Following up on that last post

[yendi]

Using a separate post here since almost all the comments in the last post are along the same lines.

Why were the actions of the teens racist? Let's count the ways:

First, their defense was that they're kids. That's it. No actual argument in favor of the philosophical points behind them, not even the argument that many of you made that the source shouldn't matter if the point is valid.

Second, and more importantly, the source does matter. As many of you noted, the sentiment in those quotes isn't exactly original or unique. So why cite Hitler? It's a deliberate choice, and other than the "provoke people" argument that a few suggest (using a popular sentiment to get folks to agree with someone they hate), the other viable reason is admiration. When one chooses sources (and there was a very deliberate choice here), one makes a statement.

Third, and most important of all, is the context of that "big lie" quote. Let's get the whole two paragraphs here:

All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how falsehood and calumny can be exploited. Is not their very existence founded on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious community, whereas in reality they are a race? And what a race! One of the greatest thinkers that mankind has produced has branded the Jews for all time with a statement which is profoundly and exactly true. He (Schopenhauer) called the Jew "The Great Master of Lies." Those who do not realize the truth of that statement, or do not wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in helping Truth to prevail.

I've read Mein Kampf, folks. Have you?

Comments

[chris-walsh.livejournal.com]

I have no comment yet on the overall subject (haven't looked at the article, don't want to put my foot in my mouth), but I've read brief excerpts of Mein Kampf and even that little amount was damn uncomfortable. Adding to that: I was reading pages Xeroxed from an edition published in the late 1930s, with a footnote talking about Hitler's grand plans for redesigning Berlin like he was a civic booster.

[moop2000.livejournal.com]

I got mixed feelings on the whole thing, but I disagree with your first point. The article quotes just one of the fathers when saying that he didn't take the source seriously, and that his excuse is that he is a child. I would agree with you if those were the words of the students, but it isn't in this case.

There could be a chance that the student's view on the choice of quotes is different, and without knowing their view, we can't claim that they are racist because of the excuse that is listed. I could not make up my mind on this situation really until I hear from the students on why it was picked.

Who knows, could be that they are just a bunch of idiots who wanted to cause problems, or it could be that they are deep thinkers who want to bring some attention to the ideas expressed in these quotes.

[theferrett.livejournal.com]

Or there's a third viable reason that you've consistently overlooked: it could have been an act to see whether they could sneak something controversial into the yearbook, just to show that they're more informed than the yearbook crew.

The idea that just because they're quoting Hitler, they must be racists, without knowing anything else about them, is damning with a mighty big brush too soon. Especially when you bring up the "provoke people" argument and then don't even bother to acknowledge it or discuss what that might mean qith regards to their racism after mentioning it.

This is not your strongest argument. It could well be racist, or it could be kids looking to stir up some excitement and getting far more than they bargained for. This is the sort of premature rush to an early judgment that I'm against when conservatives do it, and I'm against it when liberals do it, and I'm against it here.

[unwilly.livejournal.com]

Game, set and match to Yendi.

[lubedpumpkin.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. From what I've read (correct me if I'm wrong!) the two teens haven't released any statements of their own accord. What we've heard is defense from lawyers which, frankly, is not very good. However, I believe that the reason why they've gone the "children" defense is because no matter how you look at it it was at the very least a tasteless move. Jews have a significant presence on Long Island, and the teens should have been aware of that.

But in all reality, does it matter? If they had quoted someone like Andrew Jackson no-one would have said a damn thing, and frankly I think that speaks for itself.

[lonesomenumber1]

What he said.

The father sounds like a horse's ass, though, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find out that his kid is a nasty little bigot.

[robyn-ma.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of the punk-rock movement, where some kids wore swastikas because it pissed off their parents. (This was before the skinhead subculture.) The point is that invoking Hitler may, in some cases, be an idiotic and puerile way of saying 'fuck you' to whatever their elders hold sacred and being as offensive as possible. Hitler is pretty much THE go-to guy when it comes to being offensive. The buck more or less stops there — or Satan, and I doubt that a lot of kids who evoke Satanic language/symbols are serious students of Satanism either.

So...if these jerks evoked Hitler to be offensive, they shouldn't be surprised that people did, in fact, take offense. I don't know that they aren't racist, of course; nor do I know that they are racist, unless we hear something about there being white-power shit hanging in their bedrooms or something.

However, as regards the 'big lie' thing, I've seen many liberal commentators quote that one in a cautionary sense re: the big lies from the Bush administration, and they probably didn't realize that Hitler used that in an anti-Semetic context (more likely, they thought he was saying it boastfully re: his own lies). Regardless of the context, the idea that the bigger the lie, the more people swallow it makes an ugly kind of sense...particularly considering how many people bought Hitler's big lie.

[murnkay.livejournal.com]

A) Quoting the father doesn't mean that the students reasons are his. He said something, not them. Inferring their intent from his quote is a bit thin.

B) Quoting Hitler, as they did, as a possible political statement/shock statement/etc doesn't make one a rasicst anymore than if I quote Buddah it makes a zen master.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone disputes the racist nature of either Mein Kampf or Hitler. But that doesn't make the point you are trying to make. Something I am curious about relating to this story, did they attribute the quotes, or were they presented without references? Did the person who reviewed the senior quotes know the origin of those two statments? If I were the reviewer, it would have gone right past me. And then I would be stuck trying to explain to CNN how two students pulled a fast one on me.

This news story reminds me of something a friend of mine did in high school. I should post about it. Hmm.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Well stated for B)

[yndy.livejournal.com]

Once again - there are others who precede me who said what I would better...
But I would add one thought - that it's impossible to know the nature of the 'children' in question simply through a brief, one-sided news item.

Are they racist?
Could very well be.
Can we determine it from the evidence provided?
I don't believe so.
We can neither prove nor disprove racism on the part of the kids from what is given.

I'm relatively certain it is the father of one of the boys quoted as using the "their just kids" excuse. I doubt you could find an 18 year old who wouldn't reply to his father saying that with "I am NOT a kid, I'm an adult!" so that one is moot.

As for having read Mein Kampf - nope... couldn't stomache it. I've read excerpts and bits and pieces... but attempting to actually read that thing? Kinda like trying to drink the entire carton of milk after the first taste tells you it's rancid - what's the point?

[muse0fire.livejournal.com]

Big surprise, but I agree with you completely.

These kids are 18, and they're quoting Hitler. They could have quoted him saying "The sky is blue" and it wouldn't make it ok - they're quoting Hitler. They're giving credence and legitimacy to the worst monster of the 20th century.

And thanks for providing the context - that definitely screams anti-semitism to me.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

In advance: I despise Hitler; I despise Nazis; I despise racism.

I must point out that if the reason why the kids were wrong was strictly quoting Hitler regardless of what the context was, yendi quoted longer, and more damning passages.

Context is the key here, and it may be that the kids are rotten, but there really isn't enough information yet. We know for a fact that Hitler is guilty; we also know yendi is not guilty because of the way he was using the quoted passages.

I'll jump right on the condemnation wagon, as soon as I find out whether it should be for their stupidity or maciousness or something else. (So yeah, they're not completely innocent here - without providing any context themselves, they are - at the least - not the brightest as they've left it up to interpretation; IMO they can never recover complete innocence because even if they did it for a reasonable purpose, their stupidity came into play with their poor execution of it.)

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

Clarification: You used 'context' referring to the context of the quote in regards to its original appearance; I was using 'context' to refer to the reason why they were using the quote.

Just didn't want that confused.

The original usage of the quoted piece is certainly anti-semitic. The appearance of the quotes in the yearbook might very well be anti-semitic, but there is a chance it is not.

[muse0fire.livejournal.com]

I must point out that if the reason why the kids were wrong was strictly quoting Hitler regardless of what the context was, yendi quoted longer, and more damning passages.

But he quoted a long passage only to show the context of the kids' quotes.

Your yearbook quote is supposed to be inspiring, or to represent yourself or your experiences. The fact remains that they chose to quote Hitler. There are a million choices out there, lots of quotes that also discuss "big lies" or defensive strategies. But they chose to quote Hitler.

I do not believe for a moment that it wasn't a conscious choice, and it's a completely inappropriate and offensive choice, even they don't consider themselves to be anti-semitic.

When I graduated my friends chose to quote sources as diverse as Buddha, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Sting, the Bible, various poets, funny movies, etc. No one chose to quote Hitler.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

But he quoted a long passage only to show the context of the kids' quotes.

Right. And it did that, but still didn't show the context of why the kids selected those quotes. That's where the jury is still out - there's simply not enough evidence to deliver a conviction.

But they chose to quote Hitler.

Provided they didn't grab the quotes from somewhere equally as uncredited as they left them, I'd have to agree. Why they quoted Hitler does matter, though, as we've already proven.

If they had a good reason to do so, as yendi did, they certainly didn't provide enough to make it easily defensible. But they should not be condemned before they have a chance to speak about it.

Even the Nazi war criminals were given that chance, and were brought to trial.

No one chose to quote Hitler.

We didn't have a spot under the pic for quotes - we did have a section where we could write little bits and pieces, and some people used quotes.

I don't know for sure if anyone quoted (or tried to quote) Hitler, but I can think of at least six kids off hand who might have tried, and those six run the gamut of reasons from misguided stupid to thinking-they're-so-clever to just-trying-to-get-a-rise to pure evil. Not one of them would have done so for what I would consider a legitimate reason, so I admit it certainly doesn't look good.

You can't condemn someone because the situation doesn't look good, or because you don't agree with what they did.

That's the kind of thing Hitler and other tyrants like to do.

The facts may not look good, but you need to have all of them before you can make an informed decision.

[wakingdreaming.livejournal.com]

First, their defense was that they're kids. That's it. No actual argument in favor of the philosophical points behind them, not even the argument that many of you made that the source shouldn't matter if the point is valid.

No, that was the defense presented by the father of one of the students, and as I pointed out in the other post, we don't even know for sure that that was the whole defense he presented. I assume you know news media always has a bias and looks for ways to spin stories to further their bias, or to make them more interesting. Right?

Second, and more importantly, the source does matter. As many of you noted, the sentiment in those quotes isn't exactly original or unique. So why cite Hitler? It's a deliberate choice, and other than the "provoke people" argument that a few suggest (using a popular sentiment to get folks to agree with someone they hate), the other viable reason is admiration. When one chooses sources (and there was a very deliberate choice here), one makes a statement.

Can you find me any other quotes that make the same points as Hitler made, and make them as succinctly and pointedly? I can't think of any of the top of my head. Maybe you can. We also really don't have any idea what sort of point these students were trying to make with their quotes. You just jumped to the assumption that they are racist. Not everyone who makes a point by quoting Hitler is racist.

Interesting personal story: My own senior quotes in my yearbook included:

"The white man is the devil." - Elijah Muhammed
"In order for us to survive, America must be burned to the ground." - Stokely Carmichael

Do you think that I am racist against white people? Do you think I am a violent person who actually advocates arson against all structures in the United States Of America?

My friends and I also sneaked in the phrase "Bobo The Axe Murderer" to our senior yearbook the year after some students in another state got in legal trouble for sneaking in the word "nigger" to their senior yearbook.

[dwivian]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. The assumption that you know the motivation of the students, or how they came across the quotes in question, or how they were or were not attributed, is what leads you to your final assumption. I cannot make any of those leaps from the story as presented, so I'm unable to call the students racist when they may have just picked quotes from a web page.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

yes I've read it.



Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if those boys didn't even know those quotes were from Hitler. THen again, I wouldn't be surprised if they really were racist either.

[lovingboth]

I'll give you the first one. 'Just kids' is a defence that leaves people thinking the worst of them.

If I'd been asked before reading that, I'd have said that the big lie quote was Goebbels. Would that have made it better?

I have a favourite Hitler quote, justifying genocide too: "Who now remembers the Armenians?" (or "Who remembers the Armenians now?") The remaining Armenians would like to keep people using it - are you saying they may not?

Re: what's YOUR context? (curiuosity - not attacking)

[wakingdreaming.livejournal.com]

Those of us reading this who don't know you can infer whatever we want from this!!!

That, in case you hadn't thought of it, was precisely my point in including that anecdote. :-)

As for the rest of your questions, I'm about to head to bed so I'll answer when I'm more awake and coherent.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

One of the things I find interesting is to try to dermine more about events based on the things news articles dont say, or the way they say them. They never say that the source of the quotes is identified in the yearbook. If it had been printed that way, it would have been newsworthy, therefore, it probably wasn't.

I agree, kids will be kids just sounds like the father flailing around for an excuse. He can't actually defend or excuse his kids behavior, but he can't condemn it either. It sounds like he hadn't really thought about an "official" response to his kids actions.

I agree about outrage. We don't have a right to not be offended. We (and these kids) do have a right to be offensive. It's a little pointless to rack up so much negativity for nothing, but we don't know the kids intent. I doubt we will ever hear their statements on it. Which is annoying, as I really am curious. Little nazis, commentary on our educational system, political comment, or just repetetion of phrases they thought were cool without any clue of their larger context? There's so much that could be going on there. I wonder what was going on there. The box is still closed.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

So it's ok for yendi to extensively quote Hitler, when you know in context what he was trying to demonstrate and the point he was trying to make, but because you don't know anything at all about these kids other than their names and the association with a hitler quote, they are evil racists? What happens if CNN follow up with this

"Many internet bloggers qoute Hitler's works. One example this reporter found on the internet was a blogger who uses the name Yendi. In fiction, a yendi is a devious serpent who uses lies and half truths as a weapon. Yendi recently quoted two paragraphs from Mein Kampf in a heated discussion of racism in his blog."

Out of context, with very little information, our friend yendi becomes a hate spewing racist. And CNN sells more infotainment. Next up, some exciting developments on survivor. The actual article gave us very little actual data. All they told us was that the students chose those words for their yearbook quotes.


And why did everyone else get cool yearbook options? My school, we sat for the traditional portrait and that was it. No quote. No off-campus vanity picture. If you happened to know a yearbook photographer, you might appear in one of the campus life candid shots. This controversy reminds me of the kid who got in trouble and sued his school because they refused his yearbook picture because he was holding a gun in the picture.

Re: what's YOUR context? (curiuosity - not attacking)

[wakingdreaming.livejournal.com]

Wow, I totally forgot to reply to this until now.

My reason for using the Elijah Muhammed quote was mostly to get people thinking by doing something that seemed completely out of left-field. Along with the quote from Elijah Muhammed stating that white people are the devil, I also used a couple quotes which speak out against racism and scape-goating of any kind. I wanted people to see the quotes there so close together and force them to wonder what it was all about and actually ask themselves intelligent questions. I really have no idea if it worked or not, though.

My intent with the Stokely Carmichael quote was more straight-forward. While I don't advocate the literal destruction of America, I DO advocate the destruction and rebuilding of much of our social conditioning which allows for so much injustice. I intended my use of the quote to be provocative. I hoped people would look up the quote and look up the person who said it, educate themselves on why he said it and what he actually meant by it, and hopefully better themselves and the world around them with the positive use of that awareness.