GMB reporting on liberation of Auschwitz (minus the Jews!)

[TheRewritingOfHistoryBegins]

I couldn’t see another thread on this but if there is, let me know.

AIBU to be absolutely outraged about the report on the liberation of Auschwitz of GMB without one mention of the fact they were Jewish people who were killed?

https://x.com/antisemitism/status/1883921202416345358

What the hell is going on in this country where we can’t even speak of the victims of the greatest atrocity ever taken place in this world?

Jews they were Jews.

A more relevant comparison to the holocaust would actually be north Korea....they have concentration camps...one is called Yodok if anyone is interested in learning more. I've read several books about it. There are some terrible similarities...it's truly shocking. People imprisoned for the "crimes" of their ancestors.... children included. Torture, starvation, executions... truly brutal. Not totally the same but far more comparable than Gaza

Curious as to what point you think you're making here?

It wasn't poorly worded if it said 'six million Jews' because when talking about the Holocaust, 6 million is always followed by 'Jews'. That's how many Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.

So someone clearly meant six million Jews, and then either it was replaced with 'people', or the presenter saw the word Jews and didn't want to say it.

You don't see the word Jew and accidentally say the word 'people' instead when talking about 6 million in the Holocaust.

Is the word 'Jew' becoming a dirty word that people seek to censor?

Seems so.

You don't.

Clearly the word Jews or Jewish people should have been in that sentence - it just does not make sense without the word "Jews or Jewish" in

And you don't misread that.It seems like the show did clearly reference Jews and the Holocaust throughout apart from here - so what was going on in someone's thought process.

Well, that's horrifying!

A point of fact. Obviously

If, as it’s generally appreciated, Wikipedia is about facts.

Now google antisemite.

Yes but why were you trying to prove that particular fact? What's the relevance of it to this thread?

@noblegiraffe

I looked up that as an extension of my reading on Semite from wiki etc
Anti semitism is not related to any other Semites other than Jews as it was a term adopted specifically relating to the hatred of the Jewish population and growth of political parties against Jews in Germany at the time ( late 1870s )

That doesn’t however mean all semites are only Jews and does not follow that Arabs are not semites.
So not relevant

now my posts are off thread, and I hate that

Absolutely nothing and I’m usually good at keeping on thread but I was tagging a pp that had gone off thread.
Anyway I just dislike inaccuracies put forward as surposed facts.

Great, so you agree that "Furthermore, Semite does NOT just refer to Jews but anyone that is Semetic.. despite the Israelis trying to take it as an insult to them (suprise surprise!)" is just bollocks. Antisemitism refers specifically to hatred against Jews, therefore the poster wittering on about other semites in the context of antisemitism is incorrect to do so.

Anyway I just dislike inaccuracies put forward as surposed facts.
You weren't correcting an inaccuracy put forward as fact, though.

Yes I would agree Antisemitism was a word devised just to refer to the Jewish population. I’m not aware it has been used to refer to any other Semites
so that would be wrong.

The pp however made a blanket statement that Arabs being called semites was a classic, with another pp agreeing with bingo. Both suggesting Arabs are not semite
Neither mentioned antisemitism just Semite
so that would be wrong.

What do you think "despite the Israelis trying to take it as an insult to them (suprise surprise!)" meant, if not 'Jews trying to make antisemitism all about insults to them when actually they're not the only semites and antisemitism isn't all about them'?

Given that people who have been on threads in the CITME section have seen this mis-definition of antisemitism to include people who aren't Jewish about 5 billion times?

I can’t be expected to decide why others think that.
Perhaps ask them
on the CITME threads

of which this isn’t

Right, so you haven't got any other explanation for what the poster meant.

Those of us who have seen it before know that the comment about it being a classic is spot-on.

And your pedantry really wasn't needed.

Literally everywhere you look in the world there are horrific acts of inhumanity happening. Yet the only thing that gets people on the streets week in, week out, is Israel (not Jews, but Israel they always say). I call bullshit. I’m astounded some posters on this thread can post what they post and don’t see their own prejudice is shining through. Appalling, especially from people who presumably consider themselves to be humanitarian and left wing.

There's a lot of using 'Zionist' as a codeword for Jew.

The first thing I would do is actually ask the poster to clarify if I didn’t know the true facts. I wouldn’t ask another poster what someone else meant

The fact that you’ve seen it before does not negate the fact it was accurate.

It’s not pedantry to those who are Semite but not Jewish…on this we will have to agree to disagree as I really don’t think we can extinguish fact so slightly.

No one can be expected on MN to be on all threads so I haven’t seen similar comments before.

I appreciate it must be extremely irritating if people come up with nonsense on multiple threads and you recognise the same MNs jumping from thread to thread making the same comments. You can’t, however, expect everyone to immediately assume those comments are goady.

end of derail as humdingerydoo quite rightly pointed out

But it was not accurate to say that it is not right that Israel are taking antisemitism to mean an insult to themselves when Arabs are semites too.

It is not fair to say 'surprise surprise' that Israel are using the word antisemitism as if they are hogging the word from other semites, when Israel is a Jewish state, and antisemitism is hatred of Jews.

So that poster was talking bollocks.

HTH.

I think the whole exchange has gone over your head.

It is not about whether "semetic" can or previously has had a wider meaning than "Jewish". It's about people using "actually, Arabs are semites too" to undermine the existence of antisemitism (as in, anti-Jewish hostility).

The "bingo" and alike were calling out a trite argument made in bad faith.

For the very last time

I did not tag a comment about antisemitism

I tagged a comment on Arabs not being Semite….that is wrong

Arabs are Semite.

Yes but you missed the context and the point. You jumped into the middle of a conversation.

It's archaic usage of the term and a red herring in any discussion about whether antisemitism refers specifically to Jew hate.