Was President Truman an anti-Semite? You decide!

[IndianaGreen]

Explosive language in the Truman diary reveals that President Truman held anti-Semitic views!

Truman diary reveals anti-Semitism and offer to step down
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
12 July 2003

The Jews, mused Truman, "I find are very very selfish. They care not how many Latvians, Finns, Poles, Estonians and Greeks get murdered or mistreated as DPs (displaced persons) as long as Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political, neither Hitler or Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment for the underdog."

Truman wrote this diatribe in July 1947, in a diary that he kept intermittently during the year that marked the nadir of his political fortunes, in a gloomy, lonely White House that he described as "this great white jail".

<snip>

The Jewish material has also raised many eyebrows, given Truman's role in securing the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, over the objections of the State Department.

In his diary entry for 21 July 1947, Truman added that "the Jews have no sense of proportion, nor do they have any judgement on world affairs".

Sara Bloomfield, director of Holocaust Museum in Washington, said his attitude was typical "of a sort of cultural anti-Semitism" common at that time".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=423814

[sandnsea]

1. He goes on to say everyone's like that, even Baptists

I read that quote in another news source and the quote goes on from there. I can't imagine what would have been going on at the time to cause him to say that about Jews though. But he didn't limit his thinking to Jews and said that most any underdog will mistreat people when they have power, or something to that affect. A sad state of the human being, bla bla.

Still a strange thing to say about Jews.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I am looking at this through the prism of my generation

and to say that I am shocked and hurt by Truman's words is an understatement. He was one of my favorite Presidents.

If his views were typical of people from Missouri at that time, then the only explanation I can find is that Truman's actions as President went outside the boundaries of his prejudices.

I still find the words troubling because we can still hear the same crap being said today, which means that little has changed since 1947!

[Classical_Liberal]

5. The statement is definately antisemitic.

I first saw it on drudge, and I am concerned the statement may be out of context, because the term "Jews" wasn't in the quotemarks. There are one issue activists of every group that do fit this discription though, whether it be minority, unions or womens organizations. There is a big campaign on to get Jews to vote republican.

[ward919]

24. But the statement is definitely true...history is a witness!

And the present situation in the ME adds even more credence. Is it anti-German to say that most Germans were complicit in the holocaust...eventhough the statement MIGHT not be true? Did their actions give credence to this statement? Would or could a reasonable person looking at history and current events objectively conclude the same thing?

[NYT]

27. ...but what if it was a true statement?

If it was, then it wouldn't be anti-semitic. If it was a statement that was just total b.s., i.e., all Jews have big noses and are money grubbers, then that would be anti-semitic.

There's really no way to prove if the statement is true except to base it on you're own personal experience.

[starroute]

45. Suppose someone said it about Americans?

"The Americans I find are very very selfish. They care not how many Iraqis, Afghans, Koreans, or Nigerians get murdered or mistreated as long as Americans can fill up their SUVs. They talk all the time about freedom, but when they have power, neither Hitler or Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment for the underdog."

If you read a statement like this, would you consider it a case of racism? Or would your reaction be more like, "It's something of an exaggeration, but I could see how someone who's frustrated with America's actions might come to that conclusion," or "Not all Americans are that way, but the worst among us are giving us a bad reputation everywhere."

To take another tack, suppose someone made a general psychological statement that being the victim of bullying tends to make people obsessively focused on their own suffering, insensitive to the suffering of others, and inclined to act as bullies themselves if given the chance. Would anyone here argue with that for a moment? Or would you say, "Yet, that's very perceptive, and I've certainly known people like that."

So why do Truman's private comments seem so bizarre or like a reason for losing all faith in the man?

On edit: fixed typo

[rman]

3. i fail to see how critisism = anti

[IndianaGreen]

4. Using a broadbrush is anti-Semitic

saying that some Jews are unconcerned about the suffering of others is one thing, saying that Jews as a group are like that smacks of anti-Semitism.

As a matter of fact, if a DUer were to post such a statement on this board, the mods would delete it for its racist content.

[cap]

6. another democratic smear...

there are no stories these days about Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan or Bush I

[IndianaGreen]

7. Truman's own words, in his own diary

The only smear here is the one he uses against Jews!

[Classical_Liberal]

8. If it were a misquote of Truman, wouldn't that qualify as a smear

against Truman? It wouldn't be the first time it has happened, particularly in this enviroment, where the bar has been lowered to the point where criticism of pro-likud factions is considered the same thing as antisemitism. What if Truman was specifying a particular activist group and somebody(republicans) put out a press release changing the activist group to the general term "Jews", but than not including the term Jews in the quote marks, so as not to be technically dishonest in quoting Truman. The people at Holocaust Museum assume it is true, than the Washington post covers their reaction, and now we have an effective smear of Truman, a man whom many Jews had previously admired, for recognizing Israel. You see how this works? Maybe that didn't happen. There is antisemitism in this country and certainly was at that time, but I have seen to many smears of people in the press lately to take anything for granted anymore.

[papau]

31. I agree - and He's the guy who resisted the anti-Semitic advice of the day

A tired guy is upset about not getting a pat on the back for the good he is doing for the Jews, and says they do not appreciate, and suddenly it is a sign of an evil heart.

Broadbrush - yes - and not PC - and indeed he should have named names for the sake of history - but he is not writing a college text.

[unfrigginreal]

9. No

What exactly does he say that didn't ring true to him at the time? Weren't we calling Russians Evil in the 1980's? Aren't we calling Iraqi's and Iranians and North Koreans Evil now?

[Classical_Liberal]

10. It depends on whether we are referring to the leadership

or to their people.

[trumad]

11. Creation of the state of Israel in 1948 ring a bell?....

Harry Truman did more for the State of Israel than any American in History! I interpret his remarks from a political point of view and at a time of great difficulty regarding the creation of the Israel homeland.

Face it folks...Our Political Correctness hadn't kicked in back in 1940 and that's how folks, especially from the mid-west and South spoke!

BTW: Fuck Drudge.... Drudge was the stuff Harry would scrape off his shoes back on his Missouri Farm!

[hlthe2b]

16. Exactly, Trumad

Truman was instrumental in establishing the state of Israel.... I don't know whether his statements are true, out of context or simply reflect rhetoric of the time and nothing more. What I do know is that sometimes ACTIONS speak louder than words.

[jonnyblitz]

19. speaking of actions...didnt he drop not one but TWO nukes on Japan?

yes, actions DO speak much louder than words....

[DemBones DemBones]

22. That's the thing that really bothers me about Truman, and I

admire him in general. The only way I can deal with that decision is by knowing how differently people viewed things back then -- the Japanese were a hated enemy and the bombs were supposed to save American lives.

Of course the Japanese were probably ready to surrender before Hiroshima and Nagosaki and you have to wonder if an American president would ever have decided to rain that sort of horror on the Germans or any other Caucasian people.

[Pepperbelly]

50. his decision then was spot on and ...

is still spot on. After the experience of Okinawa, claiming that the Japanese would have surrendered the home islands is patently absurd on its face. That would never have happened and the toll in lives, Amreican and Japanese, in that effort would have far exceeded the toll of the falling atomic bombs.

[dsc]

56. He was right and we did worse to Germany

The bombing of Dresden killed more people than either atomic bomb did. (approx 225k vs approx 150 k) and the Japanese didn't surrender until after the second bomb was dropped. If they were 'probably ready to surrender' why didn't they?

[hlthe2b]

41. Surely no one NOW can be anything but appalled

at the fact of Hiroshima and Nagisaki. However, I am not sure that we would all have that same strength of conviction in the midst of WWII as we saw the horrors of what our troops faced in Europe and the Pacific and knowing what had transpired among European allies from Hitler, among the Pacific islanders at the hands of the Japanese, and of course Pearl Harbor. I defend no one and no action. I DO, however, think that one must put themself into the time to truly understand the decision and the actions. Viewing back through the periscope of history yields an extremely distorted view. That includes comments made at the time.

[NewJerseyDem]

12. It depends

If he just wrote something like this once and there isn't any other evidence or anti-semitism than it isn't that big of a deal. He may have just met with jewish leaders and was upset with them so he vented in his diary which isn't that big of a deal. He probably didn't know that people would be reading his diary.

However, Bob Novak was saying that he knew all along that he was a bigot so I don't know if he had other evidence to suggest that he was an anti-semite.

[trumad]

13. Bob Novak ?

You mean the conservative right wing Bob Novack... More shit oon the bottom of Harrys shoes...

[NewJerseyDem]

32. I know

He isn't the best source, but I don't think that he would just make up thinking that Truman was anti-semitic before.

[birdman]

14. I don't think Truman was anti-Semitic

His words have to be placed in the context of the
time. Hell, in the late 30's a Catholic priest named
Father Coughlin virulently anti-Semitic remarks on
his own radio show. Charles Lindbergh openly blamed
Jews for trying to get the US into WWII.

Truman played a key role in the founding of Israel and
had a Jewish business partner in Independence. Judge him
by his actions.

[unfrigginreal]

15. Why don't we get some descriptors of Sharon...

and then decide? I think he's a right-wing fascist pig!

[Cassandra]

37. What's Sharon got to do with this?

[Evilwizardglick]

17. Taken out of Context.

I saw the Truman quote taken out of context on Crossfire. After reading the whole entry, it isn't abhorrent or anti-jewish. It is merely a personal observation.
http://www.rense.com/general38/truman.htm
"July 21, 1947
Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish ship in Palistine . Told him I would talk to Gen Marshall about it.
He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs.
Henry brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed. When the country went backward-and Republican in the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the D P program.
The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D P as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
Look at the Congress attitude on D P-and they all come from D Ps."

I'm certain many will jump on this, I'm of Ukranian origin. I've noticed that Only Jews get mentioned in the Holocaust. Why do we forget about the Ukranians, the Gypsys, the Homosexuals, so on. Didn't they die just as horribly in the same camps?
Look at the politicians of modern day Israel, doesn't Trumans words express EXACTLY their selfish and racist attitude?
In defense of Truman, the specific Jews he mentioned are the politicians. From the quote, it does not seem that he is speaking of the Jewish people as a whole.
Either way, the quote is not as bad as presented on Crossfire.

[Evilwizardglick]

18. Minor Mistake

DP stands for Displaced Persons

[Cassandra]

60. Thank you for presenting the rest of it.

It sounds like, in the midst of all sorts of populations he had to worry about, he resented the constant drumbeat from the few Jewish officials who could get his ear. I think we can see more clearly now why the Jews of the time were feeling very "selfish". They had a right to want to get what they could for their decimated population. Clearly, Truman was upset about the political ramifications of helping Jews (sounds like the Repugs of the time were rabidly anti-Semitic) and he was disgusted; at the Congress for forgetting where they had come from, at the Jews for concentrating on themselves to the exclusion of everyone else, at human nature for lacking the empathy he clearly had himself in his deeds, where it really mattered.
" Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
Look at the Congress attitude on D P-and they all come from D Ps.""

Those are not the comments of a bigot, but of one who has observed human nature and is unhappy with what he has found.

[dolstein]

20. That statement is certainly anti-semitic, and reflective of its times

Perhaps Truman's views evolved after that. But anyone who denies the statement is anti-semitic is obviously deluding themselves. Sadly though, I'm sure most political leaders at that time held very similar views. Don't forget that FDR knew about the death camps in Germany but refused to do anything about it for fear of provoking an anti-semitic backlash. Just listen to some of the Nixon tapes, and you'll hear many of the same sentiments. Nixon often ranted about the damn Jews in the Labor Department. Even reading some of the posts around here can be pretty depressing.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Classical_Liberal]

36. He was resonding to the original post, not yours

the orginal quote did read antisemitic. There is no reason to say he is full of crap over it. Withouth the preceeding and proceeding paragraphs it does look that way.

[Lexingtonian]

44. Hey, even the Zionists then were 'anti-Semitic'

Well, people like Hannah Arendt openly went around in those times and said that Jews of her time and many previous generations were incapable at politics, having no sense of measure in the public arena in modern countries. Doug Feith's plans for Iraq posted today on Dailykos still makes you think that neocons light up their bongs early in the morning. And to read 'Commentary' magazine does not instill much confidence that Arendt is always off by much in the present.

Then there is the politics around the 'Exodus' project, which Truman rightly imo sees as of the most brutal and cynical sort, in which Zionists graded various Jewish DP populations for desirability for immigration (Balkan/Romanian Jews were deemed 'the worst human-material' overall and only used when Western European DP Jews refused, preferring to emigrate to the U.S.). The Zionist opinions/rankings of various Jewish population groups after WW2 are to be found in their internal letters and are often nearly identical with the ones the Nazis held, and the political cynicism is about the same.

And you've obviously never looked at the American Jewish response to the State Department's refusal to let refugee Jews immigrate.

It was all an ugly condition at the time. And no manner of PC-ness and denial changes the facts. You can plead for sympathy but you are not going to succeed at arguing that Jews of the time were summarily misunderstood, politically adept, or distinguishedly humane beyond an individual level.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Truman likely had some negative views of blacks, too, but he

ordered the desegregation of the military, a radical change for the times.

I am sorry that this hurts you, Indiana Green, and empathize with anyone hurt by it. It disappoints me as well.

However, I don't know why we're surprised. As a white Protestant man living when he did, Harry almost surely had opinions about blacks, Catholics, Jews, and women that don't fit today's standards of political correctness. His opinions of homosexuals were undoubtedly even less kind.

All things considered -- what's happening now, the amount of time that's passed and the changes those years have brought -- I'm not going to worry too much about what anyone thought of those five groups in 1947. I'm particularly not going to worry too much about Harry Truman because his actions were right, whatever his private thoughts may have been.

I'm more concerned about how far we still have to go in treating others as we would like to be treated (a concept not exclusive to Christianity.) Even now, not one of these groups escapes being stereotyped. And it concerns me that one of those groups is still fair game for ugly slurs here at DU in 2003. Four of the groups are always defended, one is not. Will it take another fifty years for all to be defended and none to be stereotyped?

[IndianaGreen]

47. I was not prepared to read such words coming from Truman

I am an avid reader of the British press, and The Independent (in which you can read Robert Fisk's articles by paying a premium), so I was taken aback to read in this article what Truman had said about Jews. I was not prepared to read such words coming from Truman. As poster NYT, I read Truman's bio many years ago when I was in high school, and there was nothing in it that would give a clue to Truman holding any sort of negative views about Jews.

America has yet to come to deal squarely with racism and intolerance. We live in a society in which intolerance against gays and Muslims is openly accepted, and in some cases, encouraged by political and religious leaders. We can even see how it is okay to have one gender impose restrictions on the reproductive rights of the other, and this is done in order to "protect the family."

I think that the only difference between 1947 and 2003 is that now we have learned which prejudices are acceptable in public and which are not!

[NYT]

23. I don't think he was anti-semite...

I've read his biography. If he was, he wouldn't have owned and operated a business with a jewish friend of his. I believe he was simply making an observation based on his personal experience...as I have.

My brother-in-law is jewish and I would drop whatever I was doing at the time and go help him out if he ever needed me to do so. However, I've been around his family and I have found them to be some of the most racist/bigoted people I've ever met save the white racist of the South.

I remember specifically being at a get together at his parents house I was invited to and listening to his two uncles and a cousin gripping and complaining because a "non-jew" had just moved into the neighborhood and how the place was going to go to shit now that one had moved in. Yet to my face they were nice to me. Wonder how nice to me they would be if I moved in next to them.

I'm not sure if I really believe it or not, but I've read some things about how the Jews in Germany use to look down their noses at the gentiles which was part of the reason for the Germans hatred for them.

I do know for sure, and was quite surprised to learn that Hitler didn't just kill 6 million jews, but sent another 7 million gypsies and political oponents to their deaths also. But all my life I only heard about the 6 million Jews. Why is that?

I'm not trying to justify the Holocaust what so ever. Hitler was pure evil and what he did was wrong...which goes without saying. I'm just pointing out that with the exception of my brother-in-law, the Jewish people I have met personally left me with a bad impression.

Would I ever refuse to do business with a Jew or spew forth any racial hatred towards the Jewish race? Hell no. I'm just wondering about whether or not every thing I've read in my history books growing up was true or not.

Truman was a wise man. Again, I don't think he was anti-semite. He was just probably making a statement that he personally felt from his dealings with Jews. He did a lot for the Jewish people. In fact, from what I remember, it was a visit from his old Jewish business partner in the White House that convinced him the U.S. should support the creation of the state of Israel.

[Cassandra]

38. The German Jews here in the US

looked down on the Eastern European Jews that came after them. It's just a natural human tendency to want to make sure someone else is lower on the totem pole than you are. Even the Queen and Prince Phillip can be snobby and you would think they, of all people, wouldn't feel the need to let you know how inferior others are to them.

"I do know for sure, and was quite surprised to learn that Hitler didn't just kill 6 million jews, but sent another 7 million gypsies and political oponents to their deaths also. But all my life I only heard about the 6 million Jews. Why is that?"

I don't know why it took you a while to learn about the others killed during the Holocaust; I've always known about them. Everybody hated Gypsies (Roma) then and many people hate them today. Hitler also killed Communists, Poles, Russians, and many others for being, either political opponents, or members of races "inferior" to Aryans. The main difference with Jews is that the Nazis wanted to kill every one; a different order of magnitude.

[tjdee]

25. THE MAN IS DEAD!

This really :grr:

Every time I turn around, I have to see dead Democrats have these 'revelations revealed'.

Gee, what about Eisenhower? Will we get the same probing eyes to do an expose on Reagan when he dies?

Heck. I guess it's because no one would be surprised if any of the Republicans were racist kooks. Right?

[Evilwizardglick]

35. What pisses me off

What pisses me off is Crossfire used only the most slanderous out of context part of the quote. They should have used the whole journal entry.
But, begala just sat there, then Drier used the Bush Knew thing.
Greg Palast debunked McKinney ever saying that, it can not be found in the congressional record.
But again, Begala just kept his mouth shut.
WTF is wrong with him?

[Classical_Liberal]

48. he never heard the quote today just like the rest of us

and was put on the spot on TV.

[AP]

26. Historians criticize FDR for saying that there's no way that

he could have encouraged Americans to fight a war to save Jews, given the strong undercurrents of anti-semitism in American society. Things like this prove that FDR was probably right.

[NYT]

30. It's true.

There were alot of Nazi sympathizers in America at the time FDR was in office. There was even a Nazi political party here in the U.S. during his presidency.

[trof]

28. First grade

1947
Birmingham, Alabama
Wow, that looks like such a long time ago.
I guess it was.
I met Robert Goldberg and we became good friends.
He was always "Robert", not Bob.
He could really throw a football.
He lived right across the street from school and sometimes I'd get permission to go home to lunch with him. It's the first time I had matzo ball soup, which was OK. Kind of like Granny's chicken and dumplings without the chicken.

Sometimes at recess a few of the boys would call him "Jew-baby" and he would fight. They didn't call me Jew-baby, so I didn't fight. I guess I figured it was between them and Robert. Now I wish I had.

When I started fifth grade, there were a couple of new guys in our class, John and Joseph. They were brothers, but less than a year apart in age. Terrific athletes. We became good friends. Every afternoon, after school, we'd meet at the park on the corner and play whatever sport was in season. You know how at that age when you have a friend you want your parents to be friends too? I asked my Mom if we could have their parents over for supper. We were living with my grandparents (another story) so Mom had to consult Granny. She said OK, and I delivered the invitation. We had a nice evening, I thought. The boys and I played in my back yard till supper, and again after, until dark. The next day Joe asked me if I'd like to go to church with them on the next Sunday. I'd never been to another church besides my own (protestant). They went to Our Lady of Sorrows.

Since Mom was at work when I got home, I asked Granny. She said "Honey, John and Joe are little Catholic boys and they don't believe in God the same way we do. I don't want you to go to church with them and I don't think you should bring them here any more." Well, I didn't. But we still met at the park and played.

That's the way it was back then. I don't fault Truman. It was just the...what? Accepted culture? Grandpa had some good Italian friends that he referred to as "Dagos", but not to their faces I don't think. It's just the way things were.

[JI7]

29. kind of like lyndon johnson and african americans ?

they said some racist bigoted things. but also did some of the most for those groups at the time they were persecuted and denied rights.

[Kamika]

33. wouldnt suprise me

Everyone was more or less antisemite back then.. just in various degrees

[roguevalley]

39. musings in a diary at the time of deepest despondency

don't compare to a lifetime of works and decency.
When Harry and Bess left the White House, they did
it alone, walking to the train that took them to
Missouri. They were alone, no guards, etc.

Harry was a great man and a student of human nature.
If he was an anti-semite, find it in some other
writing or speech. One statement made in despondency
and anger doesn't make him anti-semitic. Actions,
repeated expressions and writings do.

Harry Truman is a giant and nothing will change for
me.

RV, a Jew who isn't offended.

[UTUSN]

40. So....Was Jehovah "Anti-Semitic" Saying "stiff-necked people"?

The poster above who said "criticism" does not equate with anti-semitism is spot-ON. I would think that CREATING the state of Israel OVER THE OBJECTIONS of whomever might count for a little something, like,------oh, I don't know-------rising above one's petty humanity to his better self? As for the continuing CRAP about his having dropped the bomb-----------the invasion that was the alternative would have been a WALL of pictures, very up close and personal, of deceased G.I.(s).

[Allah Akbar]

42. Wow!

He had the nerve to say that Jews are just like every other nationality and creed of human being on the face of the planet, FLAWED.

What nerve! Excoriate his memeory and erase him from the list of decent Americans.

[JohnKleeb]

43. then if he said that it was anything but anti semtic I dont think it was

He was kinda irriated that some were forgetting what the others went through.

[Cassandra]

59. Have you got a problem you'd like to tell us about?

Does it bother or shock you that Jews are human beings? The fact that you felt the need to say what you said makes me wonder about you.

[Clete]

46. Growing up while Truman was President,

his sentiments are not surprising. White people were blatantly and openly racist, anti-semite, anti-catholic, and you name it back then. In my fifth grade, there was one Jewish child and one Catholic child, me. We were always left out of play during recess, not invited to birthday parties and generally shunned because of our religions. My mother, who was Chilean, deceptively tried to pass herself off as eastern European and forced me to go along with her lies, rather than admit she was a Latina.

Years later, when I was in college, one of my friends, an ethnic Chinese American from northern California, said she went through pretty much the same thing because she was the only Asian in her school that was in a predominantly WASP area.

What is important is that Truman did not act on his feelings and this is to his credit.

[Mairead]

49. This thread saddens me

Here we have a big 'was he or wasn't he' about a couple of sentences he wrote in his private diary about Jews, but it's apparently completely okay that he cared so little about the Palestinian Arabs that he could actually be a prime mover in giving away their ancestral land (to Jews!).

Nobody's asking about his motives in doing that. Why not? Doesn't it matter?

[BigDaddyLove]

54. Good point.

.

[w4rma]

51. The Guardian left out, IMHO, most important part(for context)of the quote

Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes.

[SoCalDem]

52. .............................21 July 1947........................

Putting comments in a diary written THEN, under the microscope of TODAY, is not fair..

People were different then, the press was different then...

Judging from what little I have read of that diary, it seems as though he was generalizing, based on the people HE knew..

[mitchum]

53. Anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic...

since there is a vast difference between the two

[UTUSN]

55. NOVAKula Used It as His "Outrage of the Week"

But it smacked of self-service, since he has been accused of anti-Semitism, most recently when he was opposing the NeoCons and said something about most of them being Jewish. His "outrage" was that NIXON's taped comments have been balleyhooed while he claims that HST is being "rehabilitated" and the diary is being DROPPED for discussion by pundits.

[CWebster]

57. "A larger Consciousness"

"Some years ago, when I was teaching at Boston University, I was asked by a Jewish group to give a talk on the Holocaust. I spoke that evening, but not about the Holocaust of World War II, not about the genocide of six million Jews. It was the mid-Eighties, and the United States government was supporting death squad governments in Central America, so I spoke of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of peasants in Guatemala and El Salvador, victims of American policy. My point was that the memory of the Jewish Holocaust should not be encircled by barbed wire, morally ghettoized, kept isolated from other genocides in history. It seemed to me that to remember what happened to Jews served no important purpose unless it aroused indignation, anger, action against all atrocities, anywhere in the world.

A few days later, in the campus newspaper, there was a letter from a faculty member who had heard me speak - a Jewish refugee who had left Europe for Argentina, and then the United States. He objected strenuously to my extending the moral issue from Jews in Europe in the 1940s to people in other parts of the world, in our time. The Holocaust was a sacred memory. It was a unique event, not to be compared to other events. He was outraged that, invited to speak on the Jewish Holocaust, I had chosen to speak about other matters..."


http://www.tokyoprogressive.org/~tpgn/japan/10zinn.htm

[Jolene]

58. Two questions:

1) Why does the US recognize Israel as being a state? and
2) Why was there a Strom Thurmond?

[southernfried]

61. actions speak louder than words, no he wasn't

I read this article and, given the times and the nature of the thoughts, it's really not what people want to make of it.