Pontificating
Apr. 21st, 2005 09:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyPerhaps it is the season for it, but I’ve seen a whole bunch of people referred to as ‘Nazis’ on the internet over the last week or so; Tony Blair, Robert Kilroy-Silk and the Veritas Party, The Conservative Party, the newly elected Pope Benedict and myself have all had the tag attached to them by various members of the hard-of-thinking classes scattered across Livejournal.
To call someone a Nazi is incredibly lazy intellectual shorthand; what it translates to is simple: “I personally disagree with you, but I lack the ability/willingness to actually elucidate why, so I’ll try and tar you with a particularly black brush.” More than twenty years after Rik Mayall satirized this sort of student-level point scoring in The Young Ones, it’s kinda sad to see that is hasn’t gone out of fashion. Much as I may personally dislike Tony Blair, it strikes me as a little harsh to suggest that he was complicit in the single greatest period of death and destruction that the human race has seen.
I wouldn’t rate him worse than third or fourth, to be honest.
There was a bit of an explosion in internet-land yesterday with more than one person on my friends list drawing attention to the fact that one of the above list, the new Pope, had actually been a member of the Hitler Youth and the Wehrmacht during the second world war, and that this in some way rendered him unfit to be Gods representative on Earth.*
It amazes me that people who are - at least on paper - very intelligent, can make this sort of accusation. The implication is that they’ve not bothered to actually do any research into the matter, and they have been suckered into some knee-jerk reaction by the popular press using the word ‘Nazi’. Needless to say, I’m very disappointed in everyone who has done so. I thought you were more intelligent than that. All of you.
They seem to have missed several pertinent facts of the case, which I’ll run by you here, just so there’s no confusion:
1) Accusation: Pope Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth, and therefore a Nazi.
Membership of the Hitler youth was made compulsory for every child over the age of 9 in Germany and Austria in 1936; it would perhaps have been more surprising if Benedict had not been a member. As it was, the evidence suggests that he used his education as an excuse to have as little to do with the organization as possible.
The Hitler Youth was used as a propaganda tool by Goebbels, naturally, which is as valid as people dragging their kids along on the ‘Stop the War’ marches in 2002 to bring up the numbers but doesn't make the kids involved any more understanding of what they were a part of.
2) Pope Benedict was a member of the Wehrmacht and so, therefore, a Nazi and complicit in the holocaust and all that implies.
What shockingly lazy nonsense this is. It’s really easy to accuse all German soldiers as having been Nazis and having killed a couple of Jews each.
a) Benedict was a member of an anti-aircraft battery in the closing days of the war and deserted (an action punishable by death) when given the opportunity. To draw parallels between this and the guards at Belson is nonsense.
b) The great likelihood is that Benedict knew nothing of the holocaust or any atrocities. People may be surprised to learn this, but Der Bild did not print graphics of ‘Number of Jews and Russians killed today’ as presumably the Guardian would today. Instead, such actions were a closely guarded secret.
There is a well documented story of how Frau von Shirach (wife of Baldur von Schirach, founder of the Hitler Youth) mentioned to Hitler at a function that she had seen a train load of Jews leaving Holland. “I do hope they are not being mistreated”, she said. “They looked so unhappy.” Hitler didn’t reply, Frau von Shirach didn’t get invited to any more parties, and, more to the point, if someone so close to the Nazi inner circle had no idea of what was going on, then to suggest that a 17-year-old anti-aircraft gunner would know all about is just plan dumb.
Subsequent to all of this, Benedict has repeatedly condemned the Nazis, but why should people in LJ-land let the facts get in the way of a good bitch-fest? It has never stopped them before.
Similarly, a great many people seem to feel that they are in some way morally superior to the newly elected Pope. Now for me to claim moral superiority over pretty much anyone is comedy and I think that’s true of most of the people I know as well. To those who disagree with the Popes moral stance, my suggestion is that, if you feel your personal philosophy can bring greater spiritual peace, succour, and comfort to the poor and dispossessed of the world, then get out there and get preaching it, don’t just sit and whine on LJ. Who knows in 2000 years, they may be electing your spiritual successor.
Oddly most of the people who are setting themselves up as moral authorities are not Catholics and seem to know little of the Catholic faith. Well, nobody is forcing anyone to be a Catholic and, if you feel so strongly, there are plenty of religions out there which are less heavy on liturgy, ritual and spiritual comfort, but are much more sodomy and condom friendly. Get out, join one of them, and get active. If you reckon the application of your views would make the world a better place, there are much, much better places to talk about it than Livejournal.
I’d suggest the Church of England. It’s always done OK by me.
*Assuming that you’re a Catholic, anyway. As a Protestant I reckon that people should denounce the lies of Rome and accept that every man be his own priest, but that’s just me.
To call someone a Nazi is incredibly lazy intellectual shorthand; what it translates to is simple: “I personally disagree with you, but I lack the ability/willingness to actually elucidate why, so I’ll try and tar you with a particularly black brush.” More than twenty years after Rik Mayall satirized this sort of student-level point scoring in The Young Ones, it’s kinda sad to see that is hasn’t gone out of fashion. Much as I may personally dislike Tony Blair, it strikes me as a little harsh to suggest that he was complicit in the single greatest period of death and destruction that the human race has seen.
I wouldn’t rate him worse than third or fourth, to be honest.
There was a bit of an explosion in internet-land yesterday with more than one person on my friends list drawing attention to the fact that one of the above list, the new Pope, had actually been a member of the Hitler Youth and the Wehrmacht during the second world war, and that this in some way rendered him unfit to be Gods representative on Earth.*
It amazes me that people who are - at least on paper - very intelligent, can make this sort of accusation. The implication is that they’ve not bothered to actually do any research into the matter, and they have been suckered into some knee-jerk reaction by the popular press using the word ‘Nazi’. Needless to say, I’m very disappointed in everyone who has done so. I thought you were more intelligent than that. All of you.
They seem to have missed several pertinent facts of the case, which I’ll run by you here, just so there’s no confusion:
1) Accusation: Pope Benedict was a member of the Hitler Youth, and therefore a Nazi.
Membership of the Hitler youth was made compulsory for every child over the age of 9 in Germany and Austria in 1936; it would perhaps have been more surprising if Benedict had not been a member. As it was, the evidence suggests that he used his education as an excuse to have as little to do with the organization as possible.
The Hitler Youth was used as a propaganda tool by Goebbels, naturally, which is as valid as people dragging their kids along on the ‘Stop the War’ marches in 2002 to bring up the numbers but doesn't make the kids involved any more understanding of what they were a part of.
2) Pope Benedict was a member of the Wehrmacht and so, therefore, a Nazi and complicit in the holocaust and all that implies.
What shockingly lazy nonsense this is. It’s really easy to accuse all German soldiers as having been Nazis and having killed a couple of Jews each.
a) Benedict was a member of an anti-aircraft battery in the closing days of the war and deserted (an action punishable by death) when given the opportunity. To draw parallels between this and the guards at Belson is nonsense.
b) The great likelihood is that Benedict knew nothing of the holocaust or any atrocities. People may be surprised to learn this, but Der Bild did not print graphics of ‘Number of Jews and Russians killed today’ as presumably the Guardian would today. Instead, such actions were a closely guarded secret.
There is a well documented story of how Frau von Shirach (wife of Baldur von Schirach, founder of the Hitler Youth) mentioned to Hitler at a function that she had seen a train load of Jews leaving Holland. “I do hope they are not being mistreated”, she said. “They looked so unhappy.” Hitler didn’t reply, Frau von Shirach didn’t get invited to any more parties, and, more to the point, if someone so close to the Nazi inner circle had no idea of what was going on, then to suggest that a 17-year-old anti-aircraft gunner would know all about is just plan dumb.
Subsequent to all of this, Benedict has repeatedly condemned the Nazis, but why should people in LJ-land let the facts get in the way of a good bitch-fest? It has never stopped them before.
Similarly, a great many people seem to feel that they are in some way morally superior to the newly elected Pope. Now for me to claim moral superiority over pretty much anyone is comedy and I think that’s true of most of the people I know as well. To those who disagree with the Popes moral stance, my suggestion is that, if you feel your personal philosophy can bring greater spiritual peace, succour, and comfort to the poor and dispossessed of the world, then get out there and get preaching it, don’t just sit and whine on LJ. Who knows in 2000 years, they may be electing your spiritual successor.
Oddly most of the people who are setting themselves up as moral authorities are not Catholics and seem to know little of the Catholic faith. Well, nobody is forcing anyone to be a Catholic and, if you feel so strongly, there are plenty of religions out there which are less heavy on liturgy, ritual and spiritual comfort, but are much more sodomy and condom friendly. Get out, join one of them, and get active. If you reckon the application of your views would make the world a better place, there are much, much better places to talk about it than Livejournal.
I’d suggest the Church of England. It’s always done OK by me.
*Assuming that you’re a Catholic, anyway. As a Protestant I reckon that people should denounce the lies of Rome and accept that every man be his own priest, but that’s just me.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 09:25 am (UTC)*blinks* It's an absolute human train wreck.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 09:37 am (UTC)I find the Oxfam campaign patronizing. Ultimately it's the responsibility of the people continuing the infection and facillitating that cultural value to sort out. Oxfam portrays it like 'poor little black people, can't look after themselves, let's have the guilty white middle class who have made it so women can vote and use condoms in developed nations fix it...'
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 09:45 am (UTC)I'd suggest ignoring the Oxfam campaign if you find it patronising and listen to a non-religious group's take on the epidemic, who're more likely to give a less religious slant on it.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 09:51 am (UTC)Absolutely. Prostitutes at the DeBeers supported diamond mines, unsanitary conditions and lack of money lived in by workers on cotton farms to pay off those pesky debts to the World Bank, so on, so forth. It's partially the fault of the lifestyle we all lead.
I find most AIDS in Africa campaigns patronising. Even the ones that aren't religious tend to lean towards the 'middle class saviour' slant. They completely dehumanize the people infected (just like they do in the gay and down low communities here) by absolving them of responsibility. I'd be very, very surprised to see any woman in any African nation unaware that HIV infection is a possibility. Despite our lifestyles and despite the Catholic church, it's still their responsibility to sort out, not ours.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 10:12 am (UTC)I don't imagine that many African women nowadays would be completely ignorant, no. But don't you think that saying "it's still their responsibility to sort out, not ours" is a little harsh? The same could be said about most disaster situations. At the end of the day, I'd disagree that the children born with HIV have a responsibility to sort it out without expecting help from anyone, and given the advantages people in the developed nations have (which, we're not all responsible for providing), I think it'd be nice if we helped out :)
But then, I'd just like people to be nicer generally.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 10:29 am (UTC)Nothing as far as I'm aware. Oxfam is mother, Oxfam is father up here. (Damn stupid Johnny Marr's sponsorship.) I'm a big fan of the educational tactics. 'Look folks, this little virus comes out when you're doing sweaty things so put on a condom and then confess, ok?' Those campaigns are just far too slim on the ground and often overshadowed by images of infected babies coupled with a soothing voice asking for money.
And even with those tactics they still have to override these hard coded male dominated values. Ultimately the guy doing the fucking has to put on the condom or the infected prostitute has to stop hooking. It's all about responsibility and personal choices. Choices to have sex, choices to give birth, choices to allow the kind of white folk exploits to continue. Mugabe, for the evil that he is has proven you can take the white out of power with enough raw drive and rather draconian scheming.
Ah, you kill me with the nice argument. It's only the idea of placing responsibility on us white folk I don't like. I'm all about being nice and helping babies (in the most informed way that has nothing to do with Oxfam.)
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 10:43 am (UTC)*please replace 'hamster' with anything else you find cute, if appropriate.
I had a whole 'United Nations' argument coming, but I've been up all night and knackered now so I'm gonna leave it with the Nice Argument (TM) ;)
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 11:29 am (UTC)http://www.durrellwildlife.org/upload/MainSite/Graphics/MainImages/W-main-baby-aye-aye-2003-2-.jpg
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 01:24 pm (UTC)Awww...that's so cute!
See? And now we neatly link back full circle:
Baby aye-ayes, have...glow in the dark eyes, like...Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI!
Ta-da!
I have to go and look after my hamster now.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 01:59 pm (UTC)Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 10:56 am (UTC)For a Catholic development charity's view on this... have a look...
http://www.cafod.org.uk/policy_and_analysis/policy_papers/hivaids/hiv_prevention_condoms_and_catholic_ethics
And as for the paternalistic nature, you might want to have a dig around on the site and see how we work in partnership with local organisations, we supply money and some expertise, but allow local people find the right local solutions.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 11:08 am (UTC)I'm not against charity or drugs for the infected. What I am against is the complete lack of responsibility implicit in a lot of the more popular campaigns. It's not just the AIDS problem, it's also the over farming of Sub-Saharan Africa and the ambitions of frankly unsustainable economies.
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 11:16 am (UTC)And all the development issues are intertwined... overfarming ties into fair trade, as currently you have to over farm to get any profit at all when up against Northern trade subsidies... and the economies are (mostly)only unsustainable as the world trade rules screw them over (ignoring the occasional loony warlord).
Re: I'm finding it throughly amusing
Date: 2005-04-21 11:26 am (UTC)Development issues are *inherently* intertwined. What I dislike is the one sided view that it's singularly the fault of our demand that creates overfarming in Sub-Saharan Africa (it's a good example.) Often times policies based on aid and investigation ignore the country's decision to actually participate in that kind of an economy. But then we get into hegemonic arguments. It's kind of assumed that everyone globally desires our kind of a lifestyle and that it's a good one to have. But is it really? And is it really the destiny of all citizens to have our lifestyle? Is it even sustainable?