I find it bizarre that one should be persecuted for the sins of one's parents. If there's anything we should have learned as queers, it's that we're not our parents.
Yeah, that was my reaction.. The invitation of an alleged war criminal of any kind to one's wedding deserves a spot on the list, but the fact that his father did wrong doesn't deserve its own separate entry. I have second cousins and such who fought for Mussolini. Anyone with ancestry in an Axis nation probably does.
Otherwise, the article helped me pin down exactly what I hate about the guy. All we need's an open misogynist running my birthplace.
Yes, probably a full half of the younger generation of that time here actually went and enlisted in Hitler's forces in 1943, placing themselves under Nazi command of their free will. My maternal grandfather and nearly all of his brothers and half-brothers did, and they payed for it royally after the fact.
In fact, I really dislike this 'collective guilt' thing. I knew a girl who attempted suicide, specifically because she was the granddaughter of a 'war mayor' who cooperated well with the Nazis and people wouldn't stop pointing this out to her. I hear she started doing a lot better once they moved to another part of the country, where her last name wasn't 'tainted'.
And, actually, there are still stores in my grandfather's little town that I'd better not enter, Or Else. Just to say that this is one of those things that really require thought.
By the way, treason and fascism are a choice. They're not genetically determined. ^_~
The article also claims that AS said he admired powerful people, such as (in his own example) dictators. That is a better argument against him (if it is true that he admires dictators).
I don't think there is enough evidence to call him a Nazi, though, or if there is, it's not in this article. From what I've read, he's funded investigations into his father's past, and the major Jewish organizations have acquitted him of holding his father's views.
So, he invited Waldheim to his wedding. But Waldheim was (at the time) the elected President of Austria. (Unlike Jorg Haider, he was not elected on a far-right platform. The allegations were about his past.) That doesn't mean he wasn't a war criminal. Indeed, I sometimes think that many Austrians (like many Italians) seem to have failed to come to terms fully with their country's role in the war. But it's something to bear in mind. Describing Waldheim simply as an accused war criminal without mentioning that he was serving Head of State might mislead people.
I think Alter.Net assumes a fair degree of political and historical awareness on the part of their readers, and most of them would be aware that Waldheim was at once the elected President of Austria. That he was a Nazi, an accused war criminal, and as the documentary evidence that eventually surfaced suggest, a concentration camp guard, is probably not, however, commen knowledge to most Americans.
Though I did say that those two comments in particular were perhaps being unfair.
Make of this what you will, but it seems a fairly balanced account of the matter.
Possibly with a political future in mind, Schwarzenegger has done all he can to cauterise the wound left by his father. He commissioned the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to research his wartime record, and it came up with no evidence of atrocities.
Nevertheless, the star made amends for Gustav Schwarzenegger's political judgment by making generous and regular contributions to the Wiesenthal Centre, which presented him with a national leadership award for his humanitarian work.
"Every time he does a movie, he writes a cheque," Rabbi Marvin Hier, the centre's founder, said recently, pointing out that "Arnold is not his father." However, although his father may not have been a war criminal, Schwarzenegger sought out a fellow countryman who was. He invited Kurt Waldheim to be guest of honour at his 1986 wedding, at a time when the former UN secretary general's SS past was coming to the surface.
Schwarzenegger even made a point of mentioning him in his wedding speech, telling his guests: "My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name because of the recent Nazi stuff - but I love him."
However, Rabbi Hier has also absolved him of that surprising declaration of affection, arguing that the actor probably did not know the extent of Waldheim's responsibility for atrocities in the Balkans.
Well I wasn't and I don't think it's at all a proper way to write an article assuming that all readers will be aware that somebody was Head of State or other such details. In any credible journalistic article it's completely, completely against the rules to make assumptions like that, so good journalistic articles will always be very redundant, bringing up and bringing up again all the known details of someone's past whenever they are written about, so that even someone with no knowledge of the subject can be brought up to speed.
Assuming people know what you are writing about is very bad form. I think the way most people learn about things like this *is* through reading this sort of article.
Also, I wonder what miniscule percentage of Americans do know the names of any current or former Austrian heads of state. I'm betting it's substantially less than 1%. :p
There's another dodgy argument in the article, and I'm not sure whether I should object to it, because I don't want to appear humourless. But the claim that "Governor" would be "Kaiser" in the language of Austria is pretty pointless.
In my German dictionary, "Kaiser" means "Emperor", but perhaps it's different in the German of Austria. But what the Austrians call something in their own language is less than relevant. Tony Blair is "Leader of the Labour Party", which in German is "Fuehrer der Arbeiterpartei", but so what? (I don't like Blair, but few would say he's a Nazi.)
It's just a joke, I suppose, but is it trying to revive World War I-era prejudices?
Well now, my intention isn't to defend A.S., merely to ensure we use decent arguments in attacking him.
From what I've heard, his conduct towards women over the years (and the language he's used to speak about them, objectifying them) has been appalling.
It would be interesting to see how (or whether) his rabbi friend defends him on the Hitler comment. Whilst he could, possibly, endorse the "strong" (dictatorial or totalitarian) leadership style of Hitler (or Stalin) without endorsing their policies, one would have to conclude that doing so betrays an inherently authoritarian mindset as well as an excessively casual attitude towards the suffering that millions underwent. A.S.'s best defence would be to say that he made that comment 25 years ago and has changed. But as I understand it, he's simply claiming he can't remember the incident - which is possible if he was in the habit of regularly throwing off such unpleasant remarks.
There is certainly a bad precedent as far as actors being elected Governor of California is concerned.
Shalom, Being a lesbian, Fag, or bisexual or having Premarital Sex is a Sin Against God. (Read Leviticus 20:13)It`s promoting a unatural and sick lifestyle.Here a web site to help you in being Jewish. http://www.convertingtojudaism.com From your loving Jewish Sister Ariel Schnudson
What kind of person posts an anti-homosexual viewpoint to a mostly homosexual group and then adds a link. Seems like a flaming troll to me.
Nonetheless, I really love it when people quote Leviticus at me. It usually gives me permission to stone them right back. When was the last time you wore denim, Ariel? That would be combining two fabrics in the same garment, which is proscribed in Leviticus (19:19). Polycotton blends too - even worse.
Better yet: Sworn at either of your parents lately? For in Leviticus 20:9, it reads "9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Does that mean I am permitted to kill you now?
If you're going to quote scripture as the literal Word of your God, then you'd better be ready to follow all of it's proscriptions.
Spare me your "love". It is only poorly disguised hate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
queerbychoice) wrote2003-10-01 08:11 pm
no subject
no subject
Otherwise, the article helped me pin down exactly what I hate about the guy. All we need's an open misogynist running my birthplace.
no subject
no subject
In fact, I really dislike this 'collective guilt' thing. I knew a girl who attempted suicide, specifically because she was the granddaughter of a 'war mayor' who cooperated well with the Nazis and people wouldn't stop pointing this out to her. I hear she started doing a lot better once they moved to another part of the country, where her last name wasn't 'tainted'.
And, actually, there are still stores in my grandfather's little town that I'd better not enter, Or Else. Just to say that this is one of those things that really require thought.
By the way, treason and fascism are a choice. They're not genetically determined. ^_~
no subject
no subject
I don't think there is enough evidence to call him a Nazi, though, or if there is, it's not in this article. From what I've read, he's funded investigations into his father's past, and the major Jewish organizations have acquitted him of holding his father's views.
So, he invited Waldheim to his wedding. But Waldheim was (at the time) the elected President of Austria. (Unlike Jorg Haider, he was not elected on a far-right platform. The allegations were about his past.) That doesn't mean he wasn't a war criminal. Indeed, I sometimes think that many Austrians (like many Italians) seem to have failed to come to terms fully with their country's role in the war. But it's something to bear in mind. Describing Waldheim simply as an accused war criminal without mentioning that he was serving Head of State might mislead people.
no subject
So much for my faith in AlterNet. :p
no subject
Though I did say that those two comments in particular were perhaps being unfair.
no subject
Possibly with a political future in mind, Schwarzenegger has done all he can to cauterise the wound left by his father. He commissioned the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to research his wartime record, and it came up with no evidence of atrocities.
Nevertheless, the star made amends for Gustav Schwarzenegger's political judgment by making generous and regular contributions to the Wiesenthal Centre, which presented him with a national leadership award for his humanitarian work.
"Every time he does a movie, he writes a cheque," Rabbi Marvin Hier, the centre's founder, said recently, pointing out that "Arnold is not his father." However, although his father may not have been a war criminal, Schwarzenegger sought out a fellow countryman who was. He invited Kurt Waldheim to be guest of honour at his 1986 wedding, at a time when the former UN secretary general's SS past was coming to the surface.
Schwarzenegger even made a point of mentioning him in his wedding speech, telling his guests: "My friends don't want me to mention Kurt's name because of the recent Nazi stuff - but I love him."
However, Rabbi Hier has also absolved him of that surprising declaration of affection, arguing that the actor probably did not know the extent of Waldheim's responsibility for atrocities in the Balkans.
(source)
no subject
Assuming people know what you are writing about is very bad form. I think the way most people learn about things like this *is* through reading this sort of article.
~chisparoja
no subject
Also, I wonder what miniscule percentage of Americans do know the names of any current or former Austrian heads of state. I'm betting it's substantially less than 1%. :p
no subject
In my German dictionary, "Kaiser" means "Emperor", but perhaps it's different in the German of Austria. But what the Austrians call something in their own language is less than relevant. Tony Blair is "Leader of the Labour Party", which in German is "Fuehrer der Arbeiterpartei", but so what? (I don't like Blair, but few would say he's a Nazi.)
It's just a joke, I suppose, but is it trying to revive World War I-era prejudices?
no subject
However, what do you make of this?
no subject
From what I've heard, his conduct towards women over the years (and the language he's used to speak about them, objectifying them) has been appalling.
It would be interesting to see how (or whether) his rabbi friend defends him on the Hitler comment. Whilst he could, possibly, endorse the "strong" (dictatorial or totalitarian) leadership style of Hitler (or Stalin) without endorsing their policies, one would have to conclude that doing so betrays an inherently authoritarian mindset as well as an excessively casual attitude towards the suffering that millions underwent. A.S.'s best defence would be to say that he made that comment 25 years ago and has changed. But as I understand it, he's simply claiming he can't remember the incident - which is possible if he was in the habit of regularly throwing off such unpleasant remarks.
There is certainly a bad precedent as far as actors being elected Governor of California is concerned.
no subject
God Bless you all
(Anonymous) 2003-10-03 12:09 pm (UTC)(link)Re: God Bless you all
(Anonymous) 2003-10-03 03:35 pm (UTC)(link)Nonetheless, I really love it when people quote Leviticus at me. It usually gives me permission to stone them right back. When was the last time you wore denim, Ariel? That would be combining two fabrics in the same garment, which is proscribed in Leviticus (19:19). Polycotton blends too - even worse.
Better yet: Sworn at either of your parents lately? For in Leviticus 20:9, it reads "9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." Does that mean I am permitted to kill you now?
If you're going to quote scripture as the literal Word of your God, then you'd better be ready to follow all of it's proscriptions.
Spare me your "love". It is only poorly disguised hate.
-Mary Lunares
Furthermore
Re: Furthermore
(Anonymous) 2003-10-04 08:28 am (UTC)(link)-Mary Lunares
no subject