Tuesday, February 21, 2006

The Independent gets it just right

See the headline in today's Independent :

David Irving: An anti-Semitic racist who has suffered financial ruin

No matter what you think of the verdict, the paper nailed it.

12 comments:

Douglass said...

We know that Irving is a Holocaust denier, and we know that Irving more or less deserves the financial difficulties he is experiencing, but we do NOT know that Irving is a 'racist'. To play the sophist; wouldn’t all Jews be considered 'racist' under the standard applied to Irving by the Independent?
Imagining what we don't know is a dangerous process and Irving is not less human because he has crazy ideas. I think that calling him a 'racist' is easy in light of the situation, but that does not make it TRUE. But then again, he could be a racist. I don't have the evidence to prove it and until then I give Irving the benefit of the doubt.

Deborah Lipstadt said...

Read History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving to see some of the horribly racist things Irving has said in the past.

The judge acknowledged that the man's writings were racist.

Read the verdict.

Dave said...

There's a link right on this very web page, just to the left of these entries, to "Holocaust Denial on Trial," which has the complete transcript of the trial, all the defense reports, and the judgment.

You'll find the reports from various defense experts on Irving's incredible racism and anti-Semitism, all from Mr. Irving's own mouth and writings.

They include calling the Board of Deputies of British Jews a bunch of "cockroaches." I'd say that's prima facie evidence of anti-Semitism, and I'm not a lawyer.

Douglass said...

I respect your opinion and I understand why the majority of people agree. The Judge said, “Irving qualifies as a holocaust denier… Irving is anti-Semitic… Irving is a racist… Irving [is] a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist.”
This is true, but I think that in light of Irving's status a polemicist, the jury is out on the sincerity of his 'racist' views. I hesitate to label him as a 'racist'. That is my humble opinion. I think Irving is a shady guy with questionable motives, a guy who is more anti-history than he is anti-Jewish, a guy who loves to unnecessarily anger people and be outrageous just to get attention. I am probably being too lenient here, but I am a layman and I do not claim to understand the totality of the data in this situation.

Uriah Robinson said...

You are being very lenient Douglass.
"What do you think about Black people... on the British [English] cricket team?

Irving replied "That makes me even more queasy".

In Irving's diary.

"I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry
An Ape or Rastafarian"

I would think those statements alone might qualify him as a racist.

What I find particularly objectionable is the constant media reference to Irving as "the historian David Irving". Will they next be referring to President Ahmenijad as the "Holocaust researcher"?

Douglass said...

I am also disturbed by anyone who presents Irving as a legitimate historian. It is important that he is properly identified as a quack-historian.

I am still hesitant to label him a 'racist' because I think that he plans on drawing accusations from the Jewish community that are not 100% accurate as to plant the seed of doubt, to demonstrate that he isn't the only one who exaggerates for political purposes. Irving's statement plainly tells his daughter to refuse intermarriage. So does Deuteronomy chapter 7. I think that he is trying to pull some tricky moves. I refuse to accommodate them.

culfy said...

Douglass, do not use sophistry here.

David Irving is a racist plain and simple. His rhyme uses racist imagery (or are you saying that David was using 'ape' in the literal sense').

He has said that he doesn't like black people reading the use and that the respected news reader Trevor MacDonald should only read about muggings.

I can give you more evidence if you want.

Douglass said...

I am not playing the sophist for Irving. I apologize if I made the impression that I was somehow apologizing for his crimes. I honestly doubt that he is a racist at heart. A real racist notes that the 'Aryans' allied themselves with the Japanese and the Italians while fighting the English and the Americans. A real racist rejects Nazism on that basis. Irving does not. This gives him away in my minds eye. I am not saying that Irving doesn't incite racial hatred. He constantly incites racial hatred by the nature of his 'work'. What Irving is trying to do is to get Jews to call him 'racist' so that he can gain patronage from foreign and domestic anti-Semites and those who seek to discredit the West. (he accepts ‘donations’ via Visa and MasterCard). Irving is an agitator and a mean person who wants time in the spotlight as a 'rebel'. It is Tragic that he uttered his Nazi garbage in the ear of his young daughter, the poor girl will probably crippled by internalizing that worldview. Shame on him, he is worse than a racist. I can forgive the real racist, because I understand that they believe in their acidic ideologies, I can forgive those who speak from their heart. I think that it is sad that those people were misled. But Irving, he KNOWS what comes with the territory. That is my position. Anyone is welcome to disagree.

culfy said...

A real racist notes that the 'Aryans' allied themselves with the Japanese and the Italians while fighting the English and the Americans. A real racist rejects Nazism on that basis. Irving does not.

The fact that Irving's beliefs may not be totally self-consistent does not invalidate his racism, since racism is inherently a self-contradictory belief.

am not saying that Irving doesn't incite racial hatred. He constantly incites racial hatred by the nature of his 'work'. What Irving is trying to do is to get Jews to call him 'racist' so that he can gain patronage from foreign and domestic anti-Semites and those who seek to discredit the West.

Can you explain his constant racist comments aimed at blacks and homophobic comments as well? Is he trying to get patronage from foreign and domestic anti-black movements and anti-gay movements?

Or is the fact that if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's probably not a pedigree racing pigeon.

culfy said...

A real racist notes that the 'Aryans' allied themselves with the Japanese and the Italians while fighting the English and the Americans.

The fact that Irving's beliefs are self-contradictory does not invalidate the fact that he is a racist, since racism is inherently self-contradictory.

What Irving is trying to do is to get Jews to call him 'racist' so that he can gain patronage from foreign and domestic anti-Semites and those who seek to discredit the West.

So what is the explanation for his anti-black comments?

I'm sorry, but if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's probably not a racing pigeon.

Douglass said...

I am a prude when it comes to labeling people involved with racism and anti-Semitism because those labels are ambiguous. How do you differentiate between Hitler's racism and the racism of the Romanovs? How do you differentiate between someone who is afraid of Jews because they don't understand the Jews and someone who kidnaps, tortures and brutally murders Jews? Racist is a label that applies to them all, but fails to describe their real position(s). If you want to see the work of a REAL racist anti-Semite, paste the link below into your browser.

http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/western_europe/5914

culfy said...

I'm sorry, but the fact is that David Irving has consistently denigrated people because of their race. That, in my book, makes him a racist.

How do you differentiate between someone who is afraid of Jews because they don't understand the Jews and someone who kidnaps, tortures and brutally murders Jews?

I don't.