They’re starting to make the Nazi analogy all too easy to apply
| June 16th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
9 Responses to “They’re starting to make the Nazi analogy all too easy to apply”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
June 16th, 2005 at 7:53 am
I wish more people (straights and BTLGs) knew the history of the pink triangle (and the black one, for that matter). During the 60th anniversary memorials of the end of WWII, there was a picture in my city’s newspaper of a concentration camp survivor wearing his camp uniform. It had a pink triangle on it, but neither the article nor the caption made any mention of it.
This comment was written by Andygrrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 9:57 am
The Jews have largely cornered the story of the camps. In fact, however, the Nazis were equal-opportunity oppressors, and destroyed every Christian pastor who stood up to them, gypsies, Poles, whoever, and of course homosexuals (always on everyone’s hit list).
The irony of course is that many high in the Nazi regime were homosexuals themselves.
Or maybe it’s not ironic. Isn’t it the people who are terrified of their suspicions about their own orientation who are worst on the hate front?
I’m comfortable with being straight. I have a busy life. Who has time to run off and harrass the gays, even if I were so inclined? Watch these guys, folks, they “have issues.”
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 10:30 am
The black triangle was used for all so-called asocials, and was not specifically applied to lesbians. It was also applied to Sinti/Roma (Gypsies), prostitutes, vagrants, murderers, thieves, and those who violated laws prohibiting sexual intercourse between Aryans and Jews. Paragraph 175 (the anti-homosexuality law) didn’t apply to them, as the Nazi government thought that lesbianism was alien to Aryan women. For more information, please see the US Holocaust Memorial Museum site.
This comment was written by Nina.Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 10:59 am
*EVERY* army during WWII had homosexuals in it, and so did all the governments. There’s no point in telling people that the Nazis had homosexuals in the armed forces as if it should be some sort of shock.
I know you probably didn’t mean any harm by it, Susan, but every time someone mentions that the Nazis had homosexual members, I rememebr where the start of that propoganda push came out from: rabid anti-homosexual groups who try and portray homosexuality as linked to Nazism. It pisses me off to no end that this meme gets spread.
And then there’s the ‘takes 20 years off your life’ meme, spread that that lying )&*(%^* Paul Cameron.
It’s as if people were still running to the media with coppies of “The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion”, and the mesia were reporting it as if it were news.
So I’m pissed at the news media for printing those lies without mentioning that they are, in fact, lies. I just sent a letter to the Mid Hudson News taking them to task for printing that sort of drivel uncontensted.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 11:25 am
In fairness… I think the statement about “warning labels on cigarettes” could have been made without any conscious intention to invoke the pink triangles. Which is not to say I think it’s it’s okay!–the fundamentalists’ belief that being gay is evil, against god, against nature, yadda yadda, is, at root, a fascist sentiment. But, if I honestly believed in it–that homosexuality is evil, that it causes people to die young–then I could imagine myself making the comparison to cigarette warning labels without it occurring to me what it would sound like.
And my point in saying so is that we have here a lovely teaching moment. This guy’s doofus remark about warning labels is a terrific opportunity to educate people about what persecution leads to. Accusing him, personally, of having a secret motive in saying what he said–that he “knew exactly what he meant with his words”–seems to me to be somewhat beside the point, if not actually counterproductive. It turns it into an argument about whether he did or didn’t intend harm; he says he didn’t, someone else says he did, blah blah blah. It seems far better to me to assume that he didn’t mean any harm–but treat it as an illuminating and illustrative slip.
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 11:53 am
What kind of rock does a person have to live under to make that kind of slip? Not like he would care or see a level of difference. The whole rant was hate speech.
This comment was written by michelle b..Report this comment to the moderators
June 16th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
The kind that was born of a woman… I shudder to think of what I have said that just didn’t come out right or was not well thought. It is disappointing that folks are scared of other folks that are scared of them. The idea of labeling anyone is scary too. Evan is right on, we have a teaching point, if we see the Rev. as what he is, a flawed human being, just maybe he will see us the same. (But, don’t count on it… Sometimes we just have to walk in faith.)
There is the other, other triangle, the one in a circle… friends of Bill.
This comment was written by Rock.Report this comment to the moderators
June 17th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
“The kind that was born of a woman”
I don’t recall suggesting he was born of a man. Um, point?
When I said “What kind of rock does a person have to live under” I meant (in a fit of hyperbole), how out of touch with historical events does one have to be to not have heard of Nazi categorizing.
This comment was written by Michelle B..Report this comment to the moderators
June 18th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
Of course he’s heard of it. Doesn’t mean he would necessarily think of it while making a boneheaded comment about what he believes to be an unhealthy activity. Like Rock, I’ve been guilty of saying things that were offensive, totally inadvertently–just failing to make the connection in my head until it had been pointed out to me. (Hasn’t that ever happened to you? I figured everybody must have something that mortifies them to remember, even years later…)
All I’m saying is that drawing people’s attention to the connection–”Warning labels, hm? You know who else thought there should be warning labels on gay people?”–seems like a more useful way to approach things than getting into an argument over whether or not he was thinking of Nazis when he said it. Especially since my suspicion is that he honestly wasn’t; I think it was just plain old garden-variety dumbness.
This comment was written by Evan.Report this comment to the moderators