Klarinet Archive - Posting 001299.txt from 2000/12

From: "Dee D. Hays" <deehays@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Wlach the Nazi?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:36:07 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "stewart kiritz" <kiritz@-----.net>
Subject: Re: [kl] Re: Wlach the Nazi?

> Dee,
>
> It is now well-established that, despite post-war propaganda to the
> contrary, most Germans knew roughly what was going on in Germany and
> occupied countries with the Jews. I can provide references if you are
> interested. Therefore, being anti-semitic and being a German during the
> period of time in question raises some concerns in my mind when someone is
> characterized as "merely anti-semitic" yet not a Nazi.
>Yes, there is a semantic distinction, but not one that in mind would be
very significant
> when it speaks to issues of moral culpability.

Very good point. Yet how many of us would have had the courage to actively
worked against the Nazi programs. I seriously doubt that I would have been
so brave.

Perhaps the original poster's choice of words was unfortunate but I simply
wanted to point out that deducing one from the other is another form of
inaccuracy that could potentially lead to crimes equally heinous. Should we
today jail some one who is known to be an anti-semite? It would go against
everything we believe. We cannot jail someone for their beliefs even though
those beliefs are wrong.. To take action against such, the person must be
advocating discrimination and/or violence, etc. Hard as it is, one needs to
realize that the distinctions are not just semantic. To state that 1940s
German + anti-semitic @-----.

You speak of moral culpability. None of us today sitting in our warm cozy
homes can speak with surety on whether we would have acted the same as the
ordinary, everyday, German or Austrian citizen. What we think we would do
very well might be a self-delusion that wouldn't hold up if we were actually
there.

People often discount the importance of semantics. Yet how something is
phrased can have a huge impact on people and their actions. Every
politician, journalist, and orator knows this instinctively. They shape our
responses more by how they relay the information than by the information
itself. Hitler was a master of it.

The way information is reported can raise a negative or positive response in
the listener just by the choice of words used in reporting it.

My own background as an engineer requires me to be as accurate as possible
in descriptions and not jump to conclusions on limited data. Too often
those conclusions are incorrect and lead to the wrong solutions and actions.
To me, a person needs to be equally accurate in describing history, people,
philosophy etc to apply the lessons learned to our future actions. If we
ignore distinctions that exist or conversely make distinctions where there
are not, our actions run a very high risk of being wrong.

Any it has been an interesting philosophical discussion. However, such
debates could go on until the end of time and not really settle anything.
Our sciences of history, philosophy, and yes semantics need better
development before they can become useful tools in shaping our futures.

Dee Hays
Michigan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org