The first time I've been called a Nazi
I got the following note after Saturday's column regarding local people's opinions about Ariel Sharon -- in it someone compared him to Hitler. This from a self-described Christian (who thought I compared Sharon to Hitler):
SHAME ON *_Y__OU_*! This is the most anti-semitic garbage I've ever
heard. Are you a Nazi? Before you start shooting off your mouth, do your homework. God says that that land is HIS and He put His name on it. God gave the land to the Israelites and they have no right to give it up or divide it. Who was it that started the terrorism.... it was the Palestinians. They started blowing up innocent people and people's cars, buses, etc. They are the ones who are inhabiting land that isn't theirs.
In Genesis, God says, "I will bless those who bless you (Israelites),
and curse those that curse you". Do you want a curse? Keep it up! You
will get one and it won't be funny.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Congratulations! Being called a "nazi" is a compliment. It means that the writer
(a) Has no real argument
(b) Does not wish to engage in discussion
(c) Wishes to cut off discourse
The "nazi" thing is an old Usenet (pre-blog) way of saying, "I'm very angry but am not smart enough to speak intelligently about whatever it is you're saying."
I take being called that as a laughable compliment. Welcome to the club!
Posted on January 9, 2006 3:37 PM
Wow. Sounds like a Pat Robertson follower. BTW, the bit of text you posted appears to only ASK if you're a Nazi, not accuse you of it... but that's just semantics, I guess. {;-)
"Who was it that started the terrorism.... it was the Palestinians."
Considering the history of the area from 1900 on, I'd find it hardly surprising that they resorted to violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
"They are the ones who are inhabiting land that isn't theirs."
This, coming from an American of (most likely) non-native descent, sounds deeply ironic. Not unlike most of the ravings of various nut cases.
Posted on January 9, 2006 3:41 PM
Sue is exactly right on points a, b, and c. But the reader's reaction shouldn't be unexpected. A common sense reading of the first two sentences of your column leaves the reader with the perception that you compared Sharon to Hitler - because you did. The third sentence explains it away and attributes it to "local people", but the source of the Hitler comparison isn't quoted until 13 paragraphs later. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
The misunderstanding could have been avoided by quoting directly and using quotation marks rather than paraphrasing and presenting the statement without attribution in the lead of your column.
Posted on January 9, 2006 3:50 PM
Good point.
Posted on January 9, 2006 4:27 PM
Instead of allowing angry Muslims to spout rhetoric, you could have done some research and tempered their comments a bit. It's not like Sharon butchered anyone personally, like some Muslims have been known to do proudly.
Posted on January 9, 2006 8:09 PM
Regardless, the person is using fundamentalist Christian tactics and reading of scripture.
To me, Sharon was seeking to do what the Christian message is all about: reconciliation and peace!
As can be commonly seen, Peacemakers can often make mistakes and be misconstrued with the motives with which they operate.
Shalom
Posted on January 10, 2006 10:57 AM
Actually, jsykes, the column ran as a companion with a story that also dealt with Sharon's legacy. I thought there was a good balance of comments in the column -- actually, what I'm sensing is that this is a freedom of speech issue. I spent hours at a local mosque talking to people who felt the same way as those Muslims who were quoted. Do we discount how they feel? If so, who's next?
Posted on January 10, 2006 11:53 AM