Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
Rocky

Regarding the so-called myth of the six million

Recommended Posts

Vicomte de Valvert: Monsieur, your nose... your nose is rather large.

Cyrano de Bergerac: Rather?

Vicomte de Valvert: Oh, well...

Cyrano de Bergerac: Is that all?

Vicomte de Valvert: Well of course...

Cyrano de Bergerac: Oh, no, young sir. You are too simple. Why, you might have said a great many things. Why waste your opportunity? For example, thus: AGGRESSIVE: I, sir, if that nose were mine, I'd have it amputated on the spot. PRACTICAL: How do you drink with such a nose? You must have had a cup made especially. DESCRIPTIVE: 'Tis a rock, a crag, a cape! A cape? Say rather, a peninsula! INQUISITIVE: What is that receptacle? A razor case or a portfolio? KINDLY: Ah, do you love the little birds so much that when they come to see you, you give them this to perch on. CAUTIOUS: Take care! A weight like that might make you top-heavy. ELOQUENT: When it blows, the typhoon howls, and the clouds darken! DRAMATIC: When it bleeds, the Red Sea. SIMPLE: When do they unveil the monument? MILITARY: Beware, a secret weapon. ENTERPRISING: What a sign for some perfumer! RESPECTFUL: Sir, I recognize in you a man of parts. A man of... prominence! Or, LITERARY: Was this the nose that launched a thousand ships? These, my dear sir, are things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or of wit to color your discourse. But wit? Not so, you never had an atom. And of letters, you need but three to write you down: A, S, S. foot!

Vicomte de Valvert: Insolent puppy, dolt, bumpkin, fool!

Cyrano de Bergerac: How do you do? And I, Cyrano Savinien Hercule de Bergerac.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play nice, people.  Everyone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Henry Ford was the only American mentioned by name in Mein Kampf.

 

Ironic.

 

Doing things at an industrial scale.  Numbers matter. Yes?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I watched helplessly as language became an obstacle"

 

Anyone actually reading this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

"I watched helplessly as language became an obstacle"

 

Anyone actually reading this?

Does audio book count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have deleted *some* off topic posts by both Allan and Raf, and a couple of others where the deleted posts were quoted. Obviously there are some I didn’t bother with for now at least.

This stuff needs to stop and posts need to stay on topic, which is the story referenced in Rocky’s original post on the thread.

Further posting which is off-topic, political or personal attacks in nature may result in the offender’s future posts needing moderator review in order to appear on GSC.
Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just started reading this.  I'm struck by (chapter 1) how Moishe the Beadle escaped being murdered and got back to the village to tell all exactly what was happening.  Nobody believed him.  Nobody thought such horrific treatment could be true.

I'm struck by the fact that there were many who warned us that TWI wasn't a safe place to be.  "It's a cult.  It's not good Bible teaching."  Did we listen?  No, we continued, thinking all was well and would be well.  We ploughed on into our own wonderland that became increasingly horrific year after year.  And now, we who have escaped on our own or in droves - are not believed, not listened to, are mocked, by those who choose to remain.

Bold speakers like Moishe the Beadle, and some of the people here - and of course many of the OT prophets - have ever been ignored and told that the bad thing foretold isn't going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points Twinky. There is a fallacy in the saying that hindsight is 20/20. I believe that history is recorded or remembered through the "corrective" lens of those viewing the event. The accuracy of the account depends upon the viewpoint of the observer and the veracity of the event depends upon the viewpoint of the listener. All of which could be completely true or completely false, but more likely will fall somewhere along the continuum of facts. The rewriting of history is a favorite passion of historians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought of the expression, "Hindsight is 20/20." as being a way to express regret for a decision to do something or not do something. For example, "When I interviewed for the job, there were subtle warning signs I chose to ignore. Now, after a year, I have a clearer picture and regret the decision. Hindsight is 20/20.". That's just the way I've always interpreted it. I could be wrong, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, waysider said:

I have always thought of the expression, "Hindsight is 20/20." as being a way to express regret for a decision to do something or not do something. For example, "When I interviewed for the job, there were subtle warning signs I chose to ignore. Now, after a year, I have a clearer picture and regret the decision. Hindsight is 20/20.". That's just the way I've always interpreted it. I could be wrong, though.

That's a reasonable interpretation, but it IS a subjective/idiomatic expression so I don't see yours as necessarily contradictory to what Twinky and Flow7 said about it.

8 hours ago, Flow7 said:

Excellent points Twinky. There is a fallacy in the saying that hindsight is 20/20. I believe that history is recorded or remembered through the "corrective" lens of those viewing the event. The accuracy of the account depends upon the viewpoint of the observer and the veracity of the event depends upon the viewpoint of the listener. All of which could be completely true or completely false, but more likely will fall somewhere along the continuum of facts. The rewriting of history is a favorite passion of historians.

Yes, history is recorded through the subjective lens of those writing the record. There's also the expression, "history is written by the winners." Knowing some historians and archivists, I'll disagree with you about what their passion might be. They want to get it right, generally speaking. But they still have the filter of their education and experience.
 

17 hours ago, Twinky said:

I'm struck by (chapter 1) how Moishe the Beadle escaped being murdered and got back to the village to tell all exactly what was happening.  Nobody believed him.  Nobody thought such horrific treatment could be true.

I'm struck by the fact that there were many who warned us that TWI wasn't a safe place to be.  "It's a cult.  It's not good Bible teaching."  Did we listen?  No, we continued, thinking all was well and would be well.

That's a reasonable comparison even though the danger faced in the two scenarios was, for the most part not comparable. It strikes me that so many people have had the records of pandemic history, notably the 1918 Spanish Flu (might be labeled differently in records in other countries), and that it's clear that social distancing, wearing masks and frequent hand washing were established as effective practices to protect people during that pandemic. Yet, it's troubling that so many people in 2020 are oblivious and defiant... with far too many from their ranks ending up dead.

In March, right after it became widely understood that we faced a deadly pandemic, I was able to read a book about the 1918 Spanish Flu. 

My point is that Moishe's experience was hardly unique, as was ours with TWI. It seems to be human nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Flow7 said:

Excellent points Twinky. There is a fallacy in the saying that hindsight is 20/20.

I believe that history is recorded or remembered through the "corrective" lens of those viewing the event.

The accuracy of the account depends upon the viewpoint of the observer and the veracity of the event depends upon the viewpoint of the listener. All of which could be completely true or completely false, but more likely will fall somewhere along the continuum of facts.

The rewriting of history is a favorite passion of historians.

What you said seems to reflect a skepticism that does not see the importance of historians’ efforts to investigate the events, records, documents, facts, and human affairs of the past – and basically sounds like you are denying it’s possible to access the past. Did I get that right? Is that what you are saying?

Also, I think you may be conflating “20/20 hindsight” with what historians actually do. “Hindsight is 20/20 is a proverb that means it is easy to understand something after it has already happened. The expression hindsight is 20/20 is usually said in answer to an admonishment that the person should have known something would happen, or that the person made a bad decision. It is easy to see what someone should have done, after the situation is already finished.”  (from  grammarist.com    )…So basically 20/20 hindsight is a way of thinking about events or decisions that have already happened…in other words history. And implicit in the proverb of 20/20 hindsight is that there is no need for a corrective lens – the answer is obviously crystal clear.  

Could you please clarify what you mean by “rewriting of history is a favorite passion of historians.” Are you talking about historical revisionism?

I believe there is such a thing as legitimate historical revisionism which “entails the refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event, itself; that such refinement of history emerges from the examination of new, empirical evidence, and a re-examination, and consequent re-interpretation of the existing documentary evidence. That legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges the existence of a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" and the existence of a "convergence of evidence", which suggest that an event – such as the Black Death, American slavery, and the Holocaust – did occur; whereas the denialism of history rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence, which is a form of historical negationism.” (From   Wikipedia - historical revisionism    )

Edited by T-Bone
formatting and typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

legitimate historical revisionism which “entails the refinement of existing knowledge about a historical event, not a denial of the event, itself; that such refinement of history emerges from the examination of new, empirical evidence, and a re-examination, and consequent re-interpretation of the existing documentary evidence. That legitimate historical revisionism acknowledges the existence of a "certain body of irrefutable evidence" and the existence of a "convergence of evidence", which suggest that an event – such as the Black Death, American slavery, and the Holocaust – did occur; whereas the denialism of history rejects the entire foundation of historical evidence, which is a form of historical negationism.

YES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reference to the 20/20 hindsight was initially in response to the specific portion of the book that Twinky was referencing  - namely that no one in the village believed Moishe the Beadle regarding the horrors that he was warning them about. It was very much along the lines of Waysiders train of thought and is reflected in the remainder of the book by the consequences of the decisions made by the writer during those early warnings. If only he had listened and believed and left the village, all would have been different.

I think that as a colloquialism, the phrase is used primarily in a non-scholarly context, and as such is more of a linguistic idiom and does not reflect the dedication and efforts of true historians. It's always easier to ask  "what ifs" in hindsight than to predict probable outcomes. On a personal level, as Waysider mentioned, it's easier for an individual to review specific decisions and moments in time where certain events would have differt outcomes if different choices were made.  I totally agree that the definition T-Bone supplied is correctly applied to learning from our mistakes.

My last phrase about rewriting of history was made tongue in cheek and I was thinking along the lines of Monday night armchair quarterbacks critiquing the minutiae of Sunday's football games.

Given the gravity of the subject matter of the book "Night", I guess that was a bad time for attempting to inject humor. History and its preservation is a very important aspect of our lives and should always be considered within the context of the evidence as stated in T-Bone's post. No skepticism was intended nor meant to be implied.

Edited by Flow7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Flow7 said:

Given the gravity of the subject matter of the book "Night", I guess that was a bad time for attempting to inject humor. History and its preservation is a very important aspect of our lives and should always be considered within the context of the evidence as stated in George's post. No skepticism was intended nor meant to be implies.

I appreciate the clarification. All I would say is that it is often difficult to effectively communicate humor, hence, why folks didn't pick up on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the clarification, Flow7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just finished the audio book. It is well suited to an audio narration.

 

The book is powerful and moving. It really opens one's eyes to the sheer magnitude of what happened. I kept finding myself wishing it would end a bit differently but real life has a tendency to do that.

 

Thanks for recommending it.

Edited by waysider
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the online version.  So hard to grasp that such should happen.  Such cruelty - and yet occasional great moments of compassion and kindness between father and son.  And other moments of hideous greed.

I too wished that it would be a different ending... so sad that Eliezer and his father were parted, at (as it were) one minute to midnight - just before their release.

And yet this sad story is just one of - of millions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...