• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Opposing Views

F1fan

Veteran Member
No, that is not a good view to teach students because it completely dismisses and ignores historic context and material historic reality.

You are contorting to find anything positive to say about a genocide, and in this contortion, you also make statements that are not only ignoring the historical fact of genocide, but is also wrong in its economic context:

The Holocaust was a significant drain on the German economy, which needed the trains and military personnel diverted to Auschwitz et al - but for the Nazis, killing Jews was a more important objective, even, than winning their war (and even moreso once it became apparent that they were going to lose it).
I'm waiting for the reply that says 'But it was great for the German government because of all the money and personal property stolen from the Jews of Europe'.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
No, that is not a good view to teach students because it completely dismisses and ignores historic context and material historic reality.

Well, depending on the age group of the kids I'm sure the context can be discussed or if the historical class talks about genocide (say in different points in history) have students to opt out.

You are contorting to find anything positive to say about a genocide, and in this contortion, you also make statements that are not only ignoring the historical fact of genocide, but are also wrong in their economic context:

I DID NOT say opposing sides of genocide.

Please read my posts and quote me.

The Holocaust was a significant drain on the German economy, which needed the trains and military personnel diverted to Auschwitz et al - keep in mind that this was happening while Germany was fighting a world war against three of the world's premier military powers. They could have used the resources much more efficiently elsewhere to boost their war production - but for the Nazis, killing Jews was a more important objective, even, than winning their war (and even moreso once it became apparent that they were going to lose it).

I actually don't talk about the details of the holocaust. It's too much for my brain to handle. My whole point was open discussion in an education setting to where students can talk about horrific events without being political correct and needing to side with majority opinions.

If I'm not mistaken, they do this in some criminal psychology classes and things of that nature.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
So which i it?

I see it.
Our-RFians opinions on political correctness (what to talk about and what not to talk about) has no place in the classroom.

Depending on the age and how the topic is approached students opinions "about" the Holocaust events are fine. However, I would say its wrong for RFers (if teachers) to use "their" opinions in the classroom because they feel students should only talk about the Holocaust in one way and not another.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Again, what would be the point of that? What's the purpose of "sharing" opinions on historic events based on lack of knowledge, ignorance, and total emotional distance to the events in question?

They do that in many criminal justice classes. It just depends on the age of the student if its appropriate and, of course, talk about historical facts not promoting or advocating anything by open discussion.

Discussions in school - and especially in a subject like history - are supposed to be tools of education. If they solely happen because somebody wanted a discussion and for no other sensible reason, then they frankly should not happen.

I feel open discussion in history classrooms are productive.

This is arguably the point the teacher in the OP article was making: Without a clear educational context, discussions of subjects that most students are going to be ignorant about are not going to be of much value.

The teacher needs to approach it in a way that its not inappropriate and it doesn't force students to listen to sensitive topics-they do this in school (US) for topics like abortion and sex education. I don't know about "most" students since we're from different parts of the world on RF.

There is value in discussion in schools when it helps to teach people something - either about themselves, the world, or other people - but the subject has to be chosen in a way that allows such discussions to connect back to the lived reality of the students in that discussion.

I just think it depends on how the teacher approaches the topic.

I could see a valuable discussion about the Holocaust happening in a school in, say, Israel, where students can directly connect the facts they learn to the lived reality of their families and ancestors, or Germany, where it is in fact still part of the required curriculum to visit a concentration camp and talk about the atrocities the Nazis inflicted there - in both cases, such conversations would serve the function of remembrance, of connecting a distant past back to a lived and immediate reality.

And talking about different perspectives of this and giving opinions is a good way to understand such facts. Also, students may remember things more when they have more interactive conversation with the material they learn not a passive instruction.

Discussing the 'good parts' of the Holocaust does not serve any such purpose, and runs the additional risk of giving Holocaust deniers a platform from which to spout their nonsense to people who don't know better (because they haven't learned about it yet!).

Not talking about genocide.

This has nothing to do with Holocaust deniers (and I actually did not know there was such a thing)
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I see it.
Our-RFians opinions on political correctness (what to talk about and what not to talk about) has no place in the classroom.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Depending on the age and how the topic is approached students opinions "about" the Holocaust events are fine.
This is yet another vague statement. You are inching your way out of a bad set of claims earlier in this discussion.

However, I would say its wrong for RFers (if teachers) to use "their" opinions in the classroom because they feel students should only talk about the Holocaust in one way and not another.
You do realize there are professional and academic opinions, yes? Arguably much of history is a highly informed and educated option of the facts. This is why there can be numerous books about the same events in history. For example there are books on WW2 battles from the perspective of the Germans, and how responded to the tactics of the Allies. How history is approached is itself an area of debate in academics.

The concern about how Texas and other republican states are trying to get public school textbooks accepted that are whitewashed history. And this is riding the coattails of how various right wing school boards tried to get misleading science books used that minimize evolution. This ISN'T an academic issue, this is social and political, and on the wrong side of science and expertise.

This whole thing you have advocated for (although you are trying to reel it in) is how you want to disrespect and discredit experts. We saw that in your posts about vaccines, and we are seeing in your posts about this issue. You belong to a cult that wants to value the self's poorly informed perspective and discredit the opinions and work of experts.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Well, depending on the age group of the kids I'm sure the context can be discussed or if the historical class talks about genocide (say in different points in history) have students to opt out.
Why are you "sure" about that? What makes you "sure"? Have you had experience teaching history in classrooms? Have you had experience teaching students about genocides?

So far, all indicators point to "no". You seem to be talking out of complete ignorance of the subject under discussion.
Please correct me if I'm wrong with this assessment.

I DID NOT say opposing sides of genocide.

Please read my posts and quote me.
Talking about the efficiency of organizing the Holocaust is talking about a genocide.
If you didn't want to talk about genocide, then why did you enter a discussion about the most infamous genocide in human history?

If this discussion makes you uncomfortable, then feel free to say so and we can just drop the subject altogether.


I actually don't talk about the details of the holocaust. It's too much for my brain to handle. My whole point was open discussion in an education setting to where students can talk about horrific events without being political correct and needing to side with majority opinions.
And you made my point with exceptional aplomb by bringing up something that seems intuitively true if your knowledge of the subject is minimal, but is horribly wrong when viewed in light of actual, verifiable, known facts.

You underlined very well why discussions based on ignorance and lack of knowledge do not lead to greater understanding, but rather, to a distorted and biased take and a reinforcement of ignorant opinions.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

RF opinions have no place in the classroom.

This is yet another vague statement. You are inching your way out of a bad set of claims earlier in this discussion.

What were the bad claims?

I don't consider them bad or I wouldn't have made them.

All I said is I prefer open discussion in classrooms where students can talk about different opinions of horrific events in history without being reprimanded for it.

You do realize there are professional and academic opinions, yes? Arguably much of history is a highly informed and educated option of the facts. This is why there can be numerous books about the same events in history. For example there are books on WW2 battles from the perspective of the Germans, and how responded to the tactics of the Allies. How history is approached is itself an area of debate in academics.

Yes.
It depends on the age of the students and how the teacher approaches it.

It's beneficial that students talk about their own opinions if their age calls for it and it is approached productively.

The concern about how Texas and other republican states are trying to get public school textbooks accepted that are whitewashed history. And this is riding the coattails of how various right wing school boards tried to get misleading science books used that minimize evolution. This ISN'T an academic issue, this is social and political, and on the wrong side of science and expertise.

How does this relate to the topic?

This whole thing you have advocated for (although you are trying to reel it in) is how you want to disrespect and discredit experts. We saw that in your posts about vaccines, and we are seeing in your posts about this issue. You belong to a cult that wants to value the self's poorly informed perspective and discredit the opinions and work of experts.

I never said that. That's your opinion and arguing against your opinion as if I said it is counterproductive.

What does vaccines have to do with this?

You totally lost me on this. You want a discussion or argument over your assumptions of what you think I said?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm waiting for the reply that says 'But it was great for the German government because of all the money and personal property stolen from the Jews of Europe'.

It's interesting that, at least on the topic of the "opposing view" (which I'm still somewhat mystified by at least in the context of this topic), I was reminded of an HBO movie called Conspiracy which shows Nazi officers and bureaucrats at the Wannsee Conference in early 1942. It's an interesting portrait and study of "the other side" and the mindset of those who led the machinery which brought about the genocide and atrocities.

The dialogue was somewhat bizarre and gruesome, but it was still riveting and well-acted.

They seem focused on the idea of the "purity of German blood" and a "German culture triumphant." They wanted to dominate Europe and Russia, to exploit them for their resources and reduce them to an underpopulated agrarian state. They believed in certain nationalistic ideals that they thought they would be living in some kind of storybook land of mystic and mythological ideals that Hitler was propagating. It was total BS of course, but considering the background and history leading up to it, one can see how many people could be persuaded to buy into the idea.

On a practical level, around late 1941/early '42, Germany had reached its peak in terms of its invasions and occupations. They were in a position where they likely believed they still had a good chance of winning the war, but they also knew that time was not on their side.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Why are you "sure" about that? What makes you "sure"? Have you had experience teaching history in classrooms? Have you had experience teaching students about genocides?

So far, all indicators point to "no". You seem to be talking out of complete ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Please correct me if I'm wrong with this assessment.

I've taught in a classroom but not history.

I wouldn't know how a teacher would approach teaching the Holocaust. Some teachers let students opt out of the discussion if/when that happens. In topics like abortion and sex education depending on age group they may have a signed waiver or something similar to excuse students.

No. You guys are adding your personal opinions about the Holocaust as if that has a place in the classroom. If you guys were teachers I assume you'd not have the Holocaust subject because "you guys" believe (not school policy believes) that the topic is not educational and so on.

I'm just saying depending on how its approached (and to add depending on the age group) a productive discussion about the horrific events in history isn't a bad idea.

Talking about the efficiency of organizing the Holocaust is talking about a genocide.

If you didn't want to talk about genocide, then why did you enter a discussion about the most infamous genocide in human history?

If this discussion makes you uncomfortable, then feel free to say so and we can just drop the subject altogether.

I didn't see anyone talk about genocide in the beginning of the conversation and OP, so that's why I joined. If you guys focused on genocide I would not have joined.

Because there are other parts of the Holocaust to focus on besides strict focus on genocide.

And you made my point with exceptional aplomb by bringing up something that seems intuitively true if your knowledge of the subject is minimal, but is horribly wrong when viewed in light of actual, verifiable, known facts.

You underlined very well why discussions based on ignorance and lack of knowledge do not lead to greater understanding, but rather, to a distorted and biased take and a reinforcement of ignorant opinions.

This is all opinion.

It's not productive to any discussion and to resort to it is not productive. It's a bad way to disagree and it is forms a logical fallacy of ignorance (and distraction) rather than just debate the topic and not the person who said it.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
It's interesting that, at least on the topic of the "opposing view" (which I'm still somewhat mystified by at least in the context of this topic), I was reminded of an HBO movie called Conspiracy which shows Nazi officers and bureaucrats at the Wannsee Conference in early 1942. It's an interesting portrait and study of "the other side" and the mindset of those who led the machinery which brought about the genocide and atrocities.

The dialogue was somewhat bizarre and gruesome, but it was still riveting and well-acted.

They seem focused on the idea of the "purity of German blood" and a "German culture triumphant." They wanted to dominate Europe and Russia, to exploit them for their resources and reduce them to an underpopulated agrarian state. They believed in certain nationalistic ideals that they thought they would be living in some kind of storybook land of mystic and mythological ideals that Hitler was propagating. It was total BS of course, but considering the background and history leading up to it, one can see how many people could be persuaded to buy into the idea.

On a practical level, around late 1941/early '42, Germany had reached its peak in terms of its invasions and occupations. They were in a position where they likely believed they still had a good chance of winning the war, but they also knew that time was not on their side.
I remember that movie. It's a part of the political history of the Nazis that doesn't get as much attention as the war itself. The war and the social policies were all political, and what astounds me is how many ordinary generals and officers and citizens went along with these polices even tough they were not Nazi party members.

Today the neo-Nazis seem absorbed in the whole purity of "white" blood even though there is no such thing. To my mind it points to the insecurity of some white people and their need to feel superior.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I remember that movie. It's a part of the political history of the Nazis that doesn't get as much attention as the war itself. The war and the social policies were all political, and what astounds me is how many ordinary generals and officers and citizens went along with these polices even tough they were not Nazi party members.

Today the neo-Nazis seem absorbed in the whole purity of "white" blood even though there is no such thing. To my mind it points to the insecurity of some white people and their need to feel superior.

That's what some of them said at Nuremberg, that they were "just following orders." I think Germany had a strong nationalistic sentiment which predated Hitler; none of his ideas were really all that original or new. I think a lot of people, including some generals, might have gone along at first. But later on, they might have realized just how murderously evil and despicable he truly was. That's another view which I've noticed to be relatively common, that people were supposedly suckered in by his charisma and oratory, and they didn't realize how bad he was until it was too late.

I never could understand the scientific basis of "pure blood" on a nationalistic or racial basis, especially since nationalism has historically been tied to language more than anything else. It seems that it's more of a mystical ideal, not unlike notions of "Manifest Destiny" which have dominated American political thought.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
No. You guys are adding your personal opinions about the Holocaust as if that has a place in the classroom. If you guys were teachers I assume you'd not have the Holocaust subject because "you guys" believe (not school policy believes) that the topic is not educational and so on.
So since your position is not opinion but objective fact, I'm sure you can back up every single one of the points with evidence to support your argument, and that you have completely omitted to do so up to this point was just a temporary lapse of memory.

Let me know once you have backed up your objective, factual statements with actual objective, factual evidence (including objective, factual records of me claiming that "the topic is not educational and so on").
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
since your position is not opinion but objective fact, I'm sure you can back up every single one of the points with evidence to support your argument, and that you have completely omitted to do so up to this point was just a temporary lapse of memory.

Not sure what you're talking about. All I says again was talking about the Holocaust in an open environment without being represented for opposing opinions is healthy.

Let me know once you have backed up your objective, factual statements with actual objective, factual evidence (including objective, factual records of me claiming that "the topic is not educational and so on").

Not sure what you're talking about. I never mentioned anything about the Holocaust. I don't discuss the topic itself.

My main point was what I said above.

Period.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Finally.

You make something out if nothing on RF with people for no odd reason.
In all fairness, you would probably confused, too, if I dropped in a thread and started a discussion that appeared to be connected to the topic at hand but had in fact nothing at all to do with it.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Not sure what you're talking about. All I says again was talking about the Holocaust in an open environment without being represented for opposing opinions is healthy.
Like if a teacher asks a class why the Holocaust was bad and one kid says "Because it killed innocent people for no reason.", but then another kid says "But my dad says the Jews are out to take over the world and we need to finish what the Nazis started." So, healthy discussion?

Not sure what you're talking about. I never mentioned anything about the Holocaust. I don't discuss the topic itself.

My main point was what I said above.

Period.
You brought up how efficient the Germans were at doing the Holocaust, and I asked you numerous times how it was efficient, but you avoided answering me. I'm still curious what students could learn about efficiency using the example of the Holocaust, so what were your thoughts on that? You mentioned it quite a few times, so it wasn't a one time mistake.
 
Top