This is the question that was raised in the wake of a Science Online 2010 session on civility. I did not attend the session so I am only addressing the issues that were subsequently discussed on blog posts written in the aftermath of a now infamous conversation that appears to have been (by their own admission, I believe) between Henry Gee of Nature and Nature Blogs Network and Zuska the Magnificent of Scienceblogs Dot Com. Much of that discussion is now happening on the Nature Network on a blog post celebrating 5 X 104 comments on that network.
(As an aside, I really think it is shameful that certain bloggers and commenters have taken the opportunity of this celebration to engage in the mutual masturbation they call “incivility” rather than simply being a good blogospheric neighbor and saying “Congratulations.” Or, if this incivility in place of camaraderie is critically important, I want a list of the repressed people who have become unrepressed by this particular act of unmitigated goatfucking asshattery. But I digress.)
To put the question in a less metaphorical way: Is it reasonable that a blogger require commenters be “civil,” or is such a requirement a tool of repression of ideas one does not want to hear or be heard by others? Is this requirement for civility a classic tool of those in power to maintain the status quo? The title of this post emerges from the rumored repartee between Gee and Zuska in which Gee noted that he feels that he can choose, if he wants, to disallow visitors (commenters) to his salon (blog) to piss on his rug (the rug ties it all together, presumably).
I don’t see how it is reasonable for anyone (and by anyone I mean bloggers) to have a carpet on their salon that they are required by some convention to allow visitors to piss on. It is entirely up to the person with the blog, just as what happens in a home is up to the person with a home. Indeed, being required to allow your carpet to be the target for glistening golden streams of liquid in order to obtain or maintain a specific level of feminist or anti-racist cred is beyond the pale astonishingly fucked up.
The public square (the place where the metaphorical soap boxes are kept) is different. No one person using that place should be able to easily tell any one else in that place what to say and not say or how to say it.
One could argue that such proscriptions can be asserted at the social level. The majority of denizens of the public square can decide what kind of pissing is not allowed and when. This is of course the objection that some bloggers are trying (usually not very effectively) to make. If the social proscription exists even for good reason and is worked out with impeccable logic, it will eventually be used by power brokers to silence voices that question the status quo, voices that those in power would rather not hear.
Civility is only one mode of proscription. There are as many modes of proscription as there are methods and styles of communication. Civility is a word meant to cover a lot of ground, but it is imperfect, and as such will only serve to focus the question (of who gets to tell whom to shut up) temporarily until some other method is found.
A reasonable person who blogs in controversial areas has a right to disallow any sort of conversation on one’s blog, but will more likely listen to a wider range of opinions than one might like to hear. This is often a feature that separates right from left politically among US based blogs. Right wing blogs almost never allow dissent. Left wing blogs usually tolerate a fair amount of pissing. Furthermore, a reasonable person who blogs may be fine with the idea of hearing privately from a commenter who has the urge to piss but is not being allowed to piss to find a way to relief. This is control. This is the blogger being in charge of what who can say what and when. But it is perfectly appropriate because it applies only to the person’s blog, not to the public square. A person who really needs to piss and can not find a place to do it can get their own toilet … I mean blog.
I find it interesting that some of the better known bloggers who insist on the preservation of incivility are themselves the least welcoming to anyone who may have a different view on their own blogs. This does not apply to all such bloggers, but among the pro-pissing crowd may also be found the most strident banners of commenters and those with the most ready winged monkey sock puppet brigades (designed to belittle or humiliate select commenters) and those who engage most giddily in sophomoric social network pranks.
This is why the conversation so often resembles a shouting match between middle school bullies and hapless new kids on the block. And, I say with my strongest admonishing white male privileged voice, this is why fewer people listen to them than they would like. Their incivility is not the issue. Their very poor execution of a strategy to help less privileged voices be heard is the problem. In fact, the strategy is in some cases so poorly executed that it is probably setting us back a few years in this area of social evolution.
Probably in most cases, indubitably in a few cases, the pro-incivility bloggers have not thought this through. There is some evidence that they won’t be able to think this through, or if they do, it is too late and they can’t back off from their current approach. In my view, that part of the conversation should be circumscribed and ignored. But just for the fun of it, I’m going to try to say once what I think they would have said had they been smarter or thought longer. And by my words I may repress them (oh, if only it were true):
Social discourse is a negotiated process. The negotiation is dynamic, and involves shifting power and shifting conventions of what is prescribed and proscribed. There are times when a certain set of conventions … like demanding civility when the argument gets heated and one is losing it, or speaking in ever shifting hard to decipher slang so only the in-crowd gets the nuances, or conspiring to cram the Google machine or decontextualize phrases, or selective commenting policies or use of trained sock puppets … emerges for the specific purposes of controlling other people’s voices. Sadly, sometimes such things work. Where we fall into a similar political (or other activist) framework, we should be vigilant and helpful, to facilitate rather than repress conversation, and watch each other’s backs.
That’s what I think. I welcome comments below. Please keep it interesting.
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
John: so you see, I am usually right.
In your role as a commenter you should gather up and learn the common idiom. “Hey, learn to read asshole” would usually mean “you have missed the point even though it is in your face” not “there is this alphabet and this vocab and this grammar and here is how it all goes together.”
John, meet Paul, Paul meet John. I guess you share a great deal.
Paul, you can assert many times over what Henry meant by what he said. As long as that is the tack you take, I’ll continue to argue with you. However, I’m only doing it because you’re being a decent guy, because I like to argue, and because the ability to argue about it is part of my point. When it comes down to it, there’s no way to settle the question of what Henry meant other than to ask him to clarify. Nobody did it then, and I doubt he’d answer now unless you sent him a signed Lovecraft first edition as a token of esteem.
There is nothing definitive to be said about that conversation between Henry and the Pharyngulistas except that it was a clusterfuck. There are a number of things about the way Pharyngula operates that I think contributed to it being a clusterfuck. Greg’s hit on some of them in the post he linked a few comments back. That specific devaluing of feelings is another, not because it keeps people from arguing from feelings, but because acknowledging your opponent’s feelings is one of the things that fosters a communication environment in which people work to understand and be understood by each other.
This is what I’m talking about upthread when I refer to a civility model being limited in its usefulness and a model of thoughtfulness being much more productive.
Val, I’m learning that you apparently can’t resist snarky rhetorical snipes:
I doubt that I share more in every attribute with Paul than I do with yourself; however, I’ve learnt that Paul is habitually honest and actually meaningfully engages his interlocutors.
In that respect, I hazard to venture that your guess might be correct.
Wow, and I thought I got some weird comments. Nice thread, Greg. You should donate it to a museum.
Stephanie Z,
Please elaborate on how you think Pharyngula is a clusterfuck.
Who the fuck is Frank!?!?!?!? HUH!?!?
Gyeong Hwa Pak,
I don’t think that Stephanie said or implied that Pharyngula is a clusterfuck in general. (In fact she made a point of saying something moderately nice about Pharyngula a while back.)
The “clusterfuck” she was referring to was specifically this thread, when Henry Gee came and commented:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/dr_who_dr_dawkins.php
Greg,
That’s good, I guess.
It seems to me like a simple special case of what I’ve been saying all along about blogger rules vs. commenting norms, which is more general and important.
Greg:
What?
It is “self justifying,” I guess, in the sense that I’m explaining why I actually said what I said, and was not implying what DuWayne very loosely “paraphrased” me as saying.
It’s not post hoc at all. It’s another simple application of the more general and important idea that blogger rules and commenter norms are different things, and that the norms and norm enforcement are where it’s at.
That has been my main theme here all along. It’s the reason why I thought the Henry Gee thing was on topic. (Even ignoring your post title.) IMHO, that whole thing was about different ideas of norms of discourse, and misunderstandings about them. (E.g., that Pharyngula has none, because if you’re willing to criticize religious views, anything goes.)
If you think the quote above is post hoc, you really haven’t been understanding the most basic things I’ve been saying.
And if by “self-justifying” and “post hoc” you mean that it’s a bogus excuse for denying that I implied what DuWayne claimed I implied, well, you’re wrong.
If you take my theme seriously, and look at the context of the quote, you’ll see that it was clearly about Pharyngula and the importance of norms.
Here’s what I said, in context:
—
The blogger is like the government, in a dictatorship. (A benevolent one, one hopes.) His/her rule is law.
But “legal” is not the same thing as “civil.” Within a given legal (blogger-enforced) framework, there can be and generally are norms of civility.
If the only norms of civility on your blog are the ones explicitly imposed and enforced by the blogger, you have a truly shitty and fabulously dysfunctional blog.
Pharyngula isn’t that bad.
And irrespective of what PZ says, that’s true. Pharyngula is not PZ Myers. They are different things.
—
I was applying my idea of norms, and saying that as I understand things, if what you were saying was true—anything goes within what the blogger lays down as law and enforces—then blogs would suck. In particular, Pharyngula, which relies heavily on commenter norms, with minimal intervention by the blogger, would be a total disaster. But it’s not that bad, so evidently norms of civility above and beyond the blogger’s stated and enforced rules are important.
I was also making saying that even if PZ says simplistic things that make it sound like we don’t need norms of civility on Pharyngula, that’s false. Norms of civility are crucial to making Pharyngula work; they’re just different ones than many people expect, and PZ may be using the word “civility” wrongly. (E.g., to refer to the kind of civility typically meant in complaints about “incivility.”)
The point there is that quoting PZ at me is irrelevant to what actually makes Pharyngula tick.
None of that is post hoc; it all of that follows from stuff I said long before.
I’m not going to read through all of this because I have a life, but my eye fell on this line by Greg :
This statement is meaningless in its generality and given the ambiguity of the term “community”, in this general sense every 3am spammer who ever posts furniture or jewellery spam over there is part of the “Pharyngula community”.
In any meaningful sense of the term, Mr Gee most definetely is not.
Apologies if someone else has already pointed this out.
As you were.
Tolling Bell @ 286:
Notice that in what you quote, I didn’t make any claim that atheism is different. I do think it is, but that’s not really relevant to my point here. I do think that there is more logic to atheism than other ways of believing, but that too is off-point.
My point is not that atheism is right.
One point I am making is that religious beliefs are important enough in the real world that people have a right to be interested in what other people believe, and to state contrary opinions.
Another point I’m making is that the religious beliefs with important real-world consequences are not limited to things like young-earth creationism, biblical inerrantism, and fundamentalism. They include very common, mainstream religious beliefs in things like God, souls, and divinely authored morality.
Whether those beliefs are in fact true or false does not affect the point I’m actually making—that people are affected by other people’s religious beliefs, and therefore justified in being interested, concerned, and even judging of them in a way that warrants public disagreement.
That’s not a special thing about atheism; atheists don’t have a special right to critique other people’s religious beliefs; everybody has that right. (That’s why I gave an example of a Jew being rightly concerned about what’s preached “in private” in Christian churches.)
My point contra Henry Gee is that I’ll “live and let live” and ignore people’s “private religious beliefs” when religious people stop electing leaders and passing laws that force their specifically religious moral standards on other people, including me and my friends and millions of dying foreigners thousands of miles away.
I think your comment (233) was in response to Ichthyic’s comment (229) that derided the clarity of your writing but feel free to correct me if you were insulted by something else.
Ichthyic in turn was commenting on your charcterisation of the opposing side as saying that there NEEDS to be more incivility. This clearly is, at best, unclear writing from you since that isnt the opposing position. Therefore I dont see that Ichthyic’s comment came out of nowhere.
Nor did I think that it violated the norms of civility on this blog. Just looking a few comments up and you see Val at 261 deriding Pharyngulites inability to read because John didn’t grasp the point you were making in a comment. Again the insult didnt come out of nowhere.
I don’t see you saying anything about this comment although you did call Val out on another comment she made that randomly insulted Paul.
That situation suggests where the line of civility on this blog lies. Random insults = bad, insult because someone was wrong = acceptable.
That’s where my comment was coming from.
I apologise if what I took from your post was that you thought Ichthyic had crossed the lines of acceptable civility on this when this wasnt what you were saying. It looked that way when I read it though.
John, you’re missing the point, but you’re doing it in a way that’s worth talking about. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your original statement is unimportant (I’m using for evidence the fact that you forgot to whom you said it). All I remember is that it had something to do with imputing malice to a comment of DuWayne’s. Big deal. As I’ve already said, you haven’t established any reason for people on this blog to care about your opinion. I’m not even paying attention to whether you’re right or wrong about it, as evidenced by the fact that I can’t be bothered to remember what it was about or go look.
What I said about it was that there was a way to find out whether you were right. DuWayne was participating in the thread. He’s a pretty honest–sometimes embarrassingly honest–guy. He’d have happily told if you if there was malice involved in whatever.
But that’s not what you heard me say. Despite the fact that this is a comment on a post about making blog communities and discussions work, you didn’t hear me saying anything about getting things right. You only heard me saying you were wrong. Which I can’t say, as I didn’t ask DuWayne either.
This is another of those situations in which SOP at Pharyngula gets in the way of discussion. Pharyngulites are great in oppositional situations, but what I said was orthogonal to what you said, not oppositional. It wasn’t interpreted that way, and I don’t think it had a chance in hell of being interpreted that way. To bring it back to the clusterfuck thread, this is very much like Paul seeing Henry say something is none of Henry’s business and Paul hearing that it’s none of Paul’s business either.
Bexley, there’s not much civility/incivility at this blog. There is productive, amusingly nonproductive, annoyingly nonproductive, and actively counterproductive. And if you’ve read the comment thread through, you’ll see that Greg has consistently said that those talking about Henry are talking beside the point of the post. Anyone who continues to try to interpret his general statements in light of the discussion about Henry is almost guaranteed to miss the point.
Despite the fact that this is a comment on a post about making blog communities and discussions work, you didn’t hear me saying anything about getting things right. You only heard me saying you were wrong.
Needs to read the post at Quiche Moraine.
CPP #306:
I may be way off, CPP, but I believe “Frank” entered the conversation thusly:
Greg #183
Spartan #186
Bexley,
It didn’t, but there’s a complication that Icthyic missed, and you seem to be missing.
Greg’s original post was not aimed particularly at Pharyngula or PZ, and some of his points are good ones with respect to certain other blogs and bloggers.
In particular, there are certain other bloggers involved in the larger discussion who frequently claim that the rules of civility are used by those in power to oppress people who are not in power, notably women and racial minorities. They often say things that sound (to some others) lot like “civility is bullshit,” and “we need more incivility, not less.”
I think there’s some truth to that—and some truth to Greg pointing out that if that’s what they think, they ought to like Pharyngula. (Some do, some don’t.)
Part of what makes Pharyngula Pharyngula is that certian norms of civility do not apply there, and we think that’s a good thing.
In particular, we do not buy the widely-accepted idea that criticizing other people’s religious beliefs is a bad thing to do, or makes one a reprehensible asshole who deserves whatever other kinds of incivility people dish out in response.
It’s a safe environment for atheists who think that religion is not generally a good thing, and the the usual norms about not criticizing religion are a game rigged against atheists, which religion uses to make itself immune from criticism. We are therefore “uncivil” in the eyes of a lot of people, on principle.
I think that saying that “civility” is a good thing or a or bad thing is generally simplistic and useless; I think that’s part of what Greg is saying.
If I had to pick, I’d say that civility is clearly a good thing—it’s utterly necessary for useful social interactions—but that popular notions of what constitutes civility are in fact screwed up and often serve to marginalize minority views.
A vivid and familiar example of that for Pharyngulans is that in non-Pharyngula contexts, it’s often extremely hard to get a hearing for ideas critical of religion. Most people assume that if you even try that, you’re an asshole who doesn’t deserve a hearing.
The discussion doesn’t even get off the dime, because once the subject comes up and it’s clear you’re being critical of religion, the discussion is immediately recast into what a flaming asshole you are for even starting to say such a thing. A common strategy for religionists and especially accommodationists is to avoid serious discussion of whether critiques of religion are actually valid, by whatever means necessary.
That does in fact entrench the status quo. If your views are defined as uncivil, or if your trying to air them publicly is defined as uncivil, you’re pretty well screwed.
As I see it, one of the major points of the “New Atheism” is to rebel against that rigged concept of civility, because if we keep appeasing the religious by accepting that we’re “uncivil,” and being put in our place and silenced, we will never get a hearing. We have to force the issue, and that’s inevitably going to mean that many people will regard us as uncivil, no matter how politely we say what we have to say, because what we have to say is offensive to many people in itself. And they need to get the fuck over it.
One of my themes here has been that we should be really, really careful how we talk about that, and what we actually do. We should not do the ridiculous thing that Greg was criticizing, about fetishizing incivility. We should make it clear that we are basically civil people, who are challenging a particular norm of civility, and championing another particular norm of civility.
Rather than saying that civility is stupid and an oppressive tool of The Man, we should offer a vision of a higher form of civility—one that isn’t an oppressive tool of The Man.
We should point out that the usual norms of civility are in fact uncivil in certain ways that many people should be able to recognize if they think about it a little.
That was a big point of the Civil Rights movement. So long as black people accommodated white people’s views of what was polite vs. “uppity,” they could not get out of the hole.
They had to challenge the concept that black people behaving in ways white people took for granted was uppity and offensive. They had to accept that often, they’d inevitably be viewed as dangerous troublemakers rocking the boat, until their view was heard often enough and clearly enough that more people realized they weren’t—they were just people refusing to be unfairly silenced and shat on.
But back to the Greg/Icthyic/you thing…
I do think Icthyic made a mistake, which Greg rightly pointed out was a mistake. Icthyic didn’t see the bigger picture of what the larger discussion was about. Oops.
On the other hand, I don’t think that was a big, unforgivable, or particularly revealing mistake, and I think that both Greg and Stephanie have been unduly critical and snarky about it.
What Greg did was interrupt a conversation that already had several major issues and several major confusions flying around, and say something to the effect that “Damn, the incivility fetishizers sure are stupid!”
I think it was understandable, in the local context of recent comments in the thread, that Pharyngulans would take that to be about them. There’s been a number of offhand slams against Pharyngula and Pharyngulans with a similar tone, and there is a popular conception of Pharyngula as a place where it’s simply considered cool to be as rude as possible. If we guess that such a comment is aimed at us, I don’t think anybody should be surprised, and I sure don’t think that Stephanie had any business being as condescending to Icthyic as she was, as though he was particularly self-centered or paranoid.
That’s especially true in light of the fact that Stephanie herself has been criticizing Pharyngula, both before an after Icthyic’s error, in ways that make it a reasonable guess that she considers Pharyngulans to be fetishizers of incivility, or something rather similar, in terms of paying insufficient heed to people’s feelings.
I for one was well aware of the larger context, and I wasn’t sure that Greg wasn’t targeting Pharyngulans—that’s why I asked him. I also interpreted Stephanie’s condescending snarky gotchas and her various comments about what’s wrong with Pharyngula as further evidence that guessing it was about us was not particularly unreasonable, even if it was mistaken.
My post was not at all about Pharyngula, as you point out, and I see Pharyngula as the kind of environment in which due attention is given to the process of communication that important stuff get discussed there ina productive and useful way.
I do think there is a conversation to be had by me regarding the seemingly conflicting issues of “tolerance” (not my favorite word) and the criticism of religion both from the perspective of wahs the arguments can be made and the pragmatics of getting key points across the usual social barrier.
I should say I’m a little unsure why people commenting here have not responded to my current post at Quiche Moraine, which is very much about this comment thread.
Paul, I would have expected you to have caught on by now that I’m generally responding to people here in the same tones they’re using. I find it interesting that I should be pointed to as being rude to Ichthyic, but that Ichthyic should not be pointed to as being rude to anyone here.
As for Pharyngula and feelings, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that dismissing an emotional argument about the validity of religion is different than dimissing or abusing the emotions of the person you’re arguing with, with different consequences. And I’m saying that if you do the second, you should be prepared to suppress your own emotional reaction to anything said by the person you’re arguing with. If you can’t do that reliably, you should probably pay some attention to their feelings. I didn’t see either happen in the case under discussion.
Greg:
I for one plan to. I haven’t had a chance to digest it yet, though, and I wouldn’t want to puke on your shoes.
Just to clarify, as I am not one to wait for the asking…
I was mocking Paul without malice (I get what you meant – sort of – but I think when you equate dictatorship and government, you are generally talking about the same thing). While I really don’t care to read the whole thread closely enough to see if I really disagree all that much, I thought the sentiment there was rather silly. I still do.
I was not however, mocking John Morales without malice, such as it is. Not that malice is a very accurate word – I just happen to suspect rather strongly that he is an asshat pretending not to be. Nothing I have seen here has really changed that. I also suspect that he is far less clever than he thinks he is.
Paul may or may not be a jerk – haven’t looked closely enough, though I suspect he is not. I do not, however, suspect he is less clever than he thinks he is.
I’m actually missing the point here. What does your last sentence have to do with my comment at 312 (I assume thats what you’re responding to)?
Paul – ok I think I now see that Gregs comment on “people who are screaming that people need to be uncivil” was aimed at people who aren’t commenting here.
“I just happen to suspect rather strongly that he is an asshat pretending not to be. ”
What an asshat thing to do!
DuWayne,
Sorry, I’m just not clear on what sentiment you’re talking about that you think is rather silly.
I was making an analogy, and the simple fact is that a typical single-blogger blog is generally run by one unelected person with ultimate power over the rules and the very existence of the blog. If we make an anology to government at all, I only know one correct term for that vesting of ultimate power in the hands of one unelected person, and that’s “dictatorship.” (Specifically, a dictatorship with the ability to nuke the joint!)
I was not saying that there’s anything wrong with that, and I don’t think that there is, in the context of blogging. I have no idea how to do it better. That’s one reason why I specifically said that one generally hopes that it’s a benevolent dictatorship. That too, is a precise technical term for the analogous form of government, when the dictator is not an asshole, and is trying to do right by the governed. (As I think Greg does.)
One of the things that’s great about dictatorships in the blogiverse is that the governed are much freer to vote with their feet than in a real-world dictatorship. They can simply stop visiting the blog, and most bloggers care whether people come, so they try to be benevolent to at least some of their constituencies.
My reason for making explicit that it’s a dictatorship is to help make it clear what the strengths and limitations of the analogy are. As long as you keep the crucial disanalogies clearly in mind, it’s a very productive analogy, IMHO. (That is generally how good analogies are.)
I think it’s useful to make the basic analogy to government, because it separates out the issue of blogger-defined and blogger-enforced rules from the issues of civility and social norms, in a way that most people can easily grasp with just a little explanation.
Even the disanalogies are interesting within that conceptual framework, in particular how most bloggers are specially sensitive to consent of the governed, who are free to vote with their feet.
I find it interesting that there is a rough correspondence to real-world dictatorships, which can suffer what’s called a “crisis of legitimacy.” People who lose respect for the dictator’s motives and/or competence may rebel, and start sabotaging the government.
I’ve even seen a rough equivalent of coups d’etat, where the constituents overthrow the blogger and create a new regime more to their liking. They generally can’t do that straightforwardly, by deposing the blogger and taking over the existing blog, but they can get much the same effect by creating a new blog more to their liking, with most of the old blog constituents going over there, so that it’s effectively the same blog with new governance, perhaps a group blog that’s analogous to an oligarchy (rule by a few) rather than a dictatorship (rule by one).
Given that I think humans are humans online and IRL, I think it makes sense to compare blog dynamics with real-world social and political dynamics.
This is just a particular, fairly coherent framework for discussing the kind of thing Greg has been trying to talk about—e.g., the dynamic negotiation of blog/blogger issues.
One of the reasons I tend to see these things in these terms is that for decades, I’ve had a number of friends and aquaintances who run online social environments (e.g., the pre-web BBS’s and newsgroups, Lambda MOO (the original MOO at Xerox PARC), MUDs, multiplayer online games, etc.) I’ve also known several people who study these issues in academia, in an oddball variety of departments. All of them tend to talk about things in roughly these terms fairly often, because they fit pretty well.
I didn’t choose the term “dictator” to be snarky or provocative, but because that’s what those people tend to call it, on the basic analogy to government. (Which I also did not invent. It’s been around since before the Web, and even the Internet per se, back in the days of BBS’s and USENET newsgroups distributed largely by phone lines, because it’s understandable and useful.)
Bexley, I was saying more or less the same thing Paul was, with an added comment on the inevitability of the misunderstanding.
DuWayne,
Do you suspect that I’ve stopped beating my wife?
I suspect you’re at least partially wrong about me being less clever than I think I am—either because I’m smarter than you think, or because I don’t think I’m as smart as you think I think I am. (Say that three times fast.)
One thing that I don’t think is that I’m being terribly original here. The ideas that I’m tossing around are not mine and have been fairly commonplace for decades.
Everything I know I know from killing smart people and eating their brains, including the occasional anthropologist who stumbles into my life.
Okay, DuWayne, if you don’t laugh at that, I’m going to have to have words with you. Just don’t hurt yourself again.
Paul –
@326 – I meant precisely the opposite of what you thought I said. It is a bad habit of mine, but when I am comparing people, things or ideas, I tend to use like terms. I.e. I do not know if you are a jerk, not enough information to judge (that I have read). I have no doubt that you are rather clever though.
@324 – Thank you for clarifying. That makes considerably more sense and is not particularly silly. What is rather silly on my part is that had you said “tyrant” instead of “dictator,” that explanation probably would not have been necessary.
I do think that there is something somewhat flawed in the analogy still, though I do think the analogy is extremely functional. While a community that is loosely ruled by a tyrant (sorry, I much prefer the term) can largely shape the nature of that community, it is ultimately the tyrant who determines welcome – not only in terms of banished/not banished, but in a completely different context.
Take me and my interaction on Greg’s blog. I am an asshole. I also tend to sound rather angry when I am not – it is just how I tend to communicate. Which is not to say that I don’t get rather irritated sometimes – Greg, never mind others who comment here, pisses me off sometimes. I am quite certain there are people who would rather I left here and never came back. I would suspect there are times that Greg would rather I just shut the fuck up as well. But I doubt that Greg would even consider banning me if asked, not unless I became really horrid. So whether or not the larger community at this blog welcomes me, I have never been made unwelcome by the tyrant.
But underlying that all, I have a relationship with Greg outside the context of his blog – or even my own. I am extremely grateful to Greg, because he has been extremely helpful on several occasions – answering questions and/or sometimes providing information that has been very useful in my education. While Greg pisses me off sometimes, as I do him, we are friends and I am extremely glad we are.
And this can be extended to my interactions on several sci-blogs. Though there are varying levels of interpersonal contact and appreciation, I do my best to make sure that I am not pissing off the proprietor of a given blog. And there are blogs where I am most certainly not appreciated by a fair segment of the community, but I am welcome nonetheless, because I have something to offer.
But there is another issue to be considered here. That of comparing real world power dynamics with those in the intertubes. And really the point I just made is somewhat supportive of that. We can again use me as an example, because I know I won’t embarrass anyone that way (I am almost completely shameless (not the same as unwilling to apologize or admit I am wrong)).
When I am sitting in my friend John’s living room, hanging out with a few of our mutual friends, I use pretty much the same language I do here. John happens to be a conspiracy nut and a mutual friend of ours is as well. “Are you fucking serious?, That is fucking ridiculous!, That is completely fucking insane!” are regularly heard from my mouth. And as I am dealing with my neurological issues with some help from pharmaceuticals and virtually never smoke cannabis anymore, I get similar in return. Sometimes it gets rather loud and often gets quite heated – yet there is never actual anger. I am well respected by my conspiracy theory friends, because I have well earned it – and they in turn have earned mine.
That does not always, indeed often really doesn’t translate online. The power dynamic is very different. While I am respected by those friends, I do not intimidate them – though I am capable of being rather intimidating when I want to be. We are equals, even though they are wrong and I am right. We’re equals because we have enough shared values to make up for their total wrongness about – for example – vaccines (something that is a fundamental – I will not have my children playing with kids who are not vaccinated, if I am aware).
With blogs and general online interactions, it is just not very easy to sort power dynamics like that. I interact with psychologists sometimes – mostly in academia. Most of my interactions with psychologists offline have a student/instructor power dynamic – these folks have power over my education and through that my future career.
But while there are a couple of psychologists online with whom I have shifted the power dynamic on purpose – because they are willing to take an interest in my education and my future, most of the psychs I interact with online are on an equal footing with me. That power dynamic has always been different with psychologists I have met offline, with very few exceptions.
The difference is – and this is true of any level of discussion – online I am judged not by my education or profession. I am judged by what I actually have to say instead. I do not have many readers on my blog – I suspect that is partly due to infrequent posting, partly due to being an asshole. But when I occasion to glance at my site meter, the majority are from .edu’s – including several rather prestigious schools.
I am, btw, a high school drop-out who sank a home repair and remodeling business. I am in my second year at community college. Though thanks to many connections I have made online, I have a rather bright future. But the bottom line is that I have earned the respect of a great many very respectable people – and that in spite of being an asshole.
I did laugh, but not hard. I am very careful about that now – especially as I try to make it through classes today (which means painreliever sans xanax).
But I am trying to be more polite, per Greg’s QM post. Though I am stopping at Morales – he totally rubs me the wrong way…
329: DuWayne: I am trying to be more polite
OK, that’s it. I’ve had enough. You’re banned.
DuWayne,
I totally apologize for getting that completely backwards.
I think I was thrown by the “however” construction followed by a double negative (not […] less clever […])
I coulda sworn I double checked to make sure I had it right, but I still blew it.
Thanks very much for the clarifications.
Greg, I don’t understand why you just banned DuWayne. His post doesn’t seem ban-worthy.
DuWayne,
About the “dictator” vs. “tyrant” thing, I’ve looked for other words that “dictator,” and considered “tyrant,” but for me the difference goes the other way—“tyrant” has an even clearer connotation of exploitative asshole.
(As in “taxation without representation is tyranny,” and the thing about the tree of freedom being nourished “with the blood of tyrants,” which has been bandied around with respect to Obama recently. Yikes.)
Thinking about it again, maybe “autocrat” would be better. It sounds technical, and doesn’t have as strong a villainous connotation as dictator, tyrant, or despot. (To me, anyway.)
One thing I do like about the “dictator” is that many people recognize the phrase “benevolent dictator” and may get the idea of “a dictator, but not a villain.”
Greg:
YEAH!!! This polite shit is for suckers!!! Civility is for bourgeois running-dog Uncle Tom lackeys of the imperialist fucking bosses!!! Stick it to da man!!! Kill them and take their stuff!!!!
(P.S., Gyeong Hwa Pak—Greg and I are both joking.)
Fuck me, I left out “patriarchy” and “accommodationist.”
Greg –
Suck Eggs, I refuse to fucking leave!!!!!
AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gyeong Hwa Pak –
Google “irony”
Paul –
I am all about Terry Pratchett’s Discworld. Google “Lord Vetinari” and tyrant will make a lot more sense…
My problem with benevolent dictator is the history of benevolent dictatorships. It generally works more along the lines of “we are fighting to defeat this regime, the provisional government will be a temporary, benevolent dictatorship.” Rather like how it worked when the Czars were overthrown. Or in the cultural revolution.
I think a lot of very decent bloggers are a lot more the benevolent tyrant, like Lord Vetinari. He rules Ankh-Morpork by mostly letting people do there thing – knowing if they fuck up too badly, they end up in prison. If they are a mime, or they really fuck up, they end up in teh scorpion pit. Knowing this, there are few mimes and those underground and mostly people just try to keep it reasonable.
DuWayne,
The Vetinari thing makes perfect sense to me. (Although he is a scary fucker, too.) I just don’t expect it to make sense to most people, and I didn’t even think of it myself, despite being a Pratchett fan. I wonder why.
Stephanie @ 319,
I’m not ignoring you, BTW, I just haven’t had a chance to organize my thoughts to say what I want to say. (About that, or Greg’s post on QM, and they’re kind of running together and sloshing around my head.) I will respond soonish.
No worries, Paul.
Oh yeah forgot about this earlier but some justification (maybe in a seperate post) on your comments in 107 would be good. There was stuff in there that just looks bizarre. Picking out the most obvious one:
Bexley: Why does that look bizarre?
Well they way you said “directly involved” makes me read the sentence as:
If the British and Germans had not been at war (say if the Brits had reached an agreement after the fall of France) the British would have happily taken part in the mass murder of the Jews.
That strikes me as a very odd sentiment.
Your first quote chopped off some of the sentence, your second quote reworded it. It may not make much difference, but what I said was: “From a European Jewish perspective, if the Germans were not at war with the Brits, the Brits would have been directly involved in the holocaust.”
Perhaps the better way of saying it would be:”From a European Jewish perspective, if the Germans were not at war with the Brits, the Brits may well have been directly involved in the holocaust.”
Was it the certainty in my original statement you found bizarre, because that’s gone now.
Are you British? (I’m curious)
I am.
And under both of the two formulations you have above Im still reading it the same way because you have “directly” in there.
To my way of thinking for someone to be directly involved in the holocaust they would be someone who got involved in actually killing people.
However Im not sure that this is what you are trying to say. Are you commenting on Britain’s policies on Jewish refugees before the war and the fact that presumably those policies would have continued if war hadnt broken out?
By directly I mean compliant and compliant. I don’t mean anything specific. What if histories are not really worth fleshing out at that level.
Having said that, there are not a lot of things that needed to be different to have had the UK not fight, and eventually join up with the Germans. The King was sympathetic to the Nazis, UK was no less anti-semitic than the rest of Europe, etc. etc.
I don’t personally want to engage in an argument as to what may or may not have happened. What I am saying here is that it would be perfectly reasonable for a British Jew to look back at the mid 20th century, considering things like the Exodus, other events, pre-WWII nazism, and so on, and NOT buy into the late 20th century version of history wherein the Germans were the ultimate bad guys and the British were the ultimate good guys.
In truth, Jews died … many Jews died … because of indirect actions taken/not taken by both the British and the Americans. Had the Brits ended up as allies of the Germans, it is not a huge step to imagine English Jews shipped off to Europe, British parts in the gas chambers, whatever.
Bexley –
If it will make you feel better, U.S. Americans may well have gotten involved – if it were not for our intensive isolationism. While I have no doubt that like the majority of German citizens, the citizens of Britain and the U.S. would have been appalled to learn what was really happening, that would only have been a matter of degree for most. I have no doubt that there were people in positions of great power who had no problem with the holocaust.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of equating WWII with the holocaust, as though the allies were some magnanimous force for good who were (among other things) trying to save the Jews. The reality is that saving the Jews who were still alive, from concentration camps was a side effect rather than a goal. That isn’t to say there weren’t a lot of people who were absolutely horrified by what they found – but there were also people who probably really didn’t care, others who would have supported it.
Jebus – I think thats a stretch. Even Germany’s actual allies – Italy and Hungary dragged their feet all the way through the war when it came to deporting their Jewish populations, I find it unlikely that Britain would have voluntarily done so either.
I’m not aware of George VI having any nazi sympathies (unless you’re referring to his brother Edward VIII?). Happy to be corrected though.
Im not sure why you think the British might have ultimately joined up with the Germans. Chamberlain actions after the annexation of rump Czechoslovakia showed that in a choice between Hitler and Stalin he would rather ally with Stalin.
Sorry, I meant potential king (Ed VIII).
From a Jewish perspective, at the time, allying with Stalin vs. Hitler would not have been exactly comforting.
The point I was making was that a Conservative politician preferred allying to a Communist than to Hitler. This does illustrate just how unpalatable Hitler was to Chamberlain. So how exactly do you think it wasn’t unlikely that Britain could have allied with Hitler?
And while Stalin was antisemitic, even by 1938 it was obvious that the Nazis were in a completely different league.
Bexley: What is your point? What is your position on British antisemitism in the 1930s and now? Are you making the argument that there was none, is none?
Was the Prince of Wales not likely a Nazi? Did the Exodus not sail? Why do you avoid the substantive issues? Is this the beginning of a sophistic argument that dances around the fact of British antisemitism present and past?
Im not sure why you think the British might have ultimately joined up with the Germans.
This is one of the difficulties of talking alt history – it didn’t happen, so people can’t imagine differently.
Look at it from the perspective of a Britain that did not go to war. Germany has allied to France, because France really can’t stop them. Joining becomes the obvious choice, as it would lend them more autonomy than being invaded and conquered would. Of course even as allies, they are going to agree to certain changes – not the least being either actual integration of troops, or allowing Germany to build and man military bases. And German fascism has expanded into France – keeping in mind that it’s totalitarian nature aside, fascism offers some very attractive benefits.
Alternatively, the French fight like they did and are defeated without help from the outside. Either way, France is essentially under German control to some degree or another.
Then there is Britain. Less enthusiastic about fascism, but not dead against it. Again, fascism offers some benefits – including on paper, stability. Not to mention that Europe has just seen a nation that was almost completely decimated by 1918, outstrip the countries that had defeated them in terms of recovering from the war.
Britain is really not in the best position to fight a war. While there are many who do not believe fascism is a reasonable way to go, there are a lot of people – including people with a certain amount of power, who are sympathetic. They aren’t all that pleased that Germany invaded Poland, but what the hell? Germany seems to be doing pretty damned well.
Is it really all that hard to see Britain suing for peace? And given an alliance with Germany, Germany in the pilot’s seat – is it really that hard to consider what might eventually happen to the Jews? While genocide is fairly extreme to most people, antisemitism throughout Europe is only moderately less intense than it was during the reformation. Given enough time, with enough influence coming from Germany, it is not unlikely to happen eventually. And of course there is no reason to assume that Britain wouldn’t do little things here and there to support the effort – such as the manufacturing that Greg mentioned.
Greg, this is not going to go anywhere. The whole point you are making is about British exceptionalism, really. And, we know you were thinking that the moment you asked Bex if he was British.
Actually my point was that your original post 107 had some really weird shit in there which you need to provide evidence for.
I’m not denying that there was anti semitism in the 1930s. What i am arguing against is your bizarro theory that Britain might have allied with Nazi Germany and if they had become allies Britain would have deported its Jewish population to the death camps.
1. If even a communist regime was more palatable as an ally than Hitler to a Conservative prime minister then I think you need some decent evidence or arguments to show why you think Britain could have ended up allied to Germany. All you seem to have said in support of it so far was that one former King had nazi sympathies.
The Exodus sailed after the war so I fail to see how it is relevant to your views on whether Britain might have allied with Germany before the war.
2. As I’ve pointed out even some of Germany’s allies resisted pressure to deport their Jewish populations (Italy and Hungary). Occupied Denmark was also unwilling. So why would Britain have done so if they had ever allied with Germany? Do you think Britain was more anti-semitic than those countries?
When you chopped off that part of my sentence, you seem to have forgotten the context and orientation of what I’ve said.
It is understandable why someone like Henry might find himself foaming at the mouth a little too much for the average British (or even, astonishingly, Pharynguloid) sensibility.
Calling British-Jewish concern over antisemetism bizarro is a little too dismissive in my view. You need to learn to be a little more thoughtful of your fellow person!
DuWayne – Germany was never going to ally with France.
Hitler made it very clear in his books that he wanted a fight with France and he made that clear in his memos while in office too. From a German perspective an alliance with France was never going to happen although they would have been more than happy to ally with Britain. However for that to have happened Britain would have had to have been willing to throw France under a bus. That was never going to happen.
That is why I think the alternative history outlined doesnt have any legs to it.
Secondly as I keep pointing out other allies of Hitler (Italy and Hungary) resisted deporting their own Jewish populations to the death camps during the War. That only really came when Germany occupied Hungary and Italy. Its why the Hungarian jews were the last of the great central european jewish to be murdered.
Hungary was more antisemitic than Britain at that time so why would you think that Britain would behave differently and acquiesce to handing over their own jewish population even allowing for the antisemitism that existed then?
@ Greg
Now who is the sophist – I wasn’t calling British-Jewish concern over antisemetism bizarro. I was calling the theory on a possible link up between Britain and Germany bizarro.
It seems to be a view you hold given this comment:
If you really think that there was much chance of this happening then I’d like to see evidence beyond the fact that potentially the nazi sympathising King Edward VIII could have been on the throne throughout the period.
Bexley: I’m trying to convey the context of distrust a European or English Jew (or an American) might feel in regards to British tolerance. I’m not arguing for a specific alternate history.
I am aruging for an impure British spirit in these matters. A post-hoc revisionism perhaps, a denial (like we have in the US) for pro-Nazi and pro-German sympathies.
I do not really want to turn this into an argument about alternative histories, and I will remind you once again that I’m conjecturing what the perspective of a living Jew grown up in Britain who has numerous blank spaces in his genealogy owed to the German.
I actually don’t go for the crushed butterfly effect too much myself. If Edward had become king there’s a good chance his Nazi-sympathies would not turned into an English-German alliance for some reason or another, as his abdication (or whatever you call it) and administrative exile demonstrate an anti-Nazi sense among those in power in Britain (I assume). And the Exodus post-hoc to the war certainly does not suggest that antisemitism is a post-war feature of British society. Rather, it is a very severe statement about what the pre-Holocaust revelation must have been like.
I still don’t know if you are arguing against the presence in the 1930s and today of stinging and palpable British antisemitism. My good friend (an American) who cut off his year sabbatical because he was so uncomfortable there in the 70s has an argument to make, my Israeli colleageus who won’t go to England unless absolutely necessary have an argument to make. So when I heard Henry making his statement I was not surprised, and when I heard people telling him to shut up I was annoyed.
With you I’m just perplexed. Are you denying the antisemitism or not? Or are we going to continue to discuss alternative histories?
I think the argument is a matter of scope/intensity. There’s a large gulf between negative feelings towards a minority and a propensity for throwing said minority into ovens. For example, there is a lot anti-Hispanic sentiment in the States, but genocide is completely unthinkable as a solution. If Mexicans said USians wanted to throw them in ovens, very forcefully refuting that point would not mean one is saying there is no discrimination or biases in place.
Once you start comparing people directly to Nazis, the issue of whether there is some bias goes out the window, quite overshadowing any subtle discrimination issues. It’s a very offensive charge, and the main reason many Pharynguloids are still so angry at Gee.
I conflated several terms that are not equal in my previous analogy, but please ignore it for the sake of the point being made. No offense is intended. Of course Hispanic doesn’t strictly imply Mexican, and Mexicans become USians when moving here…
Paul, are you suggesting that the situation in Britain was or is best characterized as merely “negative feelings towards a minority”? And I’m not sure that the gulf is as wide as you’re implying. It’s not that big a step from happy to see them rot in the desert to throwing them in ovens. The difference is mostly being told the second is okay.
As an aside, I…have some rather strong negative feelings about the show Fringe. However, there was a very recent episode that featured an artist who made Nazi-flag collages out of photos of kittens and puppies. I thought that particular moment was lovely, and I keep coming back to the image as this discussion goes on. I worry sometimes that the constant invocation of Godwin’s Law may overshadow some of the lessons we once learned about the banality of evil.
No not arguing that antisemitism doesnt exist in Britain.
The thing I AM arguing against is that the alternative history you sketched is at all plausible. It is utterly IMplausible.
Paul: There’s a large gulf between negative feelings towards a minority and a propensity for throwing said minority into ovens. For example, there is a lot anti-Hispanic sentiment in the States, but genocide is completely unthinkable as a solution.
Paul, your point is essentially correct, but let’s be clear about two things: 1) The North American Hispanic population as an ethnic entity overlaps with the Central/North American native population, and there totally already was a holocaust, sans oven but a holocaust nonetheless. Unthinkable, but historically real. 2) While we can think that we can’t think of a future holocaust, there is a truth that must not be forgotten: Racism, left entirely on its own, will tend to lead to genocide. Thus, the wide gulf is quite crossable. And the first step towards loosening the fetters is to think it unimportant.
I don’t buy the whole “He called me a Nazi! Bwaaaa!” argument. That is again a mere loosening of the fetters. It is one small step further to call a Jew uppity.
Yep Paul set it out well.
1. I dont think the level of antisemitism in Britain was sufficient for Britain to have willingly deported its Jewish population for extermination.
I say this given that some other countries that WERE allied to Germany didn’t hand over their own populations despite the antisemitism that existed in those countries and I dont see Britain back then as being more antisemtic than those countries.
2. I cant see a scenario of Britain and Germany allying as plausible. It would have involved Britain throwing an ally under the bus (France) and what gain could they have got from doing so?
Hind sight is always twenty twenty. Then, if you get in there really close with the hind sight, your head might go all the way in.
Do not get too comfortable with your idea that the British could have never gone in with the Germans. This thinking might make you feel good now but the real world does not serve to make you feel good.
What about the sign at Auschwitz?
I notice Mr. Bexley has skipped the issue of The Exodus, and has not really even touched on the issue of the Nazi Prince. The British would have thrown the French sur la bus if that was what served. But what about that boat? What about that Nazi prince?
It’s also a much more comfortable position to take if the answer doesn’t affect you personally.
Omar – that was rather vague how about some specifics on why you think it would have been plausible?
Like I said what would have been in it for Britain to fight alongside Germany?
That is hardly the point. This is not a discussion related to who would have fought with whom. You are the only one talking about that. I refer you to DuWayne’s comments above. The Holocost, anti-Jewish feelings and activity, and British cultural imperialism is one thing, the war over territory and the axis and allies fight was a different thing. These are not unrelated issues but it does seem that you like the smoke screen.
Grandson of the Ashes:
1) The Exodus shows antisemtism but I fail to see how it shows the murderous intent required to carry out the holocaust. So trying to argue that the case of the Exodus is evidence that the British would have participated in the holocaust just doesnt work.
2) Why would the British have allied with the Germans and thrown the French under the bus – what would have been the advantage in allying and fighting with Germany?
3) Maybe Im missing somethign but what does the stiolen Auschwitz sign have to do with Britain at all let alone Britain in the 30s?
4) If Edward had been King during the period Im not sure how this would have changed what happened. The politicians in place would still have been the same – which political leader of the time would plausibly have allied Britain to Germany? Not Chamberlain, not Halifax, not Attlee and certainly not Churchill.
Bexley you are doing a very good job at dancing back and forth. Go back a few posts and read what this argument is about. The test condition is not “would the british have put jews into an oven and lit the fire.”
If that is your standard, and less than that is not antisemitism, then you are one sick puppy.
There is a great deal of denial of the American and British links to the Germans and the Nazis prior to the war. What do they teach you in your British schools about this? (That is a rhetorical question, this problem with the British educational system is widely known.)
You should admit that you are wrong, admit that you are a Jew hater, even if four hate is mild and you are unaware of it, and admit that if you were a Brit in power back in 1930-something you might have gone along with certain things here and certain things there and the result would have been a culpability. This is because washing your hands of the holaust is your only goal, while in the meanwhile lighting the ovens was not all that it too to have the holocaust occur. It also took … people much like you, or so it would appear. (I am willing to be convinced of evidence to the contrary, if you can manage that)
Once again, the question is not whether the British would have fought alongside Germany except for a single accident of history. The question is how comfortable a British Jew should feel that anything but accidents of history kept the British from that fight. After all, the Germans themselves didn’t kill Jews–until they did.
“four hate” = “your hate”
No that aint my standard for antisemitism. My argument is that the antisemtism in Britain at the time would not have been sufficient for Britain to have gone along with the holocaust even IF they were allied to Germany. ie Britain had problems with antisemtism but not enough to murder its own Jewish population.
Read my 1st paragraph in comment 362 which makes that point explicitly.
Moreover I also argue Britain would NOT have allied with Germany. This is not because Britain was a nice and virtuous country that wasnt antisemtic – but because it wasn’t in there interests to do so.
Its been argued here that the scenario Britain allies with Germany is plausible. I think this shows a lack of historical knowledge.
I also think the argument that Britain was SO antisemtic they would have been complicit in genocide of its own Jewish citizens does us no favours.
@ Steph
I refer you to DuWayne’s comment at 351 where he tries to argue that it was plausbile for Britain and Germany to have allied. Similarly Greg at 345 when he said:
Greg seems to argue that it isnt implausible that Germany and Britain could have ended up allies.
Im arguing that it isnt at all plausible because it wasnt in Britain’s interest to ally with Germany (not because they were especially moral). Moreover given Britain and Germany were on opposite sides of WWI I cant see it as plausible either because of antipathy towards an expansionist Germany in Britain.
the argument that Britain was SO antisemtic they would have been complicit in genocide of its own Jewish citizens does us no favours.
The intention was clearly not to do anyone any favors.
Bexie, if you’re looking for a WWII forum, you’re in the wrong place. Ditto if you can’t understand a statement made less than literally, even in the context of it’s original utterance and all the clarification that has been thrown your way since then.
@ Grandson of ashes
Ok let me rephrase that – I think that position is wrong. Britain had problems with antisemtism but not enough that it would have been complicit in the genocide of its own Jewish citizens even if Britain had allied with Germany.
I’m saying that context is important:
Yet you keep trying to shift the topic.
Steph – Im not arguing that point because I dont disagree the broad point in there. Britain weren’t the ultimate good guys.
My issue is with a couple of specific things that Greg has said to back his general point up.
Namely whether an alliance between Britain and Germany was ever plausible and under such circumstances whether Britain would have gone along with genocide of its own jewish population.
@359, 361
Just to be clear, I’m not really studied enough to actually forward an argument on the topic. I was simply trying to clarify where it seemed Bexley’s argument was based. Whether you accept the argument in those terms is another thing entirely.
@379
Is there a solid argument to show it was implausible? Or that Britons are incorruptible? I mean, I do thing that Greg was a bit sloppy in how he presented the point under contention, and didn’t sufficiently qualify his statements about the “British left being anti-semitic because they are British”. But when you couple subtle (and not so subtle) racism with Milgram, it seems odd to just assume the pristine quality of any citizenry to not commit or go along with atrocities (I definitely include my own countrypersons here).
my argument on why the two were unlikely to ally is absolutely not based on britain being incorruptible. my reasoning is based.on the fact that britain didn’t want to fight therefore an alliance between an expansionist militarist country wad not in its interests. a war would be expensive and for little strategic benefit – as a large imperial power it wasn’t in britains interest to upset the world order.
in addition hitlers own writing before and after taking power make clear he thought war with frances inevitable and he didn’t wish to avoid such a conflict. allying with germany would have involved betraying britains main ally – unpalatable.
finally the germans were on the opposing side in ww1. following that and the broken promises of munichleading british politicians viewed germany suspiciously.
The fact, if we accept it as a fact, that Britain would never go in with Germany, may ultimately have been a safety valve for those in power in Britain who may have been happy to see Jewish populations exported or incarcerated to have not done so. I may or may not buy that. The Britain that could not possibly have thrown France under the bus was at war with France on a few occassions. The Britain who’s a-crats intermarried with the Russians have undergone a costly multi-decade war (though a cold one) with those allies from WWI and WWII, in both cases allied against their long term, intermarried allies of Central Europe.
If you are a member of a population or ethnic group that has been shoved around and crapped on for several centuries in Europe, this concept of ally and loyalty that seems to be governing the idea that Britain could not possibly have done anything different than it did may seem (and remember, before quote mining, I was speaking of a Jewish perspective) rather short sighted and even dangerious.
But, again, I’m not making an argument about Britain and France as allies or enemies. Indeed, Britain could have even remained neutral had Germany acted differently for some period of time. And so on. The point is, if you’re Jewish, in Britain or anywhere in Europe for that matter, there is no way you could be comfortable. Jews across the entire region from Eastern Europe across the entire continent, the UK, Northern Africa and the Middle East did nor did not get put into concentration camps or ghettos based on a flimsy and quirky set of circumstances. No Jew in Europe was safe through the 19th Century and well into the 20th Century. If I were a British Jew, I would not be looking back on the mid 20th century and saying … “Oh, there was never a chance of anything bad happening to me or mine” …. I’d be saying something more like “That was way too close.”
The argument that seems to be in process here really is one of denial. The fact that The Exodus could have happened AFTER the liberation is astonishing. Given that Britain does not seem to have had any kind of acknowledgement of it’s sometimes quite negative role in the Jewish plight in Europe and the Middle East (as the Germans had by force of the history they created!) I suppose it is not that surprising to see denialism and avoidance of the issue.
Oh, and I’ve not failed to make my point or been sloppy in so doing. Think about that. Arguments are being made about issues I did not bring up or intend, yet I’m held responsible. Huh.
The real problem in this discussion is a lack of perspective. Consider the scale of time and space of the Jewish diaspora, consider the history, consider the vital nature of a perspective that one has culturally learned relating to the basic Jewish question.
You do know what the basic Jewish question is, right? This:
I woke up this morning. Before I go to bed tonight, what kind of unbelievable crap is God goign to throw at me and my people before goign to bed at night. Egyptians? An inquistion? Cossacks? Nazis? Pat Rorbertson? Across most of the diaspora, few have ever woken up in the morning and said “Oh, I’m in Britain. I’ll be OK here…”
So, I’m asking you to broaden your perspective across time and space and try to be a little more flexible in your point of view.
Bexley, I can’t tell you how impressive it is that you are maintaining such a civil (and isn’t that the loaded word, now?) tone in this argument, one that usually devolves so quickly into name calling. As a disinterested by-reader, I am struck by how much of a difference that makes–to me, anyway. While I really hate to mention the c-word right now, I suppose it’s the recent discussions of same that make it so noticeable.
I never said you failed to make your point. I simply thought the way you presented it left it too vague and open to misinterpretation. As a matter of taste, I did not enjoy it. That is, however, your style, and it’s your blog.
Oh, now, Paul … the “It’s your blog” line! That always comes at a certain stage in the argument.
I did not make a statement that was intended to be the perfect wikipedia argument. I did not make a statement that was intended to be the end of a discussion. Indeed, I can’t imagine what such a statement would look like outside of holy scripture. I made a statement that could be the beginning of a discussion. To some extent, we’re still in the “I never thought of that before so it must be wrong and maybe I’m offended so I should denywhateveryoursaying phase. But it is true that the issue of war and alliances has come up as a side point (not quite a new topic) and my statement about the likely persepctive of a Jew in an antisemetic world is now being evaluated for some reason in the always hot crucible of military history.
Why is that?
Bexley –
Again, the problem with historical what if’s, is that they didn’t happen. And you are rather missing the nuance of the argument that I made. I did not say that the moment Britain decided to make an alliance with Germany, they would send their Jewish population out for slaughter. As for why? As in why would I possibly imagine France and Britain choosing to avoid war and allying with Germany?
It is really simple – neither country was remotely prepared for another great war. While we obviously know they did not, it is not too far fetched to consider the advantages they might have gleaned from allying with Germany.
First and foremost, there was the distinct possibility that the Germans might successfully invade and conquer. Had either nation or both decided that it was too big a risk, capitulating before that happened and allying to Germany would put them in a much better position than being conquered. Conquering nations are not terribly likely to provide nearly the autonomy that semi-subservient allies would get.
Second, given a France and Britain that are allied to Germany, the only country left that might try to fight it out are the Soviets. Who else is likely to actually fight Germany at that point?
Third and final (though there are probably more reasons), the economies of France and Britain (and most everyone else) are pretty well, good and fucked. The economy of Germany is not. Is it unreasonable to assume that it might be tempting to do what Germany has done to fix theirs. The National Socialist Workers party might be a little tempting.
So now that we have gotten to Britain as ally and France as either ally or conquered, we can talk about the Jews. It is not unreasonable to assume that after enough time and rhetoric from, monster though he was, a brilliant and charismatic speaker and leader, attitudes and convictions might change. It isn’t as though the Germans themselves went into Hitlers regime with the notion that massacring the Jews – or even simply gathering them into camps, as the population generally thought, was a great idea. They were convinced it was.
Is it really that big of a leap to consider that other nations that were connected by the National Socialist party might just get sucked into the rhetoric of the main leader of the party?
That aside, this is all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Greg was making a very different point – I was just filling in the story line. A story line that is impossible, because that is not what happened. But a story line that, impossible as it might be, is not implausible. It isn’t like there was just one man in Britain who was sympathetic, any more than there wasn’t a very considerable and economically powerful segment of U.S. society that was quite sympathetic to fascism. There was here and there was over there. And there were also people in France who felt the same.
Another mistake a lot of people make, is assuming that WWII was about fighting fascism. WWII was about a conquered nation breaking the rules imposed upon it nineteen years before. I really do wonder sometimes what might have come of it if Hitler hadn’t been so keen on hegemony. No reason to go to war and the example of a nation rebuilding, while most of Europe and the U.S. were having rather serious economic issues.
Facepalm. I keep saying that Im not arguing that there wasn’t/isnt antisemtism in Britain. Therefore I find it hard to work out why you think this is denialism of antisemitism in Britain.
My argument isnt even about whether a Jew would feel completely safe in Britain now let alone the 30s. My argument is that looking back there are reasons for relief over what did happen vs what could have happened but I dont think that any reasonable reading of history would make you think that Britain would have allied with Germany. And thats not an argument from Britains virtue.
I think its you who are looking at the events leading up to and the start of WWII with hindsight. With hindsight you see the fall of France and see this event as having been inevitable and therefore a reason that Britain might have allied itself to Germany instead.
Without hindsight I dont think there is any reason why Britain would have abandoned its major and longstanding continental ally.
The Germans took a huge gamble in its plan of battle when attacking france and it payed off. But dont make the mistake of thinking that just because France was defeated that it was inevitable or even considered likely by those at the time. When the germans attacked, the bulk of british and french forces marched north in response to army group B’s feint attack through the netherlands. Had they left a reserve then Army group As pincer would have been in a whole world of trouble. The Germans lost 30% of their aircraft by the end of May and hadn’t held any panzer formations in reserve. A counterattack to Army Group As pincer would have been the prelude to Germany losing the war.
That’s the scale of the gamble taken by Germany and the Germans needed to take this gamble because across the entire line they were outnumbered and had to concencentrate to achieve local superiority to overcome their overall inferiority. Moreover time was against them – Britain and France had far larger economies so in a long war could expect to outlast Germany.
Therefore before the war Britain and France felt they were being dragged into a war they had little to gain from but they felt confident of winning. Like I said where was the incentive for Britain to abandon France and ally with Germany?
None of this suggests that Britain entered the war because it was sympathetic to the plight of the jews in europe. If that were the case they’d have accepted more refugees in the preceding years.
However I can’t think of any documents suggesting that british political leaders thought about using its Jewish population as some kind of bargaining chip with Germany.
So why would a British Jew look back and think “that was way too close” when there was never any sign of an alliance between the two countries? Even in the light of centuries of persecution and current levels of antisemitism I’m not convinced that that line of thinking would be pursued by more than a handful of British Jews since there was never any indication that Britain would have allied itself to Germany.
If anything the more obvious point to breathe a sigh of relief over is that Germany didnt win.
Well, it certainly is good that Germany did not win. And it is good that you have not fully vindicated the validity of the point you made that was stated in opposition to my statement about antisemitism in Britain though it really was more about military history.
Ok Im taking back my objection that only a tiny minority of British Jews could possibly conceive that Britain of the 30s could ally itself with Germany.
Clearly from the comments here alongside Greg, DuWayne actually does think this is a reasonable alternate history. Which suggests others (Jewish or not) could presumably follow exactly the same line of thought.
Even though I think knowledge of the actual historical record shows it profoundly unlikely. (DuWayne – Short reasons why – the british and french economies were bigger than the german one. Germany still had a large proportion of peasant farmers and was an autarchy. Hitler WANTED a fight with france. British leaders thought France was more powerful.)
“British leaders thought France was more powerful.”
More powerful than it was, or more powerful than Germany?
Bexley –
You are reading too much into an alt history. It was impossible, just not inconceivable – if that makes any sense. That is what alt histories are about – the very fact that it didn’t happen as an alt history describes, means it couldn’t have been that likely.
It would make a lot more sense, were we to expand the alt history story. Alt histories assume that very small, but significant details came out differently, thus causing a cascade effect of changes. It is far more conceivable, when you can follow the chain of changes – less so when you are looking at it in a concise macrocosm.
Take one simple detail to start with – the French are actually aware that they are likely to get their asses kicked. For whatever reason, intelligence – whatever, they are aware that things could go very badly for them. Assume that the British are also aware.
Then let the cascade of changes begin.
Even better – there are supernatural creatures, coming out of Germany that make things even more obviously fucked for the French…Because the very best alt histories include magical, mystical forces. After all, if you are going to pretend something different about history, you might as well make it really fucking cool…
And in case you are wondering – yes, I played out a couple of scenarios in my head. And for the sake of this thought exercise I behaved and didn’t throw hell spawn of any sort into the equation…
Well, there could the this man in a castle in Colorado…
I love that movie.
More powerful than Germany. At the start of the Battle of France the French had more men under arms than Germany. They had more tanks and the French Char B was the most powerful tank in the world.
The French Navy was far more powerful than Germany’s (and it remained the only real leverage Vichy France had when it came to negotiating German demands later).
The obvious weakness though was the Armée de l’Air. The Germans defintely had the advantage in both numbers and modernity of aircraft.
Update: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/20/oh-henry/