Whoopie Goldberg and the Holocaust

Sponsored Links
If success is the sole reason for antisemitism, why aren't other "successful" groups in society targeted simply for being successful.
And why were non successful groups also targeted?
 
Sponsored Links
Was the persecution of Jews about race?
It was then, but in todays scientific understanding, we now know that there is only one race, the human race.


As far as i know the jews are not regarded as a race.
If there are no distinct races, within the human race, no ethnicity is a 'race'.


Abraham was the progenitor of the jewish nation.
So therefore before Abraham there were no Jewish people.
So what race was Abraham.
He was of an ethnicity, not of a 'race'.
Apart from that it's biblical mythology.
And as is typical with mythology, there might be grains of truth woven in to the myth.
 
The Nazis believed they were a race. It wasn't about your religious belief, converting to christianity would not stop them from gassing you. You were a Jew by birth and blood line.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-nuremberg-race-laws

So Ms. G got it entirely wrong.
I cannot believe that you are using Nazi propaganda to substantiate your argument, but that is what you are doing. :eek:
The Nuremberg Race Laws:
What were the Nuremberg Race Laws?
On September 15, 1935, the Nazi regime announced two new laws:
  • The Reich Citizenship Law
  • The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor
from your link.​
As I have stated several times, Mrs G got it right by todays scientific knowledge and understanding, but she got it wrong from the perspective of the scientific understanding of that time.
So there is room for compromise, if she could explain herself correctly. And if she also recognised that all racism is based on tension and conflict between ethnicities.



You don't really believe that do you?
We share 98.8 percent of our DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees. Humans and gorillas share 98.4 percent of their DNA. Even Bananas have 60% of our DNA.

It has been recognised that there were multiple coexisting species of human. e.g.

01_skull-casts.jpeg

Homo rudolfensis (left) and Homo habilis (right)
Yes there were several different species within the genus of homo, surviving over 200,000 years ago, but homo erectus became the dominant species, (now extinct) within the genus homo, and that is where we all derive from today, in the species of homo sapiens.
Whether that dominance came from interbreeding, or conflict and tension between the species of homo, we cannot be sure. Possibly both causes are correct.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens), the species? that we are, means ‘wise man’ in Latin. Our species is the only surviving species of the genus Homo but where we came from has been a topic of much debate. Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years and evolved from their most likely recent common ancestor, Homo erectus, which means ‘upright man’ in Latin. Homo erectus is an extinct species of human that lived between 1.9 million and 135,000 years ago.

Historically, two key models have been put forward to explain the evolution? of Homo sapiens. These are the ‘out of Africa’ model and the ‘multi-regional’ model. The ‘out of Africa’ model is currently the most widely accepted model. It proposes that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa before migrating across the world.
https://www.yourgenome.org/stories/evolution-of-modern-humans#:~:text=of much debate.-,Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years,'upright man' in Latin.&text=The intermingling of the various,sapiens species we see today.​
 
You need to read post 16 by motorbiking, of course it was about race.

The Aryan blood line needed to be protected.
As they understood it at the time.
We now are more enlightened and know that there is only one race, the human race.
The human race has multiple ethnicities, and the ethnicities are not static, but are fluid and change and evolve.
 
Yes, most are, but it only takes a few to complain and make a meal out of it.
Indeed only one influential or favoured person can 'make a meal out of it'.
But one would hope that the 'decision makers' would look into the complaint fully and act accordingly, rather than allow one or a few to 'make a meal out of it'.
 
So there is room for compromise, if she could explain herself correctly. And if she also recognised that all racism is based on tension and conflict between ethnicities.

I think she knows that. I got the impression, from watching the discussion, that she was just saying that the Holocaust was not the same as the racism that black people experience from whites. It if of course very similar, but as a black person, maybe she sees (or saw) "racism" as something that is really about white racism against blacks. For any black person in America, that is what racism would have always meant throughout their life.

The important thing is, IMO, that she was not trying to deny anything that had happened, they were just talking about race. This is the "problem" when people discuss such topics (as happens on this forum daily) is that people have different ways of saying things, and this is easily misinterpreted as meaning something that they really don't mean. Some people are also very good at twisting somebody's words.

She has since said that she is re-educating herself on the use of the term etc. What should be enough to close the debate and allow people to move back to the main issues of dealing with racism, antisemitism, islamophobia etc. rather than attacking a black woman her understanding of what racism is.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top