Comments by "Bruce Tucker" (@brucetucker4847) on "Analyzing Whoopi Goldberg's “The Holocaust isn’t about race”" video.

  1. @Celes Uhm yes. You are correct about the origin of the term Slav, but the English word slave was derived from the word Slav by way of medieval French and Latin. "Slav" had come to mean "slave" in western languages because so many of the slaves traded in the Mediterranean region (by Arabs, Berbers, Venetians, etc.) were of Slavic origin.
    9
  2. Well, by the time he asked that, the kulaks had ceased to exist (mostly because he starved them to death), so technically it was an accurate question at that point. "Dark humor is like food: not everyone gets it." - Josef Stalin, probably
    7
  3. Marx was like Freud: he invented a set of tools for understanding history and political science, then used them to construct an overarching theory purporting to explain everything in its field. Just as most psychologists today owe a great deal to Freud's work while rejecting his overarching theory as an explanation for all of human psychology, many historians and political scientists today (and in Hitler's day) owe a great deal to Marx's analysis while rejecting his overarching theory.
    4
  4. Because the US has a long history of racial discrimination, and France does not (at least, not within its own borders). Race may be BS from a scientific standpoint, but when something as such a long history with such extreme political, social, and economic consequences today, it becomes real because we have made it real.
    3
  5. Because the guards needed a break from the summer heat, I guess? They had lots of recreational facilities for the guards. Anyway, they weren't gassing all the people who came there, some were selected to be worked to death instead.
    3
  6.  @loopyloon5401  Lotta problems with that. First of all, there is no such thing as "Semitic people," there are Semitic languages. Language affiliations mean little or nothing in terms of genetic relationships. Sri Lankans and Irish people both speak Indo-European languages but they are not related in any other way; they do not comprise an "Indo-European race" or "Indo-European people". Second, "antisemitism" is a label applied to prejudice against Jewish people, not any people speaking a Semitic language. You can argue whether the label is accurate or not, but that's what it means in real terms.
    2
  7. That is a relatively small part of their ancestry, even though it forms the main basis for their culture. For the most part, the ancestors of modern Englishmen were Celtic Britons or even earlier Neolithic farmers living in what is now Briton before Indo-European languages arrived.
    2
  8. The modern science of genetics, let alone the concept of haplogroups, did not exist in the time of Nazi Germany. At that time genetics was restricted to the study of visible physical traits and how they were thought to be inherited.
    2
  9. While your taking down Whoopi's critical race nonsense is on point and there certainly are black Jews, she isn't one of them, she has no Jewish ancestry and has not converted. She just likes to lie about that like she does about so much else. Or to put it another way: she is even less Jewish than Elizabeth Warren is Native American. (Also, WRT Colbert, not being American you may not be familiar with the "one drop" rule, but in America you can look pretty white and still be legally black.)
    2
  10.  @bmc7434  That simply isn't true. Assyrian and Babylonian records both confirm the existence of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah before they conquered them. You are conflating imperial periods (i.e., New Kingdom Egypt and the Neo-Babylonian Empire) that were many centuries apart.
    2
  11.  @StickNik  Some of them but far from all of them. And there are plenty of antisemitic capitalists too. The simple fact is that they are independent phenomena that are sometimes found together and sometimes not.
    2
  12.  @billlansdell7225  Except that humanity doesn't have subspecies or breeds. Breeds in particular, because for there to be breeds there has to be eugenics.
    1
  13. Race is more than that, it is the defining of phylogenetic groups of humans based on physical characteristics. By phylogenetic groups I mean large populations who have unique common ancestors. Japanese people and Chinese people do not have unique common ancestors; neither do Jews and Germans, or Europeans and Africans, or even Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. That is to say, there is no common ancestor of all sub-Saharan Africans who was not also an ancestor to Europeans, and vice versa.
    1
  14.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Their goal was not to knock out all the colonial powers. Japan WAS a colonial power. Their goal was to knock out the OTHER colonial powers and replace European colonial oppression with even worse Japanese colonial oppression. That is not fighting for anyone's liberty.
    1
  15.  @hakapeszimaki8369  None of that changes the fact that Japan murdered tens of millions of people in the rest of Asia.
    1
  16. To be fair, the Japanese CLAIMED that they were fighting an anti-imperialist crusade. Of course, even a very shallow examination of the historical record shows that this was a complete lie.
    1
  17.  @gagamba9198  How were Romanians defined by Nazis in racial terms? They aren't Slavs. Neither are Hungarians, for that matter. IRC Japanese were declared to be "honorary Aryans". The funny thing is that Japanese extreme nationalists saw themselves exactly the same way the Nazis saw themselves - they believed, in contradiction to all archaeological evidence, that all civilizations were founded by Japanese people in very ancient times and all non-Japanese cultures remaining today are just degraded remnants of that pure culture.
    1
  18.  @TheImperatorKnight  That is nonsense. The fact that Jews have historically been prominent in free markets does not mean that free markets are a Jewish thing, either in the minds of socialists or in the real world. And it certainly doesn't mean that all Jews are or were capitalists - Jewish people have historically been at least as prominent in socialism as in free market capitalism. This is another of your characteristic logical fallacies: "Jews are capitalist, socialists are anti-capitalist, therefore socialism is antisemitic" is NOT a valid syllogism, even if one accepts the first premise (which is not true). Have you ever taken a single class on formal logic at the university level?
    1
  19. Wile E. Coyote understand the laws of physics perfectly. Unfortunately for them, the Roadrunner is able to bend and break them at will.
    1
  20. I prefer to identify as a member of the group of rational and educated people. It's a rare distinction these days.
    1
  21. Because socialism being inherently antisemitic is bullsh1t. There are antisemitic socialists (Marx was one), but that is not at all the same thing. TIK is relying on a blatantly invalid syllogism here: Jews are capitalist, socialism is anti-capitalist, therefore socialists are anti-Jewish. If you can't see the problem there, you BADLY need a class in formal logic (as does TIK). You might just as easily argue that Jews are socialist (Trotsky was an extremely prominent one), TIK is anti-socialist, therefore TIK as antisemitic. And that would also be bullsh1t.
    1
  22. "Aryan" is a term found in the Vedas and some other ancient Persian and Indian literary sources. Its exact meaning is hotly debated, but the prevailing theory is that it was used to distinguish a member of the groups speaking Indo-European languages and practicing the ancestral Indo-European religion from other people in the area who had different languages and/or religions. 19th century racialists concluded that Indo-Aryan languages (a subgroup of Indo-European languages) were brought to India and Persia by invaders from the steppe who conquered and subjugated those already in those areas and established a system of segregation to keep themselves a distinct ruling caste, and that light skin was one of the key features used to distinguish the ruling class from the conquered classes. This was further developed into the concept of an "Aryan race" that brought civilization to these areas, even though archaeology had proved even by then that civilizations existed in them prior to the introduction of Indo-European languages. Most of this is discredited today, although whether the introduction of Indo-European languages was the result of a conquest and subjugation of the natives are also still hotly debated. The subject is also clouded by the development of Hindu nationalism, a pseudoscientific mythology which insists (again, contrary to all archaeological evidence) that all Indo-European languages originated inside India and spread from there to Europe and west Asia.
    1
  23.  @harrisonlincoln8343  "Assuming the Israelites were Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe?" That's reversing the chronology. Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of ancient Israelites who came to Eastern Europe, not the other way around. Hebrew, a Canaanite language, is much, much, much older than Yiddish.
    1
  24. I mean, China was founded by Aryans? It's clearly nonsense from the get-go. His main means of defending his ideas was throwing anyone who dared disagree with them in public into a concentration camp.
    1
  25. Do they even allow cis men on the View?
    1
  26.  @hermitoldguy6312  There was a scientific basis for gravity, just not an explanation for its existence. But it was observed and experimentally confirmed that mass attracts mass.
    1
  27.  @maudeeb  No, it does not. East Asians and western Europeans have the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA, are they the same race under any racial theory?
    1
  28.  @maudeeb  And so do Melanesians. Are East Asians the same race as the English, or the Papuans?
    1
  29.  @maudeeb  You've ignored both questions. Are Manchurians and Papuans the same race? Because I'm not aware of any racial theory that would say they are.
    1
  30. Ethnicity and race are not remotely the same thing.
    1
  31. Apparently you don't understand Wagner. That's okay, neither did the Nazis.
    1
  32. Because 99.99% of the people doing that are doing so because they want to see it completed.
    1
  33. For that to happen, he would have to be a real historian.
    1
  34. it only had to do with religion to the extent religion was a historical motivation for Jewish people remaining a separate group. The Nazis didn't care at all about your religion. Jewish atheists and converts from Judaism to Christianity (or their descendants) were still just as Jewish in their view.
    1
  35. Next you're going to say that red, blue, and green quarks aren't actually red, blue, or green. And that would be a strange matter indeed!
    1
  36.  @Kamalvincent  She is exactly as Jewish as Lia Thomas is a woman or Elizabeth Warren is Native American.
    1
  37. People use the word "banned" very liberally and inconsistently these days.
    1
  38.  @billlansdell7225  So you admit that we don't have breeds of humans.
    1
  39.  @billlansdell7225  There's no evidence that anyone ever tried selective breeding on a significant scale the way we have with horses and dogs.
    1
  40.  @hakapeszimaki8369  The question isn't whether European imperialism was bad, it's whether Japanese imperialism was any better. And the answer is, it was actually worse. You say 32 million people died due to famine over two centuries or so of British rule, but the Japanese probably murdered nearly that many people in a decade in China.
    1