Ken Livingstone and the "liberal" lynch mob.
"When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."
I hold no ill will, nor good will towards Ken Livingstone, this is not a defense of him, but a defense of his right to speak freely. In fact forget about who even said it. The above statement for which he is being lynched by profoundly bigoted "liberals" is not antisemitic. It is a statement based on his perception of historical events, obviously he is a man that has (shock!) thought for a moment about something and almost certainly knows more about Hitler in the 1930's than the vast majority of people that are lambasting him (enough to know about the Haavara Agreement, to which he is clearly referring). Whether or not it is actually true seems to the media and politicians and anyone with anything to say on the matter to be utterly irrelevant, 'he mentioned Jews and Hitler in the same breath - string him up!'. This reactionary hyperbole is the leftist parallel to the moronic Trump supporters that scream "fake news", or "lock her up" like particularly manipulable little children. It is the poisonous plague of unthinking political correctness.
Jonathan Arkush, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews referred to the above quote as "outrageous". Not quite as outrageous as quashing any and all references to Hitler, whether or not they reflect reality. Are we at the stage where we have to whitewash the truth as to not offend people? If the response to Livingstone had been more along the lines of - 'you are wrong, here is why' then fine. But to slam the door in the face of discussion, in the face of thought, in the face of truth, in the face of opinion, in the face of everything in lieu of this reactionary petulance is regressive to say the least.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how and why these comments are antisemitic. And if something is true (and a very strong argument could be made that Livingstone spoke accurately), then should anyone, politician or otherwise ever be reprimanded for saying it? The obvious answer strikes me as being no.
In all honesty I do feel like i'm missing something here, my knowledge of Nazi Germany in the 30's and Zionism isn't particularly nuanced - but his words strike me as being completely fair.
I hold no ill will, nor good will towards Ken Livingstone, this is not a defense of him, but a defense of his right to speak freely. In fact forget about who even said it. The above statement for which he is being lynched by profoundly bigoted "liberals" is not antisemitic. It is a statement based on his perception of historical events, obviously he is a man that has (shock!) thought for a moment about something and almost certainly knows more about Hitler in the 1930's than the vast majority of people that are lambasting him (enough to know about the Haavara Agreement, to which he is clearly referring). Whether or not it is actually true seems to the media and politicians and anyone with anything to say on the matter to be utterly irrelevant, 'he mentioned Jews and Hitler in the same breath - string him up!'. This reactionary hyperbole is the leftist parallel to the moronic Trump supporters that scream "fake news", or "lock her up" like particularly manipulable little children. It is the poisonous plague of unthinking political correctness.
Jonathan Arkush, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews referred to the above quote as "outrageous". Not quite as outrageous as quashing any and all references to Hitler, whether or not they reflect reality. Are we at the stage where we have to whitewash the truth as to not offend people? If the response to Livingstone had been more along the lines of - 'you are wrong, here is why' then fine. But to slam the door in the face of discussion, in the face of thought, in the face of truth, in the face of opinion, in the face of everything in lieu of this reactionary petulance is regressive to say the least.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how and why these comments are antisemitic. And if something is true (and a very strong argument could be made that Livingstone spoke accurately), then should anyone, politician or otherwise ever be reprimanded for saying it? The obvious answer strikes me as being no.
In all honesty I do feel like i'm missing something here, my knowledge of Nazi Germany in the 30's and Zionism isn't particularly nuanced - but his words strike me as being completely fair.
Scroll to see replies
I agree.
People heard the word "hitler" and then stopped listening to what he was actually saying.
The problem is people have terrible listening skills.
It's irrelevant if what he said is true or false - simply mentioning "hitler" triggered a Pavlovian response in people.
People heard the word "hitler" and then stopped listening to what he was actually saying.
The problem is people have terrible listening skills.
It's irrelevant if what he said is true or false - simply mentioning "hitler" triggered a Pavlovian response in people.
(edited 7 years ago)
Livingstone was dumb and made a fudged mess of what he was trying to say, but there was a nugget of a valid point at the heart of it. Yeah, he probably should have made something of an apology for a bad choice of words, and offered some more clarification and nuance (though he's not a historian, so he may not be aware of the nuance needed), though it seems he made the decision not to back down at all (which hasn't particularly done him any good), either because of what subsequently happened to Shah, or just because of the hysterical outcry against him.
That said, if he had been able to provide some more nuance, that probably wouldn't have helped him much either, because that wasn't really what anyone was interested in. Most of the attacks on Livingstone for being anti-semitic either explicitly or implicitly took it for granted that Zionism couldn't have been anything other than a positive and well-intentioned movement - and given that was, at least in part, what Livingstone was contesting, it meant everyone just talked past each other.
That said, if he had been able to provide some more nuance, that probably wouldn't have helped him much either, because that wasn't really what anyone was interested in. Most of the attacks on Livingstone for being anti-semitic either explicitly or implicitly took it for granted that Zionism couldn't have been anything other than a positive and well-intentioned movement - and given that was, at least in part, what Livingstone was contesting, it meant everyone just talked past each other.
Original post by Jjj90
"When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews."
a very strong argument could be made that Livingstone spoke accurately
There were no Israel before WW2 and there were no policy "that Jews should be moved to Israel". There was a policy to rid of Jews this or that way.
Nothing in common with historical accuracy, but rather mixture of ignorance, idiocy and biological hate of Jewish state.
I think this misses the point. The question is not whether Ken Livingstone has the right to free speech or if his information is historically accurate, but whether his views have any place in the Labour Party and what effect do his comments have on the image of Her Majesty's opposition? This is the real debate. Of course, Ken, has the right to say whatever he wishes, but that does not mean the Labour Party has to stand by him. The debate is should the Labour party tolerant his views or not?
Original post by Mysterious-Zahra
I think this misses the point. The question is not whether Ken Livingstone has the right to free speech or if his information is historically accurate, but whether his views have any place in the Labour Party and what effect do his comments have on the image of Her Majesty's opposition? This is the real debate. Of course, Ken, has the right to say whatever he wishes, but that does not mean the Labour Party has to stand by him. The debate is should the Labour party tolerant his views or not?
Well they seem to tolerate opinions far worse than his so based on that he is perfect for them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Don't worry, i believe Shami is going to investigate...
Not sure what Corbyn has promised her this time though.
Not sure what Corbyn has promised her this time though.
PC culture strikes again.
I'm pretty sure Hitler favoured the Madagascar Plan which would have entailed literally starving millions of Jewish people to death.
Original post by l'etranger
I'm pretty sure Hitler favoured the Madagascar Plan which would have entailed literally starving millions of Jewish people to death.
He did, around 1939-41. Livingstone was talking about 1932-33.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Texel
Well they seem to tolerate opinions far worse than his so based on that he is perfect for them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Such as?
Original post by flyswatter
They're obsessed with getting an apology.
It's not so much an apology, rather they want a Shah-style self-flagellation in which Livingstone will completely condemn everything without any nuance, and will implicitly agree with whatever Mann/Newmark/Streeting/etc say.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by anarchism101
It seems intellectually dishonest to claim that wanting mass expulsion of Jewish people makes you a Zionist.
Original post by l'etranger
It seems intellectually dishonest to claim that wanting mass expulsion of Jewish people makes you a Zionist.
By that logic the Stern Gang weren't Zionists. And as Livingstone keeps emphasising, he distinguishes between "supporting Zionism, and actually being a Zionist.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
Of course they weren't real Zionists, real Zionism is peaceful and pro-Arab. The first Zionists came to help the Christians and Muslims, they just didn't appreciate it
Original post by l'etranger
Of course they weren't real Zionists, real Zionism is peaceful and pro-Arab. The first Zionists came to help the Christians and Muslims, they just didn't appreciate it
Can't tell if serious....
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mysterious-Zahra
Such as?
Comrade Corbychov.
Why is it leftists can support a form of ethnic nationalism (which is what Zionism is) without being called regressive leftists? 
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Nick Cohen.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Nick Cohen.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Why is it leftists can support a form of ethnic nationalism (which is what Zionism is) without being called regressive leftists?
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Nick Cohen.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Nick Cohen.
Yup. There's this bizarre tendency to see Zionism in the most generous and positive lights that isn't remotely granted to any other incarnation of ethnic nationalism.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by anarchism101
Yup. There's this bizarre tendency to see Zionism in the most generous and positive lights that isn't remotely granted to any other incarnation of ethnic nationalism.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It 100% fits the definition of regressive leftism :-/ You see some underdog (in this case Jewish people) and end up supporting some of the most reactionary stuff, like ethnic nationalism and very right wing religion that can border on fascism, because it is the underdog perpetrating it.
I see it all the time in the media. "Enlightened leftists" like Nick Cohen will criticise left wingers for supporting anti-colonial/western nationalist movements in Latin America, decry how nationalism is a conservative ideology, then without any self awareness swiftly move on to start defending Zionism as if that was true leftism.
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- AQA Sociology A LEVEL
- Politics 25 mark extract question structure
- OMAM
- A level politics helpppp
- Grow Your Grades: Michelle's version
- EPQ Presentation
- Dolls' House compared to Bell Jar?
- sociology digital textbooks
- AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Quoting a post that has a spurious [/quote] tag does not work correctly
- The Same Picture of Ainsley Harriott Every Day
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- English Lit GCSE
- Unit 7 Applied Science
- English Literature
- OCR - Religious Studies
- Which quotes do I learn
- Admiral quotes not appearing?
- English Literature
- Let us collapse and expand stuff (quote, OPs etc) properly
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
