Seanchan vs Dark One

[Eichhörnchen]

 

 

As someone who had family murdered under the Soviets and had significant family ethnically cleansed by those scumbags, I find your comparisons and downplaying of the Soviets very offensive.

And it would be vice versa from someone who had his family killed by the nazis.See what I'm getting at ?

 

 

More people died by Soviet hands.

 

 

In WW2?

 

 

....

 

 

The USSR existed prior and post-WW2. I lost a great-aunt in 1956 Budapest.

[Eichhörnchen]

So you quantify how evil one is by the amount one has killed ? Interesting.

Among other things.

You shouldn't and even if that's the case ( allow me to remain skeptical with all the "estimates" being thrown around and what you and a quick study shows the numbers cut it pretty close ) that does not invalidate what I said earlier.For a jew or any other party that got slammed by the nazis, they were the greatest evil simply because they hunted them.Similarly for you.

 

 

Then their selfish and simplistic. When concluding the entire history of the two it's easy to see that the USSR was a greater scourge on the earth than the fascists ever were. Although we're comparing worst with worse here.

[Puny]

When I read this convo I get a mental picture:

Two kids sitting in a sandbox tossing mud at each other.

Why on earth are you discussing which of the Nazi Empire and the Soviet Union are more evil? My Nazis are more evil then your Soviets. lol

 

It´s all about perspective and how you see things. Some people adore the Nazi, a minority but they exist. Some think the Sovietunion was great (prolly those that weren´t hunted down) In Serbia when Tito ruled the majority of people liked him and thought he was a good leader even though other western countries disagreed, but Serbia was socialist not communist.

[Zentari]

When I read this convo I get a mental picture:

Two kids sitting in a sandbox tossing mud at each other.

Why on earth are you discussing which of the Nazi Empire and the Soviet Union are more evil? My Nazis are more evil then your Soviets. lol

Did you actually bother to read what I posted and somehow fail to see the point ?

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

where have all the moderators gone, long time pa-assing. . .

[Puny]

No, I see your point. =P Speedreading ftl.

Readjusting mental image: One kid sitting in a sandbox tossing sand on the other kid. Luckily that kid has a shield of knowledge and reflection up. Lol.

[MauricXe]

gawd just stop this useless convo.

 

Back on topic plz!

[Guest PiotrekS]

^^And ofcourse Polish people didn't mind Germans butchering Jews. They merely "supported" the German idea that Jews were root cause of all evil.

 

 

^^And ofcourse Polish people didn't mind Germans butchering Jews. They merely "supported" the German idea that Jews were root cause of all evil.

 

 

The Polish kept attacking, burning down the houses and even massacring Jews well past WW2. Massacres of Jews happened as late as 1947-48 in Poland.

 

The Nazis rampant antisemitism is part of the reason they were so popular in Eastern Europe among other reasons (the fact that they were trying to put an end to the Soviets won them major brownie points). The first true mass killings in the beginning of the holocaust weren't even perpetrated by the Germans, however by Ukrainian paramilitaries in Galician, Ukraine. The holocaust can only be described as a pan-European movement to cleanse oneself of perceived unwanted minorities.

 

Disclosure: I'm Polish. Second: I don't mind talking about my countrymen's sins and crimes. They were definitely too many of those and antisemitism existed and did much evil,unfortunately.

 

But you two really shouldn't post on the Internet, where it can be seen by anyone, the statements that show you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and call it only an ignorance.

 

I'll try to give to you only one small thing to think about. I doubt it will do much good, but I'll try. Don't bother replying, please.

 

If Poland was a stronghold of wild and universal antisemitism, going as far as actually helping in genocide and massacring Jews all over the place, how come the Jews decided to live in Poland for hundreds of years(and I mean at least from the 14th century) in such great numbers? Poland had a biggest Jewish population in Europe before WW2, and some time before - even the biggest in the world (it then got surpassed by USA). The Jewish community had a strong position in the society before WW2(e.g. 56% of all physicians were Jewish, 22% journalists, 33% lawyers - take into account that approximately 10% of the whole population was Jewish). It wasn't the richest country in the world, the climate wasn't particularly nice, but they decided to come and stay for generations after generations, often moving from other European countries. And for most part it wasn't very difficult to leave Poland (just look at emmigration figures), so it can't be reasonably argued that they just couldn't leave if they wished.

 

So, unless you are an antisemite who claims that the whole Jewish nation is composed of masochists, there is something wrong with your assumption about universal and violent Polish antisemitism.

 

And all this had nothing to do with the topic and the historical parallel, which was an interesting subject in itself .

[Eichhörnchen]

^^And ofcourse Polish people didn't mind Germans butchering Jews. They merely "supported" the German idea that Jews were root cause of all evil.

 

 

^^And ofcourse Polish people didn't mind Germans butchering Jews. They merely "supported" the German idea that Jews were root cause of all evil.

 

 

The Polish kept attacking, burning down the houses and even massacring Jews well past WW2. Massacres of Jews happened as late as 1947-48 in Poland.

 

The Nazis rampant antisemitism is part of the reason they were so popular in Eastern Europe among other reasons (the fact that they were trying to put an end to the Soviets won them major brownie points). The first true mass killings in the beginning of the holocaust weren't even perpetrated by the Germans, however by Ukrainian paramilitaries in Galician, Ukraine. The holocaust can only be described as a pan-European movement to cleanse oneself of perceived unwanted minorities.

 

Disclosure: I'm Polish. Second: I don't mind talking about my countrymen's sins and crimes. They were definitely too many of those and antisemitism existed and did much evil,unfortunately.

 

But you two really shouldn't post on the Internet, where it can be seen by anyone, the statements that show you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and call it only an ignorance.

 

I'll try to give to you only one small thing to think about. I doubt it will do much good, but I'll try. Don't bother replying, please.

 

If Poland was a stronghold of wild and universal antisemitism, going as far as actually helping in genocide and massacring Jews all over the place, how come the Jews decided to live in Poland for hundreds of years(and I mean at least from the 14th century) in such great numbers? Poland had a biggest Jewish population in Europe before WW2, and some time before - even the biggest in the world (it then got surpassed by USA). The Jewish community had a strong position in the society before WW2(e.g. 56% of all physicians were Jewish, 22% journalists, 33% lawyers - take into account that approximately 10% of the whole population was Jewish). It wasn't the richest country in the world, the climate wasn't particularly nice, but they decided to come and stay for generations after generations, often moving from other European countries. And for most part it wasn't very difficult to leave Poland (just look at emmigration figures), so it can't be reasonably argued that they just couldn't leave if they wished.

 

So, unless you are an antisemite who claims that the whole Jewish nation is composed of masochists, there is something wrong with your assumption about universal and violent Polish antisemitism.

 

And all this had nothing to do with the topic and the historical parallel, which was an interesting subject in itself .

 

What does my pointing out that antisemitism ran deep in Poland have to do with me being antisemitic? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

Post-war sporadic public anti-Jewish disturbances or riots were enticed by spread of false blood libel accusations against Jews in a dozen Polish towns – Kraków, Kielce, Bytom, Białystok, Bielawa, Częstochowa, Legnica, Otwock, Rzeszów, Sosnowiec, Szczecin, Tarnów. The Kraków pogrom of August 11, 1945, was the first anti-Jewish riot in postwar Poland. The immediate pretext for it were rumours of alleged attempt by a Jewish woman to kidnap and murder a Polish child, and the alleged discovery of thirteen (or even eighty) corpses of Christian children that supposedly had been found in Kupa Synagogue. During the riot, Jews were attacked in Kazimierz, and other parts of Old Town. Fire was set in Kupa Synagogue.

 

The pogrom in Kielce resulted in 42 people being murdered and about 50 seriously injured,[4][35] yet the number of victims does not reflect the impact of the atrocities committed. The Kielce pogrom was a turning point for the postwar history of Polish Jews – according to Michael R. Marrus, as the Zionist underground concluded that there was no future for Jews in Poland.

 

Yeah but this is getting off-topic...

[Terez]

I decided to jump in because in my recent studies of Chopin, I've read a lot of biographies written by historians who have some perspective on this. The Jews were tolerated in Poland in the 19th century much in the same way that black people were tolerated in the US before the Civil Rights revolution (and some would say that 'tolerance', as opposed to real acceptance, still exists today to a lesser degree). But the period between the Reconstruction era and the Civil Rights era is probably a good parallel to pre-WWII Poland, except that the US sentiment became more liberal while the Polish sentiment was worsened with WWII. Chopin had many Jewish acquaintances and even friends in his life, but his letters - particularly his letters to his Polish friends - are filled with marked anti-Semitism, and most biographers, even the Polish ones, say that it was characteristic of Poland in particular. Chopin's friends in Paris like George Sand and Franz Liszt, liberal Europeans of the time, found him to be very narrow-minded. To them, it was one of the marks of his backwater Polish upbringing - and this about someone who was raised in Warsaw, constantly in the company of the elite.

 

So, to answer your question, I'd say that the mass-migration of Jews to Poland was probably the cause of the marked anti-Semitism, rather than evidence against its existence. Many Poles probably felt like the Jews were trying to take over, or something - this isn't something that was mentioned by any of the biographers I mentioned, but it would make sense. There was anti-Semitism everywhere in the 19th century, but the Poles had more Jews, so they were more susceptible to it.

[hazelkrs1]

The Jews were tolerated in Poland in the 19th century much in the same way that black people were tolerated in the US before the Civil Rights revolution (and some would say that 'tolerance', as opposed to real acceptance, still exists today to a lesser degree

 

Just to throw my two cents in, before the civil rights revolution black people were not tolerated, they were suppressed. Not just out of simple racist hate, but because rich people wanted to stay rich. And that "tolerance" today? It's still supression camouflaged as being acceptance.

 

And as for the Soviets vs. Nazi argument, they were both awfully corrupt regimes with evil men at the helm that committed countless atrocities that generations later, whole countries still feel the effects of. It is pointless to try and compare the two and decide which is more evil. Stalin killed way more people than Hitler did, and he also had a streak for domination of weaker countries, but Germany was a wildfire that was completely out of control at the time and seemed to be a bigger threat. Whether they were or weren't is somewhat irrelevant, because you don't really know had things been different. Had we not somewhat allied with the Soviets to take Hitler down, he could have committed so many more crimes than we saw him commit in the short period he ruled that he could have been way worse than Stalin. The important thing was the comparison of how Rand feels the Shadow is the greater threat (which seems obvious) much like America believed Germany to be the greater threat at the time.

[Terez]

The Jews were tolerated in Poland in the 19th century much in the same way that black people were tolerated in the US before the Civil Rights revolution (and some would say that 'tolerance', as opposed to real acceptance, still exists today to a lesser degree

 

Just to throw my two cents in, before the civil rights revolution black people were not tolerated, they were suppressed. Not just out of simple racist hate, but because rich people wanted to stay rich. And that "tolerance" today? It's still supression camouflaged as being acceptance.

I'd mostly agree with that. And in reality the Jews probably weren't suppressed all that badly in Poland, though I think in the 19th century there might have been some sort of restrictions? I'm not sure. I was mostly trying to draw a parallel to attitudes, where people are mostly polite on the surface but harbor a resentment or even hatred that is more freely discussed when none of the minority in question are around. I was raised with that sort of attitude all around me, and my family and friends have often made me uncomfortable, but fortunately it's less common among younger people which suggests some improvement (even here in the Deep South). So maybe the slightly post-Civil Rights era would be a more appropriate comparison, depending on locale.

 

The whole Nazi argument is irrelevant as it's pretty obvious that Mat is going to convince Tuon (with the help of others) to change the Seanchan's most vile customs such as slavery. Tuon's character is such that she can be convinced; the unmentionable being quite a different story.

[Guest PiotrekS]

 

What does my pointing out that antisemitism ran deep in Poland have to do with me being antisemitic? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

I didn't say you were -you'll see it if you read the sentence in question again. I only said that either you think that Jews actually liked to be abused-which would be antisemitic- or you might change some of your assumptions that Poland was universally and violently antisemitic. I somehow hoped you would choose the second option.

 

Post-war sporadic public anti-Jewish disturbances or riots were enticed by spread of false blood libel accusations against Jews in a dozen Polish towns – Kraków, Kielce, Bytom, Białystok, Bielawa, Częstochowa, Legnica, Otwock, Rzeszów, Sosnowiec, Szczecin, Tarnów. The Kraków pogrom of August 11, 1945, was the first anti-Jewish riot in postwar Poland. The immediate pretext for it were rumours of alleged attempt by a Jewish woman to kidnap and murder a Polish child, and the alleged discovery of thirteen (or even eighty) corpses of Christian children that supposedly had been found in Kupa Synagogue. During the riot, Jews were attacked in Kazimierz, and other parts of Old Town. Fire was set in Kupa Synagogue.

 

The pogrom in Kielce resulted in 42 people being murdered and about 50 seriously injured,[4][35] yet the number of victims does not reflect the impact of the atrocities committed. The Kielce pogrom was a turning point for the postwar history of Polish Jews – according to Michael R. Marrus, as the Zionist underground concluded that there was no future for Jews in Poland.

 

Yeah but this is getting off-topic...

I didn't say there had been no antisemitism or shameful crimes at all, had I? It is completely different from the sweeping and simplistic statements that appeared in your conversation.

 

I decided to jump in because in my recent studies of Chopin, I've read a lot of biographies written by historians who have some perspective on this. The Jews were tolerated in Poland in the 19th century much in the same way that black people were tolerated in the US before the Civil Rights revolution (and some would say that 'tolerance', as opposed to real acceptance, still exists today to a lesser degree). But the period between the Reconstruction era and the Civil Rights era is probably a good parallel to pre-WWII Poland, except that the US sentiment became more liberal while the Polish sentiment was worsened with WWII. Chopin had many Jewish acquaintances and even friends in his life, but his letters - particularly his letters to his Polish friends - are filled with marked anti-Semitism, and most biographers, even the Polish ones, say that it was characteristic of Poland in particular. Chopin's friends in Paris like George Sand and Franz Liszt, liberal Europeans of the time, found him to be very narrow-minded. To them, it was one of the marks of his backwater Polish upbringing - and this about someone who was raised in Warsaw, constantly in the company of the elite.

 

So, to answer your question, I'd say that the mass-migration of Jews to Poland was probably the cause of the marked anti-Semitism, rather than evidence against its existence. Many Poles probably felt like the Jews were trying to take over, or something - this isn't something that was mentioned by any of the biographers I mentioned, but it would make sense. There was anti-Semitism everywhere in the 19th century, but the Poles had more Jews, so they were more susceptible to it.

 

I find it great that you take so much interest in Chopin, Terez His birthplace, Zelazowa Wola, is very near to my grandparents' house. And there is a shiny new museum in Warsaw. You're invited

 

I would say that there is a certain amount of truth in what you said, but only with tons of reservations. First of all, the history of Poland and Jews in Poland is long and incredibly complex, so it is impossible to explain it on the forum without scaring away all people who would rather talk about WOT

 

Second, your parallel with black people in USA is not very accurate for at least several reasons:

1. The Jewish people were coming to Poland voluntarily and living as free people, not slaves (there was no slavery)

 

2. It was easy to identify a black person. What kind of Jews do you have in mind though? People who so define themselves?People who practice Judaism? Only orthodox ones or not? Jews according to Judaism (that is born from Jewish mother or converted to Judaism?)People with "Jewish names"? Or maybe use the crazy nazi ethnic theories?(The nazis often declared as Jews people whou would be really surprised if told they were Jewish). You often had people who were both Polish and Jewish, enriching both cultures.

 

In Poland you had orthodox Jews, some of whom were very unwilling to integrate with a non-Jewish society. You also had other Jews, who were perfectly integrated and, as can be seen from my earlier post, played a major role in the society. My fauvorite poet of all time was a Jew, and probably he was also Polish (people in central Europe often had multiple identities and no problem with that). He was know under the name of Boleslaw Lesmian, and it is a good reason to learn Polish to read his poems (impossible to translate, unfortunately)

 

3. The history of Jews in Poland is much longer than the history of black people in USA. So you have to take account of completely different historical reality - e.g. medieval society can hardly be judged with standards formulated in XVIII, XIX or XX century.

 

4. The Jewish community in Poland had rights and autonomy, members of Parliament and political parties.

 

5. Poland before WW2 existed only for 21 years. It was a poor and deeply troubled county, with very deep political divisions and agressive neighbours on both sides. It had a history of 123 years of foreign occupation and opression, with times and places where even speaking Polish was illegal and eavily sanctioned. There was no comfort of American freedom from external interference,

 

6. Poland before WW2 was a country with large minorities. The structure of the society (ethnic criteria) was as follows: around 64% Poles, 16% Ukrainians, 10% Jews, 6% Belarusians, 4% Germans. There existed a deep political division between nationalistic and socialist political parties (and it meant something different than today). Nationalistic parties were generally hostile towards minorities (all of them, not espeically Jews) and thought they should be somehow changed into Polish people. The socialistic parties (with a little more support in the society) had a generally positive attitude towards minorities.

 

So when a politician from a nationalistic party would say "we have too many Jewish physicians, only 44% of them are not Jewish", was it only nationalistic or also antisemitic? And every time a nationalist politicians would try to do something against minorities, you would get a huge opposition from the socialits and the liberals. So when local nationalists would organize actions to limit the rights of Jewish students at the universities and confine them to certain places in the classrooms, you would get e.g. Marshall Pilsudski granddaughters sitting with the Jewish students (Marshall Pilsudski in Poland was somebody like Rand al'Thor, only more important )

 

So, to end somehow - I'm not saying there was no antisemitism, that it wasn't a problem, that there were no shameful crimes commited against Jews. I only argue against biased and ignorant, general and sweeping statements, that disregard the huge culture of tolerance and acceptance that was a unique and old element of Polish history.

 

And I wouldn't treat everything George Sand said as an absolute truth and a paragon of enlightenement.

[PastorDeSemolaDeGranoDuro]

Think I'd rather have my kids be da'covale or even damane then eaten by Trollocs and gholam.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

gawd just stop this useless convo.

 

Back on topic plz!

 

yes, please.

 

or move it to debates and discussions at least.

[Guest PiotrekS]

gawd just stop this useless convo.

 

Back on topic plz!

 

yes, please.

 

or move it to debates and discussions at least.

 

I'm finished with this topic. I wasn't sure whether to step in at all, but sometimes you have to react. Otherwise blatantly false or biased statements are left without any commentary or critique, and the opinions of bystanders are often influenced in that way. I'm sorry for the disruption to the original discussion.

[Terez]

There's no harm in going off-topic when there was no real debate to begin with. The thread premise is pretty silly IMO. It's healthy to have a politics debate in the midst of WoT discussions sometimes; it's a nice jab for people who like to stick their heads in the sand regarding such things.

 

I find it great that you take so much interest in Chopin, Terez His birthplace, Zelazowa Wola, is very near to my grandparents' house. And there is a shiny new museum in Warsaw. You're invited

I'd love to go one day. I'm beginning to realize that if I want to get serious about studying Chopin I have to learn Polish. It's intimidating. I probably need to learn French too, because most of the people he associated with wrote in French, and there has been some apathy about getting things translated. But even typing the names in Polish is difficult; I can do French special characters easily enough, but I have to copy-paste the Polish ones. And seeing as how you didn't bother just now I wonder why I do. Have they fallen out of use? There are two recent English language biographers who are Polish though one of them is second-generation and was raised in England and the US (Zamoyski), but though Tad Szulc is mostly known for his stint with the New York Times and the Bay of Pigs report, he was actually raised in Poland. Anyway, both of them use special characters. Affectation?

 

...your parallel with black people in USA is not very accurate for at least several reasons

Yeah, it wasn't supposed to be an exact comparison; just a relation of an attitude. But the era I was talking about was long after the slaves were emancipated, and you might say that the ex-slave thing is comparable to the 'they killed Jesus' thing in degree, if not in detail. And I think Jews were easy enough to recognize through their names if nothing else, at that time.

 

4. The Jewish community in Poland had rights and autonomy, members of Parliament and political parties.

So did black Americans beginning in the Reconstruction period. After that, there was a bit of a backlash, and that gets into the period where it depended largely on locale.

 

5. Poland before WW2 existed only for 21 years.

I imagine that the Poles who lived before then (including Chopin, who was raised during the beginning of that foreign occupation) would heartily disagree with you!

 

6. Poland before WW2 was a country with large minorities. The structure of the society (ethnic criteria) was as follows: around 64% Poles, 16% Ukrainians, 10% Jews, 6% Belarusians, 4% Germans. There existed a deep political division between nationalistic and socialist political parties (and it meant something different than today). Nationalistic parties were generally hostile towards minorities (all of them, not espeically Jews) and thought they should be somehow changed into Polish people. The socialistic parties (with a little more support in the society) had a generally positive attitude towards minorities.

The same was generally true in the US before the Civil Rights area. The party system was completely restructured over the course of the Civil Rights debates, but there was always one party supporting civil rights, though it swapped from Republican to Democrat somewhere between FDR and JFK and his VP/successor LBJ.

 

So when a politician from a nationalistic party would say "we have too many Jewish physicians, only 44% of them are not Jewish", was it only nationalistic or also antisemitic?

The same kinds of questions are still raised here, concerning 'affirmative action' laws that encourage representation of minorities in every field. Is it racist to oppose those laws? The law itself seems racist. But I imagine that in both cases there is at least a little bit of racism being justified by a more noble sentiment.

 

And I wouldn't treat everything George Sand said as an absolute truth and a paragon of enlightenement.

Oh, trust me, I don't. I do find myself sympathizing with her more than most Chopin fans - most of them think she caused his death. I won't deny that it contributed but I sympathize with her because 1) he was always on the point of death and she dedicated 8 years of her life to mothering him which allowed him the freedom to relax and compose every summer, and 2) everyone agrees that he was a miserable patient and I don't doubt that George did indeed suffer from constant 'pinpricks' that hurt her feelings very much. The sexual/romantic element of their relationship was brief, and I don't doubt the pinpricks wore on her after she changed from lover to mother. But she contradicted herself so often in her writing that I'll take Chopin's word for the fact that she was never very good at remembering details; he thought she'd never be able to finish her autobiography for that reason. He should have known she would just fill in the gaps with her literary talent. And George sort of brings me to my next question (which, by the way, is totally changing the subject and not trying to make a comparison):

 

So, to end somehow - I'm not saying there was no antisemitism, that it wasn't a problem, that there were no shameful crimes commited against Jews. I only argue against biased and ignorant, general and sweeping statements, that disregard the huge culture of tolerance and acceptance that was a unique and old element of Polish history.

It's often noted that Poland is one of the few 'Western' nations to have never had laws against homosexual behavior (i.e. sodomy) unless they were under foreign occupation and therefore foreign law. I noticed when browsing the NIFC website that, in the 'Chopin Circle', they include all of Chopin's friends and acquaintances, even some people he only met once. But they don't include the Marquis de Custine, one of Chopin's close friends, who incidentally toured Russia after meeting Chopin and wrote a widely-celebrated and almost prophetic exposé of the Russian regime (which was at least partly inspired by his young lover the Polish 'count' Ignacy Gurowski). Interestingly, Custine and Sand seem to have been competing for the role of Chopin's protector, and in the end, Chopin went with Sand (whom Custine called Chopin's 'moral vampire'). For anyone who knows anything about Chopin, it's inconceivable that he ever considered going with Custine (though he did spend a few days there on the way to Majorca), not because he wasn't flaming, but because he was terrified of scandal (partly because he was terrified any scandal would damage his reputation as an Artist, and his legacy, which was of course true), and because he wasn't attracted to Custine (I imagine he would have been tempted to sacrifice his reputation for Tytus Wojciechowski, and I even imagine sometimes that Tytus talked him out of it). But now, in the 21st century, I wonder if the absence of Custine in the 'Chopin Circle' really is an oversight, or if it was deliberately ignored.