"The Holocaust isn't about race" Whoopi Goldberg on the View

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I assume you are questioning whether there is, actually, a jewish race. But in the process you are making it seem or questioning the idea that the HOlocaust was about race. Those are two different overlapping and related issues.

To state the obvious, if the Jews are not a race, it’s easy enough to claim that the Holocaust wasn’t racial. However, if there is in fact a Jewish race, the question of whether the Holocaust was racial or not is a little more open.

Let’s consider for a moment whether others are a race. Are Europeans a race? Are Vietnamese a race? Are Texans a race? If the answers are “no”, then race is clearly not geographically based, nor politically based, nor even culturally based.

If Jews are not defined by any of the foregoing characteristics, then what is left other than religion and/or biology?

But religion is practiced differently by religious sects within Judaism. There’s the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches as well as Hasidic Judaism, each with its own approach to focusing on rituals.

There are Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, each with its own cultural customs and ethnic foods.

Biology doesn’t fare much better as an identifying factor. Intermarriage and conversion have thinned out whatever bloodline there may be.

If there’s no telling whether Jews comprise a race or not, there’s no way to decide whether the Holocaust was racial or not.

Since only almost half of the Holocaust’s victims were Jews anyway, it might not be correct to think of this low point of history as being racial.

It's irrelevant how you define 'race', it was still racism. Hitler called them a race, which is why they had to prove a 'pure' bloodline. What is there to argue about?

[Age]

How could the so-called "nazi's" annihilation of "jews" have absolutely ANY thing at all to do with 'race'?

If being a so-called "jew", "muslim", or "christian" has ANY thing at all to do with 'race', then how exactly?

Well, that might be a good question to have asked the Nazis who clearly thought the Jews were a race. Christianity is not race based. It might have been Jewish in the beginning, but long before the Nazis were destroying their own country and many people elsewhere, Christianity was clearly followed by many races Yes, there are some Jews who are not racially Jewish. But these people were not in Germany, for the most part, and were not a threat, and certainly not the internal one the Nazis were obsessed with. Islam while associated with Arabs not race based and easy to join. To become a Jew you have to be tested and go through a rather intense process, especially if you have not been circumcized. You do not have to get rid of your foreskin in Islam. To become a Christian you can just start attending a church or even just follow the religion in your own way. Of course, some Christians might think you need to be baptized. But there is no agreement about what one must do and there is nothing like an adult circumcisn,[/quote]

Was ANY of this meant to be an 'answer' to both, or either, of my two questions here?

Sure, the Nazis thought it was about race. They explicitly said it was about race. Hitler said Jews were a race and a threatening, etc. race. So it had to do with race. To be determined if you were in the race it was about blood not whether you went to synagogue or believed in Yahweh. There were other things related to your question above, but how you missed this I really can't understand. If you think the Nazis were wrong to consider Jews a race, well there are still Nazis out there and you can take it up with them.

The clarifying question I asked above was; If being a so-called "jew" has ANY thing at all to do with 'race', then how exactly?

Which could also be asked as; If there is a racial component in actually being "jewish", then what is that 'component', EXACTLY?

You did write above; "To become a "jew" you HAVE TO be 'tested', and go through a rather intense process".

Now, what 'test' does one HAVE TO do, and pass, to THEN become a "jew", and, what EXACTLY is the "rather intense process"?

Also, are there ANY 'racial components' here?

That was in reference to converts, who need not be genetically related to other Jews. But compared to becoming a Christian or a Muslim, the process is selective and restrictive. But sure people that no one can all racially Jewish can become Jews. But your putting the three religion in the same category was specious at best.

LOL Besides the Fact that this is completely AND utterly MISSING MY POINT, some might argue that the so-called "nazis" ACTUALLY were caring, and A LOT, what "others" were thinking and BELIEVING.

Strawman. Of course they cared about but they did not care what Jews believed. They cared that they were Jews. They killed them because of racial 'science'. Sure, communists and others were killed or incarcerated over beliefs. Jews, your beliefs did not matter. How you missed this I can't understand given....

Secular atheist jews were killed in large numbers. In many countries on the Axis side conversion to say Catholicism was absolutely no protection.

Okay, but AGAIN if this has absolutely ANY thing at all to do with what I said and which you quoted me here saying, then what EXACTLY is 'that'?

See your question above. The Nazis were killing what they (and others including Jews) considered a race. Perhaps they were all nuts, but it has everything to do with racism. Now why do I mention their beliefs, Jews's beliefs? to point out that it was not some other factor like beliefs that led to the killings.

By the way, and just out of CURIOSITY, what is 'it' EXACTLY do you think or believe I am saying here, EXACTLY?

I assume you are questioning whether there is, actually, a jewish race. But in the process you are making it seem or questioning the idea that the HOlocaust was about race. Those are two different overlapping and related issues.
[/quote]

There are even more different overlapping and related issues I was alluding to, but as they were missed I will leave them for now and just thank you for clarifying what you have here now for me.

[Age]

In the 1930’s almost all Jews were of the same bloodline, presumably making them racially related.

Which appears to TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICT the post prior to this one, where you wrote; “Jews” meant “transients” rather than persons of Jewish dissent or Jewish blood? So, which one is more correct? Or, am I just misreading or misinterpreting here?

The question mark indicates that I am questioning the validity of the statement preceding the question mark, which was made by Iwannaplato before me. I find the statement to be doubtful at best.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

[Age]

Today I suppose anyone can self-identify as being Jewish if they wish to follow Jewish rituals and adhere to Jewish beliefs.

But, again, I will have to CLARIFY what are so-called "jewish rituals" and "jewish beliefs" EXACTLY?

And, IF I could EVER narrow them down to some EXACT SAME 'thing' or 'things', does ANY one think or BELIEVE that there would be AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE by ALL?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY, that makes one of 'you', human beings, "jewish"?

One day, slowly, some of 'you' WILL SEE thee ACTUAL POINT I am MAKING and POINTING OUT here.

Also, your very first word here is, "Today". So, 'when' EXACTLY did "being jewish" CHANGE, and could "being jewish" CHANGE AGAIN, on some other day?

That, actually, is very loose criteria.

And, when 'you', human beings, just STOP for a little while and just consider the 'criteria' 'you' "use", (or more correctly are meant to be using), for the 'names' and 'labels' 'you' place ON each other of 'you', human beings, then you WILL SEE just how 'loose' ALL of those terms REALLY ARE.

In fact, if ANY one considers the criteria for ANY of terms the definitions or criteria is SO LOOSE that they can NEVER be narrowed down NOR tightened up to ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. ALL of those terms end up being essentially nothing more than, literally, just complete and utter MISNOMERS.

I don’t use that definition or criteria when referencing Jews prior to 1948.

Were 'you' around prior to the year known as 1948?

If yes, what definition or criteria did you reference back then, in those days?

Also, how could the EXACT SAME 'people' "themselves" BE DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY prior to a particular date?

The 'definitions' of 'things' can very easily CHANGE, over time, but how, EXACTLY, could a 'thing', itself, like 'people' for example, just CHANGE from one date to the next.

Also, do you find 'people' become CONFUSED when trying to understand your DIFFERING definitions and criteria when discussing/referencing so-called "jewish" 'people' prior to, and after, a particular date in history?

Traditionally, being Jewish was exclusively a characteristic of birth.

By whom, EXACTLY?

The criteria was simply having two Jewish parents, each of two Jewish parents themselves, and so on.

And, those two so-called "jewish parents" eventually go back to those two human beings who evolved into existence, in what is generally thought, in the days when this is being written, of as being the land called "africa", correct?

Your questions seem to be used in a rhetorical sense, however I will answer them as if they were clarifying questions.

Just so you are FULLY aware EVERY question that I have asked so far in this forum has been a CLARIFYING question, and EVERY further question I ask in this forum probably will be also.

A Jew is a person who practices Judaism, who has been Bar or Bat Mitzvah’d. The practices of Judaism are available in the Torah and the Talmud. “Jewish” means Jew-like, in similar fashion to other words using the same suffix. The criteria for being Jewish is to be Jew-like.

Jewish rituals and beliefs are described in the Torah, it’s accompanying Haftorah, and the Talmud. If by “agreement and acceptance by all” you mean the acceptance of Jewish rituals and beliefs by all Jews, I can only say that in theory that is the case.

Okay, but that is a big 'IF'.

(I don’t know what you mean with you actual point.)

Okay.

Until the establishment of the State of Israel in May (on the 26th, I believe) of 1948, one had to be the issue of Jewish parents, or one who has converted to Judaism, in order to be considered Jewish. The State of Israel formalized who may be considered Jewish and who may be considered Israeli but not Jewish. It was at this time that the definition of, or the criteria for, being Jewish changed. These considerations have been in the minds of Jews.

Okay.

Also I will note that you have not actually clarified what was actually being asked for in every clarifying question here.

But thank you for clarifying what you have here for me now.

[Age]

But, again, I will have to CLARIFY what are so-called "jewish rituals" and "jewish beliefs" EXACTLY?

And, IF I could EVER narrow them down to some EXACT SAME 'thing' or 'things', does ANY one think or BELIEVE that there would be AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE by ALL?

If no, then what is 'it' EXACTLY, that makes one of 'you', human beings, "jewish"?

One day, slowly, some of 'you' WILL SEE thee ACTUAL POINT I am MAKING and POINTING OUT here.

Also, your very first word here is, "Today". So, 'when' EXACTLY did "being jewish" CHANGE, and could "being jewish" CHANGE AGAIN, on some other day?



And, when 'you', human beings, just STOP for a little while and just consider the 'criteria' 'you' "use", (or more correctly are meant to be using), for the 'names' and 'labels' 'you' place ON each other of 'you', human beings, then you WILL SEE just how 'loose' ALL of those terms REALLY ARE.

In fact, if ANY one considers the criteria for ANY of terms the definitions or criteria is SO LOOSE that they can NEVER be narrowed down NOR tightened up to ANY ACTUAL 'thing' AT ALL. ALL of those terms end up being essentially nothing more than, literally, just complete and utter MISNOMERS.


Were 'you' around prior to the year known as 1948?

If yes, what definition or criteria did you reference back then, in those days?

Also, how could the EXACT SAME 'people' "themselves" BE DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY prior to a particular date?

The 'definitions' of 'things' can very easily CHANGE, over time, but how, EXACTLY, could a 'thing', itself, like 'people' for example, just CHANGE from one date to the next.

Also, do you find 'people' become CONFUSED when trying to understand your DIFFERING definitions and criteria when discussing/referencing so-called "jewish" 'people' prior to, and after, a particular date in history?



By whom, EXACTLY?


And, those two so-called "jewish parents" eventually go back to those two human beings who evolved into existence, in what is generally thought, in the days when this is being written, of as being the land called "africa", correct?

Your questions seem to be used in a rhetorical sense, however I will answer them as if they were clarifying questions.

A Jew is a person who practices Judaism, who has been Bar or Bat Mitzvah’d. The practices of Judaism are available in the Torah and the Talmud. “Jewish” means Jew-like, in similar fashion to other words using the same suffix. The criteria for being Jewish is to be Jew-like.

Jewish rituals and beliefs are described in the Torah, it’s accompanying Haftorah, and the Talmud. If by “agreement and acceptance by all” you mean the acceptance of Jewish rituals and beliefs by all Jews, I can only say that in theory that is the case. (I don’t know what you mean with you actual point.)

Until the establishment of the State of Israel in May (on the 26th, I believe) of 1948, one had to be the issue of Jewish parents, or one who has converted to Judaism, in order to be considered Jewish. The State of Israel formalized who may be considered Jewish and who may be considered Israeli but not Jewish. It was at this time that the definition of, or the criteria for, being Jewish changed. These considerations have been in the minds of Jews.

Not necessarily. It's passed on via the maternal line. I think people know when they are Jewish, whether or not they are religious. Does anyone dispute that Einstein or Carl Sagan were Jewish?

Yes.

Neither of them bothered with the religious side of it.

[Age]

I assume you are questioning whether there is, actually, a jewish race. But in the process you are making it seem or questioning the idea that the HOlocaust was about race. Those are two different overlapping and related issues.

To state the obvious, if the Jews are not a race, it’s easy enough to claim that the Holocaust wasn’t racial. However, if there is in fact a Jewish race, the question of whether the Holocaust was racial or not is a little more open.

Let’s consider for a moment whether others are a race. Are Europeans a race?

This would all depend on how the word 'race' is being defined here.

But, until then my answer to this question is 'No'.

Are Vietnamese a race? Are Texans a race? If the answers are “no”, then race is clearly not geographically based, nor politically based, nor even culturally based.

Okay. Now that that has been sorted out, what is next?

If Jews are not defined by any of the foregoing characteristics, then what is left other than religion and/or biology?

But religion is practiced differently by religious sects within Judaism. There’s the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches as well as Hasidic Judaism, each with its own approach to focusing on rituals.

There are Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, each with its own cultural customs and ethnic foods.

Biology doesn’t fare much better as an identifying factor. Intermarriage and conversion have thinned out whatever bloodline there may be.

If there’s no telling whether Jews comprise a race or not, there’s no way to decide whether the Holocaust was racial or not.

Since only almost half of the Holocaust’s victims were Jews anyway, it might not be correct to think of this low point of history as being racial.

Besides the 'human race' I have been trying to ascertain from 'you', human beings, if it is actually possible to break 'you', people, down further into smaller different and actual separated 'groups' or 'races' accurately. So far, after thousands of years 'trying to', there does not appear to be much actual success happening.

[Age]

I assume you are questioning whether there is, actually, a jewish race. But in the process you are making it seem or questioning the idea that the HOlocaust was about race. Those are two different overlapping and related issues.

To state the obvious, if the Jews are not a race, it’s easy enough to claim that the Holocaust wasn’t racial. However, if there is in fact a Jewish race, the question of whether the Holocaust was racial or not is a little more open.

Let’s consider for a moment whether others are a race. Are Europeans a race? Are Vietnamese a race? Are Texans a race? If the answers are “no”, then race is clearly not geographically based, nor politically based, nor even culturally based.

If Jews are not defined by any of the foregoing characteristics, then what is left other than religion and/or biology?

But religion is practiced differently by religious sects within Judaism. There’s the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches as well as Hasidic Judaism, each with its own approach to focusing on rituals.

There are Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews, each with its own cultural customs and ethnic foods.

Biology doesn’t fare much better as an identifying factor. Intermarriage and conversion have thinned out whatever bloodline there may be.

If there’s no telling whether Jews comprise a race or not, there’s no way to decide whether the Holocaust was racial or not.

Since only almost half of the Holocaust’s victims were Jews anyway, it might not be correct to think of this low point of history as being racial.

It's irrelevant how you define 'race', it was still racism. Hitler called them a race,

So, how the human being known as "adolf hitler" defines 'race' then that is relevant, but how the human being known as "commonsense" here defines 'race' then that is irrelevant, to you, "vegetariantaxidermy", correct?

Just 'trying to' separate 'you', human beings and people, into "separated races" is 'racism', itself. So, ANY time ANY one of 'you' 'tries to' create some sort of separated 'race', then 'you' are 'being' what is called a "racist".

which is why they had to prove a 'pure' bloodline.

When you say, "they HAD TO prove ...", do you mean they, literally, 'HAD TO'?

If yes, then WHEN and HOW EXACTLY did "they" PROVE a 'pure bloodline'?

What is there to argue about?

There is REALLY absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to 'argue' about. Some 'thing' is either ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True or 'it' is NOT. So, although there is actually NOTHING REALLY to 'argue' about, 'you', adult human beings, have "found" just about a countless number of 'things' to 'argue' about so far anyway.

[Scott Mayers]

I don't know how you ever thought we were agreeing in any way. What a load of shallow, convoluted bollocks.

Oh, of course. So unlike me, you are FOR censorship of anyone speaking their mind freely as Whoopi did? Or do you just dislike Whoopi's right to speak?

I did not claim to agree with your normal racist and sexist mindset. I was arguing against the cancel culture that I must have mistaken you for being FOR!!

The last post was not responding to you. It has nothing to do with you and was definitely not something I would think you would share.

Wow, trotting out the 'r' word to try and silence me. How predictable and unwokielike

To 'silence' you? I clearly pointed out that my argument was in compassion for what is normally a right-wing complaint to which I appropriately assumed you (as with others) support here, contrary to your paranoia that I'm AGAINST it. That you've got blinders on to intentionally ignore this AND that you blew up on me without appropriate reflection makes my insult of HOW you responded to me more than justified.

Don't respond. I'm not going to waste my time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Oh, of course. So unlike me, you are FOR censorship of anyone speaking their mind freely as Whoopi did? Or do you just dislike Whoopi's right to speak?

I did not claim to agree with your normal racist and sexist mindset. I was arguing against the cancel culture that I must have mistaken you for being FOR!!

The last post was not responding to you. It has nothing to do with you and was definitely not something I would think you would share.

Wow, trotting out the 'r' word to try and silence me. How predictable and unwokielike

To 'silence' you? I clearly pointed out that my argument was in compassion for what is normally a right-wing complaint to which I appropriately assumed you (as with others) support here, contrary to your paranoia that I'm AGAINST it. That you've got blinders on to intentionally ignore this AND that you blew up on me without appropriate reflection makes my insult of HOW you responded to me more than justified.

Don't respond. I'm not going to waste my time.

You think I will automatically agree with something just because it fits with a particular political agenda? Fuck that.