Why would a yid WANT TO celebrate Thanksgiving?

↑ fmt4 ↓

Wed, Nov 23 2011, 9:08 am

Raisin wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

fmt4 wrote:

Of course there will be people and institutions that will be anti-semitic. That is completely different from a country advocating policies that are specifically anti-jews, or anti-anyone for that matter. America has never done that, and I don't believe they ever will. As I said, the foundation of a country is so important. And America's foundation, though not perfect, is not built on thousands of years of religious persecution and bloodshed, against Jews or between Christians themselves.

Official American policy was to separate Native American children from their families and raise them as good Christians, without their own language or religion. And that was the good days, after the open slaughter stopped.

And as Raisin mentioned, there was that whole slavery thing... and of course segregation.

This isn't hundreds of years old history, it's the 1950s.

You guys are making me feel like the bad guy who's listing all of America's faults Sad

. I don't want to be that person. But to me this is like what people are saying on the Artscroll biography thread. Portraying a person as having been born great, instead of being honest about their slip-ups and struggles and everything they overcame, is not a compliment. Ditto for countries.

Thank you Ora. Yes, America is a wonderful country, but it is just as ridiculous to say that america has never done anything wrong as to say that "every country in europe is covered with Jewish blood". Really? Yes, a few European countries have unpleasant histories. The country where I grew up, England, has had no major antisemitic incidents since about 1300. And has been a pretty free place to live for about 300 years, as has most of western Europe. In fact, many people today would argue that europe nowadays has more respect for human life then the USA.

And forgetting the wrongs the USA did to blacks and Indians is like a german saying: the Nazis are ok. they got the trains running on time and gave me a job! they are great. Never did anything bad to me.

You need to brush up on your history. Everyone else has already pointed out the obvious flaw in your "since about 1300 statement," but I will add to it that "a few European countries have unpleasant histories" is a severe understatement. If you go back in history almost every single European country has had official anti-semitic policies. That is just common sense, considering that many of these countries were Catholic and the official stance of the Catholic Church for centuries was virulently anti-semitic. Yes, Protestantism was more tolerant, but there was still plenty of anti-jewish feeling. America has none of this history.
When it comes to blacks and indians, yes of course there were many injustices done, but it is completely ridiculous to compare it to the nazis. Firstly, the indian situation began at a time when it was accepted for a country to conquer another country and displace its inhabitants if they did not cooperate. I'm not saying this is ok, I'm just saying that it was another time and place which we can't really understand. Also, as uneven as it seems, the indians and conquerors were in actuality at war. of course the indians were treated brutally and unfairly, but there were (at least initially) two opposing sides in this conflict. later on they were cruelly treated as many defeated nations often are, but it's simply not the same thing as advocating the massacre of nation simply because you don't like them.
In terms of the slaves- yes, its a terrible chapter in american history. but also, it was a different time. and mass killing of blacks was never advocated. it took time for america to accept blacks as equals, but they did, and now we have a black president! and don't say, "well germany now is no longer anti-semitic." no comparison. it didn't take 6 million black people killed in order for america to reach this point.
so yes, america has its problems. but it is still superior to any other country out there. ( israel is a diff story, not getting into it)

↑ Raisin ↓

Wed, Nov 23 2011, 9:55 am

fmt4 wrote:

Raisin wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

fmt4 wrote:

Official mistreatment of Indians and blacks was taking place 50 years ago still. Not 300 years ago. And saying it was ok because everyone else was doing it, well, guess what, EVERYONE was expelling Jews in the middle ages. So that was ok then. Rolling Eyes

No, actually it wasn't. but it is true to say that in the middle ages people were mostly illiterate and ignorant, so you can look at their cruelty in that context.

Blacks were not killed on a mass level, but Indians were. I had a shabbos guest who is descended from native americans, and she was telling me stuff you wouldn't beleive. And this is stuff that happened recently, not in 1700.

America has no anti semitic history simply because it was only founded 300 years ago! If it would have been around for longer, beleive me, it would. you can say the same about many recently founded/recently independant countries.

Anyway, luckily England was around to take my grandparents in when they were fleeing from the nazis. Becasue America didn't want them.

Quote:

Certainly an incredible number of black people died on ships, mistreatments... But black people also sold other black people into slavery.

Ruchel, there were jewish kapos. that doesn't make the holocaust ok.

↑ fmt4 ↓

Wed, Nov 23 2011, 10:07 am

Raisin wrote:

fmt4 wrote:

Raisin wrote:

ora_43 wrote:

fmt4 wrote:

Quote:

Certainly an incredible number of black people died on ships, mistreatments... But black people also sold other black people into slavery.

Ruchel, there were jewish kapos. that doesn't make the holocaust ok.

I knew this would be taken out of context. Yes, blacks were mistreated 50 years ago. they were segregated and discriminated against. and then the civil rights movement happened. and america has for the most part moved past that period, and now a few years later we have a black president. we didn't need a holocaust for that to happen. because that's not the way america does things.
and again, indians are a different story. the country was being conquered, the indians were the enemy. also, most indian deaths were from disease. I just looked up some info on wikipedia about indians massacred by european conquerors.
"Determining how many people died in these massacres overall is difficult. In the book The Wild Frontier: Atrocities during the American-Indian War from Jamestown Colony to Wounded Knee, amateur historian William M. Osborn sought to tally every recorded atrocity in the area that would eventually become the continental United States, from first contact (1511) to the closing of the frontier (1890), and determined that 7,193 people died from atrocities perpetrated by whites, and 9,156 people died from atrocities perpetrated by Native Americans. Osborn defines an atrocity as the murder, torture, or mutilation of civilians, the wounded, and prisoners. Different definitions would obviously produce different totals."
hmm... doesn't sound anything like 6 million.

and in terms of america being a young country- well duh! no one is denying that! that's the point. because it was young country that knew of the problems of the older countries, it sought to correct those problems. the whole point is that it hasn't been around for longer, so it doesn't have those histories. saying "oh if it would've been around for longer it would have those problems" is so completely irrelevant.

↑ fmt4

Wed, Nov 23 2011, 10:53 am

Raisin wrote:

I think disease was spread deliberately to kill the indians. and read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

Yes, Ruchel is right, Judaism survived the holocaust a whole lot better.

The Irsih potato famine was not deliberately planned either, but the british sure took advantage of it to get rid of a bunch of unwanted peasants. And Ireland has never really recovered from it. The Irish language was lost, and the population remains much smaller then it should be.

Fm24, nazis justified killing Jews in exactly the same way you are okaying killing Indians. Both are completely wrong.

since you obviously didn't read the article, I'll post some excerpts:
"The crucial role played by intentionality in the Genocide Convention means that under its terms the huge number of Indian deaths from epidemics cannot be considered genocide. The lethal diseases were introduced inadvertently, and the Europeans cannot be blamed for their ignorance of what medical science would discover only centuries later. Similarly, military engagements that led to the death of noncombatants, like the battle of the Washita, cannot be seen as genocidal acts, for the loss of innocent life was not intended and the soldiers did not aim at the destruction of the Indians as a defined group. By contrast, some of the massacres in California, where both the perpetrators and their supporters openly acknowledged a desire to destroy the Indians as an ethnic entity, might indeed be regarded under the terms of the convention as exhibiting genocidal intent."
and

"But right away we are in highly debatable territory. It is true that the cramped quarters of the missions, with their poor ventilation and bad sanitation, encouraged the spread of disease. But it is demonstrably untrue that, like the Nazis, the missionaries were unconcerned with the welfare of their native converts. No matter how difficult the conditions under which the Indians labored—obligatory work, often inadequate food and medical care, corporal punishment—their experience bore no comparison with the fate of the Jews in the ghettos. The missionaries had a poor understanding of the causes of the diseases that afflicted their charges, and medically there was little they could do for them. By contrast, the Nazis knew exactly what was happening in the ghettos, and quite deliberately deprived the inmates of both food and medicine; unlike in Stannard’s"furnaces of death," the deaths that occurred there were meant to occur."
and

"In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."

I don't believe that you are really saying that the purposeful, intentional genocide of 6 millions civilian jews in the 1940's, who's only crime was that they had jewish blood in their veins, is the same thing as europeans conquering a new land and therefore defeating the indigenous population, mostly unintentionally, by disease, and at times intentionally-but even those intentional times have to be examined. most of it was AT WAR. yes there weren't conventional battles, but it was still WAR. which does not in any way resemble the holocaust.the intentional massacres, as he mentioned were few and far in between. yes, thousands were killed, but that does not equal a genocide. the trail of tears- relocation, very sad. but again, part of them defeating the indians. they were prisoners of war. they did not relocate them to concentration camps, with intent to kill them.
as to your last statement- I'm really not sure how to respond to that. how exactly is there any similarities between what the germans said and the americans said?? did the germans say- hmmm, were conquering a completely new country, the indigenous population is opposed to it, looks like we're going to have to defeat them in order to conquer the country. ya didn't think so. no connection whatsoever. if you are looking for two situations that are similar though- think about the Palestinians in israel. wayyyy more connections to indians there than to anything having to do with germany and the holocaust. I wonder which side you're on there.

Clarissa

Wed, Nov 23 2011, 11:14 pm

amother wrote:

anuta wrote:

I am also against insular lifestyle that some seem to advocate; we don't live in a large Jewish community, my children feel different enough staying home for Halloween, etc., and I don't see a good enough reason (for me) to nix Thanksgiving. Another opportunity to give thanks - why wouldn't a Jew want to do it????

insular lifestyle? Seriously? Isnt that what a yid is all about. We are different than non Jews and we are proud to be Jewish!!!!!! that is the message I want to convey to my children at every given opportunity. You sound like you feel guilty forcing this upon your children. Thats sad.

Say it loud and say it proud...um...person who makes this dramatic pronouncement anonymously.

I love Thanksgiving. I'm grateful to be American and I love celebrating with the rest of my country. It's a wonderful, happy holiday with great food and another opportunity to ponder my gratitude. It doesn't hurt Judaism. My family did it, and my grandparents who made it out of Europe alive.

The only twinge of discomfort has to do with what happened to the Native Americans. But I still love Thanksgiving, just to celebrate food, family and share in a wonderfully American holiday.

I hate the way Jews feel there's some kind of twisted loyalty oath where they have to eschew everything that has to do with our country. You should feel lucky to live in the US. It's not perfect, but it's better than most of the world.

As far as my children, they can't wait. We're all Milchig so there's no turkey, but there's lots of great food, and table decoration (a paper turkey) made by one of my children. God bless America and God bless great food!