Or should we ***** ***** ***** ?
Or Maybe ***** ***** ***** Holocaust ?
But the Romans *****
So should we **** **** **** **** **** Calvary ?
Or ***** **** ***** **** 8O 8O 8O ???
Is not ***** ***** ***** some historical deja vu here ?


(Interesting - how many ?????? should be there to create the air of this really profound wisdom ...)
8O :)

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002, 17:49
Location: Sweden

#41

Post by Erik » 05 Jan 2003, 02:30

Mr. Bunch wrote:
Well, I don't think we should waste too much time commenting on your note made during a "cursory" reading.

I suspect there is a problem with it, since discussion of crematoria and gas chambers occur in the book.

As for whether it was a rumor, of course it was a rumor, since Levi did not see first hand the facilities.

But it was a rumor that was true, just as other rumors well circulated in the camp were true, such as the attempt on Hitler's life, the Normandy invasion, the progress of the Russian counter-offensive, and the destruction of Krema IV in Birkenau.
You are right about my reading of the book. I am constantly amazed by all the things I mis-read and mis-take and for-get from any observation I make in the world around me and in any of its “books”.

You are absolutely in your right to “suspect there is a problem with it”!!!

So I recommend any one reading this to read Levi's novel for her/himself.

But my (written) note from the appendix to the Italian school edition (see above) --- is that suspicious too? Perhaps it is left out in the American edition?

I remember reading different editions of Sereny’s Into that Darkness; the latter edition (in English) had left out an information in the first edition, that Stangl was waiting for a decision on a petition for mercy (parole?) from reasons of health, during the time of the interviews. I.e., she left out an important “clue” to his behaviour during those interviews, and his “goal” for accepting such interviews.

Mr. Levi’s different editions in different languages and in different countries and continents will certainly find its “critical edition” eventually, like the great literary works of any epoch. Then we will perhaps be able to trace “emendations” that have resulted from “rumours come true”, and ambigousnesses deleted when Truth arrived.
Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?
Here is a link to Mary Antin’s emigration classic, “The Promised Land”, chapter 8, “the Exodus”, where some very sinister behaviour from German police officers, and under sinister circumstances, turned out to be something else than an attempt to murder.
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/ ... and-8.html

There are sinister forebodings that misinterpret objectives of the quite opposite order.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#42

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 Jan 2003, 02:45

Erik wrote:Mr. Bunch wrote:
Well, I don't think we should waste too much time commenting on your note made during a "cursory" reading.

I suspect there is a problem with it, since discussion of crematoria and gas chambers occur in the book.

As for whether it was a rumor, of course it was a rumor, since Levi did not see first hand the facilities.

But it was a rumor that was true, just as other rumors well circulated in the camp were true, such as the attempt on Hitler's life, the Normandy invasion, the progress of the Russian counter-offensive, and the destruction of Krema IV in Birkenau.
You are right about my reading of the book. I am constantly amazed by all the things I mis-read and mis-take and for-get from any observation I make in the world around me and in any of its “books”.

You are absolutely in your right to “suspect there is a problem with it”!!!

So I recommend any one reading this to read Levi's novel for her/himself.
As do I.

But your claimed statement of Levi's does not occur in his book.

You indicated it occurred in an appendix.
But my (written) note from the appendix to the Italian school edition (see above) --- is that suspicious too? Perhaps it is left out in the American edition?
That is what I said sounded suspicious.
Mr. Levi’s different editions in different languages and in different countries and continents will certainly find its “critical edition” eventually, like the great literary works of any epoch. Then we will perhaps be able to trace “emendations” that have resulted from “rumours come true”, and ambigousnesses deleted when Truth arrived.
Or you could post the actual language from the appendix!

Or perhaps Erik thinks the prisoners had such a sense of forboding about being deloused, or perhaps he believes in professing ignorance about the totality of evidence about Auschwitz in discussing this testimony?
Here is a link to Mary Antin’s emigration classic, “The Promised Land”, chapter 8, “the Exodus”, where some very sinister behaviour from German police officers, and under sinister circumstances, turned out to be something else than an attempt to murder.
Tell us how that logically says anything about the issue under discussion?
There are sinister forebodings that misinterpret objectives of the quite opposite order.
Except that the selections of Auschwitz for gassing are well known, and well documented.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#43

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Jan 2003, 08:04

Charles Bunch wrote:He has long educated students who have a rather infantile and incomplete understanding of the First Amendment, one you seem to share. The only censorship precluded by the Constitution of the United States is censorship by the government. Every owner of a media outlet in the United States and everywhere else in the world, as far as I know, exercises censorship every day in deciding what stories will be covered, what articles will be written, even what letters to the editor will be published. It is precisely their right to make such decisions without government interference which the First Amendment protects. So there is no other priority, higher or otherwise, involved.
Yes, it doesn't apply to private censorship, and the 1st Amendment did not apply to state governments either prior to the 14th Amendment, although many states had their own versions enforceable by state law. Public universities that take federal funds have a different responsibility, however, than private schools. They have a responsibility toward free-speech and intellectual diversity that private establishments do not. Even so, some private colleges have their own version of a free-speech protection in their constitutions, charters, bylaws, or Honor Code. Tell us about Bowdoing and what you learned of intellectual diversity there, Chuck.

Here is the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association. Obviously it is not enforceable by law, but the reader can decide what is more serving of the American ideal of free-speech and what smacks of censorship of unpopular ideas. Would intellectual diversity not apply to Deniers?
The ALA wrote:
I. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.

II. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.

III. We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.

IV. We recognize and respect intellectual property rights.

V. We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness and good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions.

VI. We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions.

VII. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.

VIII. We strive for excellence in the profession by maintaining and enhancing our own knowledge and skills, by encouraging the professional development of co-workers, and by fostering the aspirations of potential members of the profession.

User avatar
Dan W.
Member
Posts: 8518
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 02:53
Location: IL.

#44

Post by Dan W. » 05 Jan 2003, 18:56

Scott, I just wanted to say that I enjoy reading your posts, they are very intelligently written, but I do not mean historically accurate by that statement either. In fact, you play a kind of shell game with the truth, as indicated by your responses to me on this thread. It can be terribly frustrating to argue with one so skilled at this particular form of subterfuge, as you apparently seem to be.

Roberto, on the other hand, seems to me to be the detective who relishes breaking up these shell games and keeping you from permanently setting up shop on the corner, making you continually grab your table and move to a new location. For that I appreciate his effort, which is remarkable in its historical integrity and verifiable accuracy through written text, eyewitness accounts in many languages and official reports of various militaries and governments. (Charles Bunch does a fair job himself)

In closing, you also do a remarkable job of playing Devils Advocate and, if nothing else, make things interesting.

Public space belongs to us both, yes? :)

Regards,
D.W.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#45

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 Jan 2003, 19:05

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:He has long educated students who have a rather infantile and incomplete understanding of the First Amendment, one you seem to share. The only censorship precluded by the Constitution of the United States is censorship by the government. Every owner of a media outlet in the United States and everywhere else in the world, as far as I know, exercises censorship every day in deciding what stories will be covered, what articles will be written, even what letters to the editor will be published. It is precisely their right to make such decisions without government interference which the First Amendment protects. So there is no other priority, higher or otherwise, involved.
Yes, it doesn't apply to private censorship, and the 1st Amendment did not apply to state governments either prior to the 14th Amendment, although many states had their own versions enforceable by state law. Public universities that take federal funds have a different responsibility, however, than private schools. They have a responsibility toward free-speech and intellectual diversity that private establishments do not.
Running an ad has nothing to do with free speech. And public universities have no less nor greater responsibility for intellectual diversity than private institutions.

In neither case is there a right to publish an ad, nor an obligation to help foster the spreading of lies, since such an effort has nothing to do with intellectual diversity.
Even so, some private colleges have their own version of a free-speech protection in their constitutions, charters, bylaws, or Honor Code. Tell us about Bowdoing and what you learned of intellectual diversity there, Chuck.
And Mr. Smith will find none of them defining free speech in such a way that campus newspaper are obligated to publish the lies of CODOH. Intellectual diversity does not mean intellectual bankruptcy.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”