France Upholds Law That Smooths History

[Azarkon]

See, that's where I disagree. I disagree with the tendency of conservative nationalists to attribute the guilt of a nation squarely onto the shoulders of a few individuals, ignoring the very real and very powerful national forces that were equally guilty. What they're arguing, and what I strongly disagree with, is the idea that the nation is never guilty, and if we did horrible things, it's only a few bad apples that should be held responsible. The Mother Nation / Fatherland is innocent. Always and forever.

 

Bull****.

 

A nation is always responsible for the actions of its citizens, because it's nationalism and nationalistic ideology that made people support the people who took power. So long as the nation is unrepentent of these tendencies, it remains guilty. To ignore the existence of such guilt would be to not learn from the mistakes of history, and those who forget are doomed to repeat them, as we've seen in the short time between WW1 and WW2.

 

As far as racism goes, that's again bull****. I judge a person by his nation because if he's a nationalist, then he throws in his lot with the nation, and therefore it'd be ridiculous for me to judge him as an individual independent of nations. If he's not a nationalist, he wouldn't be worried about national guilt, and therefore I'd have no reason to judge him.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

See, that's where I disagree.  I disagree with the tendency of conservative nationalists to attribute the guilt of a nation squarely onto the shoulders of a few individuals, ignoring the very real and very powerful national forces that were equally guilty.  What they're arguing, and what I strongly disagree with, is the idea that the nation is never guilty, and if we did horrible things, it's only a few bad apples that should be held responsible.  The Mother Nation / Fatherland is innocent.  Always and forever.

 

Bull****.

 

A nation is always responsible for the actions of its citizens, because it's nationalism and nationalistic ideology that made people support the people who took power.  So long as the nation is unrepentent of these tendencies, it remains guilty.  To ignore the existence of such guilt would be to not learn from the mistakes of history, and those who forget are doomed to repeat them, as we've seen in the short time between WW1 and WW2.

 

As far as racism goes, that's again bull****.  I judge a person by his nation because if he's a nationalist, then he throws in his lot with the nation, and therefore it'd be ridiculous for me to judge him as an individual independent of nations.  If he's not a nationalist, he wouldn't be worried about national guilt, and therefore I'd have no reason to judge him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People commit these acts not nations.

 

You dont have to be a nationalist to take exception to being accused of crimes you were not even around for.

 

I suppose you hold modern christians responsible for the crusades too.

[Judge Hades]

There is no one to blame except those who did the horrible acts who may or may not be long dead, but we shouldn't forget such things happen. They did happen and we should never forget those events happen. Humans being human as I say, but we should not for get that we are indeed human. That is one thing I like about our species. We are capable of tremendous acts of cruelty and fury while at the same time act out of compassion and love.

 

Quite a bit of dichotomy we have on our little mud ball.

[Azarkon]

There's where you're not on the same page as I am. To me, people alone do not commit these crimes against humanity - they can't. Nations do, though a few in the nation are more guilty than others. And this is squarely from the Nuremberg trials: how many people held responsible for crimes against humanity said that they did what they did because they were following orders? And did not the whole nation of Germany follow the orders of Hitler, regardless of how immoral they were? These people are not solely responsible for their actions. Their nation - Germany - is, and as long as Germany itself did not repent, its people wouldn't, either.

 

As far as modern Christians go, I don't hold them responsible for the Crusades because Christianity's de facto view of the world had changed dramatically in its principles since then. However, I do hold Christian fundamentalists responsible, because they refuse to change. Consequently, many people do still hold Christianity as a religion responsible for its crimes - and rightfully so, because there are certain tenets of Christianity that simply are not conducive to a peaceful, tolerant world. Fortunately, a good majority of modern Christians no longer believe in these tenets.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

There's where you're not on the same page as I am.  To me, people alone do not commit these crimes against humanity - they can't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh they are quite capable of it. Or do you mean that they cant in the sense that you cant comprehend it and must therefore look for a scapegoat to excuse their actions ?

[Azarkon]

I'd lke to see you support that statement.

 

Hitler kill millions of Jews by himself? Ha!

 

You're the one looking for scapegoats, and these "great big evil men" are it. Sure, they're more responsible than others, but they wouldn't be there if they didn't have the support of others. So why would I blame them alone, and not those who supported them?

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Consequently, many people do still hold Christianity as a religion responsible for its crimes - and rightfully so, because there are certain tenets of Christianity that simply are not conducive to a peaceful, tolerant world.  Fortunately, a good majority of modern Christians no longer believe in these tenets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually thats far more dangerous. If you hold them responsible then you feel justified in taking revenge on them for something that they had no part in. Thus there is a never an end to the cycle of violence even though the real guilty parties are long dead.

[Azarkon]

Revenge should not play into the equation. Yes, the natural inclination towards the guilty is revenge, but that's not the reason we came up with guilt. Guilt is there for the sake of justice and as a catalyst for change. What can change the nature of a man? Regret can - and there can be no regret without guilt - and there can be no guilt if you constantly scapegoat a few for the failings of a nation.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'd lke to see you support that statement.

 

Hitler kill millions of Jews by himself? Ha!

 

You're the one looking for scapegoats, and these "great big evil men" are it.  Sure, they're more responsible than others, but they wouldn't be there if they didn't have the support of others.  So why would I blame them alone, and not those who supported them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly but they are all people. The nation of Germany didnt stick people in the gas chambers , people did. So since those people are either dead or brought to justice, you have no right to lay any sort of guilt trip on the Germans.

 

People who were born after the event could not have supported them now could they ?

[Commissar]

You guys need to read Ordinary Men.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Revenge should not play into the equation.  Yes, the natural inclination towards the guilty is revenge, but that's not the reason we came up with guilt.  Guilt is there for the sake of justice and as a catalyst for change.  What can change the nature of a man? Regret can - and there can be no regret without guilt - and there can be no guilt if you constantly scapegoat a few for the failings of a nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But we have already established have we not , that there is no justice in trying the son of a murderer for his fathers crimes.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You guys need to read Ordinary Men.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sounds familiar. How about a quick synopsis ?

[Azarkon]

You're guilty not only by what you do, but also by what you don't do. But even beyond that, tell me: who do you blame in a situation where a few people take power and the masses remain ignorant of their atrocities, blindly loyal to their propaganda?

 

You don't blame these few people alone. You have to blame the masses (for their ignorance and blind patriotism) and/or the system (for its procurement of said ignorance and patriotism). Otherwise you are never going to progress, since even if you killed all the evil dictators, you'll simply be setting yourself up for the same crime the next time they came along. That's why we must blame national systems: because if we didn't, then we've learned nothing.

 

Example: wartime Japan was ruled by a small clique of military dictators. By your argument, these dictators are the only ones responsible for the war crimes. But if we got rid of these dictators, would Japan have gone a different path? I doubt it. Others would have risen to take their place, and they would've repeated the same mistakes. Only through rebuilding the nation from the ground up can we ensure peace, because it's the nation that's at fault, far moreso than the few men who lead it.

[Azarkon]

Revenge should not play into the equation.  Yes, the natural inclination towards the guilty is revenge, but that's not the reason we came up with guilt.  Guilt is there for the sake of justice and as a catalyst for change.  What can change the nature of a man? Regret can - and there can be no regret without guilt - and there can be no guilt if you constantly scapegoat a few for the failings of a nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But we have already established have we not , that there is no justice in trying the son of a murderer for his fathers crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except this analogy doesn't hold if a nation is not the "son" but the same "father" that perpetrated the crime. As I said, a nation needs to be treated like a living organism because that's what it is: national policy determines the kind of people that are raised under the nation, and insofar as that's concerned a nation is guilty until it undergoes a fundamental, repentent change.

 

In terms of your analogy, the nation is guilty because it is the father until it proves itself to be a repentent son. A generation and a group of leaders may die, but a system survives until it is purposefully killed and replaced by a better system.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Azarkon

[Commissar]

You guys need to read Ordinary Men.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sounds familiar. How about a quick synopsis ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's about a German reserve police battalion during World War II. Instead of writing my own synposis, I stole from Amazon:

 

Shocking as it is, this book--a crucial source of original research used for the bestseller Hitler's Willing Executioners--gives evidence to suggest the opposite conclusion: that the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler. A good book to read along with Ron Rosenbaum's comparably excellent study Explaining Hitler. --Tim Appelo

[Azarkon]

Shocking as it is, this book--a crucial source of original research used for the bestseller Hitler's Willing Executioners--gives evidence to suggest the opposite conclusion: that the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler. A good book to read along with Ron Rosenbaum's comparably excellent study Explaining Hitler. --Tim Appelo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And it's exactly these "historical forces" that constitute a nation. Hence the necessity of holding it responsible.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Except this analogy doesn't hold if a nation is not the "son" but the same "father" that perpetrated the crime.  As I said, a nation needs to be treated like a living organism because that's what it is: national policy determines the kind of people that are raised under the nation, and insofar as that's concerned a nation is guilty until it undergoes a fundamental, repentent change.

 

In terms of your analogy, the nation is guilty because it is the father until it proves itself to be a repentent son.  A generation and a group of leaders may die, but a system survives until it is purposefully killed and replaced by a better system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You cant be your own father . Unless you indulge in some pretty weird timetravel.

 

You can only anthropomorphise so much. A nation isnt an entity. A system is just that a tool it's how the user uses said tool that defines it as good or evil. If I use a hammer to fix someones roof the hammer is not good. If I use the hammer to bash in someones skill the hammer does not become evil. Someone else may use the hammer for an entirely different purpose, but it's still the same hammer. It hasnt changed only the person using it has.

Edited December 1, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And it's exactly these "historical forces" that constitute a nation.  Hence the necessity of holding it responsible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think you missed the bit about "uniquely Germanic evil".

[Azarkon]

Without having read the book I wouldn't know what he meant by "uniquely Germanic evil," but I do want to emphasize that Germany was not always Nazi Germany, and that specific historical and national forces brought about the system that operated immediately before and during WW1-WW2. This system was responsible for the crime far moreso than the few persons who gave the orders.

 

I am a firm believer that we are the products of forces around us. I do not believe that an individual is strictly tabula rasa with the total freedom to choose between right and wrong. In fact, "right" and "wrong" do not themselves exist as static pillars but are shaped by the same forces that shape a person. In Nazi Germany, the destruction of Jews and the subjugation of "lesser" races was considered good. It is the system that creates such a philosophy that must be, in my view, held responsible for the products of said society.

 

Thus I reiterate my argument: a nation, taken as the gestalt of its social, political, economical, and ideological forces, must be held responsible for its actions. Those who choose to collaborate with such a nation as patriots/nationalists inherit, henceforth, the guilt of said nation. Their guilt ends when they acknowledge and repent the failures of the system of which they are a part and help to correct it for the betterment of the world. Until then, they are accomplices in the crime, passively or actively, and therefore deserving of the same blame that is attributed to the nation.

 

Put simply: if you support a system that practices genocide, then you must be held responsible for said genocide. This is not a personal guilt, but a collective one, and it is in a collective way that it must be dealt with. That is, we deal with irredeemable criminal persons by killing them. We deal with irredeemable criminal nations by destroying the nation which, in this case, means destroying the system that holds such a nation together and then rebuilding it, which is exactly what we tried to do in Germany and in Japan, with various degrees of success.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Without having read the book I wouldn't know what he meant by "uniquely Germanic evil," but I do want to emphasize that Germany was not always Nazi Germany, and that specific historical and national forces brought about the system that operated immediately before and during WW1-WW2.  This system was responsible for the crime far moreso than the few persons who gave the orders.

 

I am a firm believer that we are the products of forces around us.  I do not believe that an individual is strictly tabula rasa with the total freedom to choose between right and wrong.  In fact, "right" and "wrong" do not themselves exist as static pillars but are shaped by the same forces that shape a person.  In Nazi Germany, the destruction of Jews and the subjugation of "lesser" races was considered good.  It is the system that creates such a philosophy that must be, in my view, held responsible for the products of said society. 

 

Thus I reiterate my argument: a nation, taken as the gestalt of its social, political, economical, and ideological forces, must be held responsible for its actions.  Those who choose to collaborate with such a nation as patriots/nationalists inherit, henceforth, the guilt of said nation.  Their guilt ends when they acknowledge and repent the failures of the system of which they are a part and help to correct it for the betterment of the world.  Until then, they are accomplices in the crime, passively or actively, and therefore deserving of the same blame that is attributed to the nation.

 

Put simply: if you support a system that practices genocide, then you must be held responsible for said genocide.  This is not a personal guilt, but a collective one, and it is in a collective way that it must be dealt with.  That is, we deal with irredeemable criminal persons by killing them.  We deal with irredeemable criminal nations by destroying the nation which, in this case, means destroying the system that holds such a nation together and then rebuilding it, which is exactly what we tried to do in Germany and in Japan, with various degrees of success.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no system that practices genocide. It's like the hammer , the hammer isnt to blame for the actions of the user. Hitler didnt parade around a manifesto promising to kill 6 million jews during his time in office.

 

I found that funny given your speach on American imperiliasm earlier.

[Azarkon]

That shows how little you know about Nazi Germany. Go read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for a classic study of the forces that propelled the regime, and its follow-up criticisms and extensions.

 

Your analogy of the hammer really makes no sense here, since a nation consists of both the means and the ends, both the hammer and the wielder, so to speak. For a modern example, Japan's current obsession over military prowess combined with its feelings of superiority towards its Asian neighbors are in part a remnant of the system that Japan had during WW2 (and further back, as well). Those who support this aspect of the current national system are guilty and thus deserving of WW2-inspired blame towards modern Japanese society. If they can't learn from their past, why should their victims stand by, given what they know of what happened last time Japan had a powerful military while looking down upon neighboring nations? The criticism is therefore wholly justified on the basis of national guilt: we wouldn't be able to institute such a blame if South Korea wanted a powerful military, because South Korea never demonstrated a history of aggression. Japan's history, however, remains relevant to its system even today, and as a result it must be judged in terms of its history, since it is not sincerely repentent.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That shows how little you know about Nazi Germany.  Go read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for a classic study of the forces that propelled the regime, and its follow-up criticisms and extensions.

 

Your analogy of the hammer really makes no sense here, since a nation consists of both the means and the ends, both the hammer and the wielder, so to speak.  For a modern example, Japan's current obsession over military prowess combined with its feelings of superiority towards its Asian neighbors are in part a remnant of the system that Japan had during WW2 (and further back, as well).  Those who support this aspect of the current national system are guilty and thus deserving of WW2-inspired blame towards modern Japanese society.  If they can't learn from their past, why should their victims stand by, given what they know of what happened last time Japan had a powerful military while looking down upon neighboring nations? The criticism is therefore wholly justified on the basis of national guilt: we wouldn't be able to institute such a blame if South Korea wanted a powerful military, because South Korea never demonstrated a history of aggression.  Japan's history, however, remains relevant to its system even today, and as a result it must be judged in terms of its history, since it is not sincerely repentent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well if such a manifesto existed then where is it ? BTW there is a huge difference between anti semitism, and deporting people and killing 6 million of them.

 

And the weilders are people. Not really a suprise.

 

Maybe because they are not the same people. See thats the danger in your views. If A did this 50 years ago then A will do this again today so lets get our revenge in before they can. It totally ignores the social change that has occured in the period between then and now.

 

It's got nothing to repent for because it's not guilty of anything. None of those policy makers were around during WWII.

 

What you are in effect saying is just because someones father bought a hammer and bashed someones skull in with it. Thier son will only ever use a hammer for the same purpose.

Edited December 1, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Azarkon]

It totally ignores the social change that has occured in the period between then and now.

 

This is the reason why your assessment of my views is wrong. I do not totally ignore the social change that's occured. On the contrary, that's the basis of my entire argument: that society is what's at fault, and therefore a change in society would absolve a nation of its guilt *if* said change corrects the failures of the previous society. By the same token, if society does *not* change, it doesn't matter whether the "people responsible" are dead or not - society would *remain* guilty of its crimes because it's bound to repeat its history.

 

As long as German society was based upon the philosophy of military conquest and survival of the strongest, it was bound to repeat again and again its military aggression towards neighboring states (whether it be the ancient Germans who sacked the Roman Empire, Bismarck and his "blood and iron" realpolitiks, Wilhelm II and his glorious war of conquest, or Hitler and the Aryan ubermensche manifest destiny). Only by disarming Germany and reconstituting the roots of its society (on economics) have the world finally received a state capable of co-existing within the EU. Mind, much has changed in German society and philosophy since the days of Hitler, which is the reason why you don't see as many people complaining about Germany.

 

The same can be said for Japan, except that Japan is even less repentent than Germany and seems to be drifting back to its militaristic roots again - hence the barrage of criticism from neighboring countries who question just how much Japanese society has really changed from the days of WW2. Whether they are right or not is a matter of controversy, but the underlying idea is not: it is society that must bear the responsibility of collective guilt in the case of what a nation does, not a few individuals.

 

By the same token, America society is as responsible for Bush's deeds as Bush himself.

[Lucius]

Blaming Germany and Japan for the actions of people (of whom most is dead) because you're a nationalist is ridiculous. It would be the same as blaming Danes, Swedes and Norwegians for their viking raids and pillaging, or how about the many Scandinavian wars. Even better, how about Spain and the murderings in South America?

 

You're trying to paint an unrealistic image of nations with violent pasts (of which there are plenty), and Germany in particular. Claiming that their culture is somehow more aggressive and it leading up to Nazi Germany. (I guess you think they started WW1 too all by themselves).

It's amusing, however, that you leave out that very important factor in the rise of the Third Reich that is the Treaty of Versailles. Perhaps I should blame you, then, as well for the pressure your ancestors (assuming that you're english, american or french) put on Germany with this outrageously unfair treaty after WW1 which essentially pushed the German people into the arms of Hitler.

 

Edit: I see now that I was right, "Wilhelm II and his glorious war of conquest", give me a break. You seem to hate Germany.

Edited December 2, 2005 by Lucius

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

This is the reason why your assessment of my views is wrong.  I do not totally ignore the social change that's occured.  On the contrary, that's the basis of my entire argument: that society is what's at fault, and therefore a change in society would absolve a nation of its guilt *if* said change corrects the failures of the previous society.  By the same token, if society does *not* change, it doesn't matter whether the "people responsible" are dead or not - society would *remain* guilty of its crimes because it's bound to repeat its history.

 

As long as German society was based upon the philosophy of military conquest and survival of the strongest, it was bound to repeat again and again its military aggression towards neighboring states (whether it be the ancient Germans who sacked the Roman Empire, Bismarck and his "blood and iron" realpolitiks, Wilhelm II and his glorious war of conquest, or Hitler and the Aryan ubermensche manifest destiny).  Only by disarming Germany and reconstituting the roots of its society (on economics) have the world finally received a state capable of co-existing within the EU.  Mind, much has changed in German society and philosophy since the days of Hitler, which is the reason why you don't see as many people complaining about Germany.

 

The same can be said for Japan, except that Japan is even less repentent than Germany and seems to be drifting back to its militaristic roots again - hence the barrage of criticism from neighboring countries who question just how much Japanese society has really changed from the days of WW2.  Whether they are right or not is a matter of controversy, but the underlying idea is not: it is society that must bear the responsibility of collective guilt in the case of what a nation does, not a few individuals.

 

By the same token, America society is as responsible for Bush's deeds as Bush himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We are back to using the same hammer for different purposes. Unless of course you want to be totally non interventionist and are happy to stand by while other nations try to exterminate each other.

 

The only actions I am responsible for are my own.