Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American Nazis protested a Holocaust remembrance event. A university's scholarship is part of the reason why.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • American Nazis protested a Holocaust remembrance event. A university's scholarship is part of the reason why.

    For the past five years, Joyce Griffis and Congregation Chaim B'Derech have held a Holocaust March for Remembrance in Russellville, Arkansas. It's always been solemn and peaceful.

    This year's march was supposed to be like all the others; attendees would march down Main Street, listen to speeches and offer prayers to commemorate and remember the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis during World War II.
    Except white supremacists showed up holding Nazi flags, marching down an otherwise deserted sidewalk and signs that read, "The Holocaust didn't happen but it should have," while screaming references to Holocaust victims as "your imaginary 6 million."
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/11/us/am...rnd/index.html
    01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

  • #2
    Some people are just stupid.

    My high school principal was in the first platoon to liberate Dachau, and I had the opportunity to listen to him talk about it. It was clearly not something he enjoyed remembering.

    I went to high school with people who had significant portions of their family wiped out.

    it takes quite a bit of denial to refute the mountains of evidence.
    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

    Comment


    • #3
      My uncle was one of those guys. I always wondered why my cousin always wanted to play the germans when we played WWII war games at the local park.
      01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

      Comment


      • #4
        Link purportedly taught that Holocaust denial is a valid historical viewpoint.
        This has always stumped me.

        If I wanted to teach that World War I never happened, people would just assume I was a quack.

        If I wanted to teach that Woodrow Wilson was never President of the United States, people would just assume I was an idiot.

        If I wanted to teach that Americans never landed on the moon (to choose one topic that is slightly more disputed) people would simply think I'm drinking the conspiracy theory Kool-Aid.

        If a professor at a college tried to teach any of these things, there would be standard levels of outrage (i.e. I'm paying good money for this quack to teach stupidity).

        But if you try to deny the Holocaust, you apparently need to be silenced. Why?

        The end of six million lives is very hard to fake. Evidence abounds that these lives ended. There's no academic need to silence this stupidity. It's verifiably unsupportable. Why is it so special that these people be silenced? Do people not understand that silencing quacks rather then confronting them actually gives them credibility???

        Assuming we take Micheal Link at his word at the time (he's dead now) he was simply presenting the false viewpoint along with others. Is that so terrible?

        If he taught a history class that touched upon 9/11 and offered the conspiracy theory that it was a false flag operation, then debunked it, would that class need to be silenced? I suspect the answer is increasingly "yes." But I don't understand why it should be.

        When did we become so afraid of crackpots?

        Pete (is more afraid of silenced crackpots than he is of contested crackpots)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

          This has always stumped me.

          If I wanted to teach that World War I never happened, people would just assume I was a quack.

          If I wanted to teach that Woodrow Wilson was never President of the United States, people would just assume I was an idiot.

          If I wanted to teach that Americans never landed on the moon (to choose one topic that is slightly more disputed) people would simply think I'm drinking the conspiracy theory Kool-Aid.

          If a professor at a college tried to teach any of these things, there would be standard levels of outrage (i.e. I'm paying good money for this quack to teach stupidity).

          But if you try to deny the Holocaust, you apparently need to be silenced. Why?

          The end of six million lives is very hard to fake. Evidence abounds that these lives ended. There's no academic need to silence this stupidity. It's verifiably unsupportable. Why is it so special that these people be silenced? Do people not understand that silencing quacks rather then confronting them actually gives them credibility???

          Assuming we take Micheal Link at his word at the time (he's dead now) he was simply presenting the false viewpoint along with others. Is that so terrible?

          If he taught a history class that touched upon 9/11 and offered the conspiracy theory that it was a false flag operation, then debunked it, would that class need to be silenced? I suspect the answer is increasingly "yes." But I don't understand why it should be.

          When did we become so afraid of crackpots?

          Pete (is more afraid of silenced crackpots than he is of contested crackpots)
          There may have been evidence suggesting that Link could not be taken at his word and that his explanation was a cover so he could promote the Holocaust was a Hoax conspiracy theory in class.

          And this isn't about silencing him exactly. The question is whether a scholarship should be named in his honor at the University.
          For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
          If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

          "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by dusty View Post

            There may have been evidence suggesting that Link could not be taken at his word and that his explanation was a cover so he could promote the Holocaust was a Hoax conspiracy theory in class.

            And this isn't about silencing him exactly. The question is whether a scholarship should be named in his honor at the University.
            Yeah, that's a whole other topic. I'm talking about the 2005 decision to just shut him up.

            As for the scholarship, it seems odd that the guy had this incident in 2005, and apparently was regarded well enough over his career to merit a scholarship in his name. That leads me to believe that one of two things is likely to be true:

            1. You can take Link at his word, and ultimately but for that one incident, he was a professor worthy of having a scholarship named after him.
            2. Whoever later chose the name of the scholarship is also a holocaust denying asshole.

            Pete (sadly has no idea which of those two things is the correct analysis)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Plezercruz View Post

              Yeah, that's a whole other topic. I'm talking about the 2005 decision to just shut him up.

              As for the scholarship, it seems odd that the guy had this incident in 2005, and apparently was regarded well enough over his career to merit a scholarship in his name. That leads me to believe that one of two things is likely to be true:

              1. You can take Link at his word, and ultimately but for that one incident, he was a professor worthy of having a scholarship named after him.
              2. Whoever later chose the name of the scholarship is also a holocaust denying asshole.

              Pete (sadly has no idea which of those two things is the correct analysis)
              The pro-Nazi / holocaust denier / holocaust cheerleader protesters were led by one of his former students, who previously had noted how this professor approved of his controversial opinions on "the origins of Marxism" (just speculating, he said it was a Jewish conspiracy).

              https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/6-...locaust-event/
              For every ailment under the sun - There is a remedy, or there is none;
              If there be one, try to find it; If there be none, never mind it. -- Mother Goose

              "We've always assumed that you can't bring back the dead. But it's a matter of when you pickle the cells." -- Peter Rhee

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by dusty View Post

                The pro-Nazi / holocaust denier / holocaust cheerleader protesters were led by one of his former students, who previously had noted how this professor approved of his controversial opinions on "the origins of Marxism" (just speculating, he said it was a Jewish conspiracy).

                https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/6-...locaust-event/
                Seems like an asshole.

                Pete (nods)

                Comment

                Working...
                X