- 09 Apr 2013 18:17
#14211139
Indeed, and all by the same author whom Kman is quoting. Keep in mind, this author, Rafael Medoff, is directly counter to every other biography about FDR I know of. Two of which have been cited in this thread, as well as the fact that FDR had (I believe) the highest number of Jews in his office in history—15%. There were all kinds of smears on him for handing the country over to the Jews. The old equivilent of Lew Rockwell used to call the "New Deal" the "Jew Deal."
Aside from Mr. Medoff, I haven't really found anyone in my brief research who has made a case for Roosevelt being anti-semetic at all. Quite the opposite. I also do think it's pretty damning, in honesty, to be asked by someone for a source which is given—but only after the context is edited out—as my last post went over.
It seems that Jewish people themselves were pretty happy with Roosevelt's compromise with the French.
But look. I'm not saying that Roosevelt would have had a modern conception of races or anything—though I do know that he was further along than most people of his time, if nothing else by virtue of Eleanor would would attend meetings of blacks and other minorities and push him to concede. But the Libertarian crazies need a boogeyman, and he has been it in the US since Reagan at least.
How does libertarian Newspeak justify anything it does? Change all terms so that you're a Nazi if you don't agree with the libertarians. How do you paint the guy that beat the Nazis into being a Nazi? He secretly agreed with the Nazis.
So far as I can track down, that's all the further this has gone.
If he's such a great intellectual and you're so proud of him, why did you hide him as a source?
And bias doesn't necessarily make you a liar, but it does give you a reason to lie. Especially if you're someone that thinks getting money makes you right, and you make money by lying.
And it is quite possible to be unbiased when it comes to history. This line of thinking, that your opinion is as important as fact is the first thing you need to purge undergraduate students of. I'm finishing my scrubbing this term, actually, by having had my students read Davis' The Return of Martin Guerre. In it, she makes lots of assumptions about what she would do in certain situations and applies them to the historical figure. In a piece from another historian, he criticizes this approach by pointing out that you need evidence in order to come to any kind of conclusion. Would a woman know who her husband is, even after not seeing him for ten years? We like to think so, but if there's no evidence, how do we know?
After the undergraduate student learns that he needs evidence to make conclusions—that is, be objective—he or she can go on to learn real history. You should try it, Kman.
The thing I pointed out was that the author used one word as a quote and then built a mythology around that without sharing any more than that one word. It's like those production companies that change around reviews to look positive:
Except the ad actually got three words quoted instead of one. Further, the bias is the same. We don't sit and wonder, "Why would HBO say that someone who hated their show really liked it?" It's obvious. Why would someone who hates FDR lift one word, give us no context to it, and then present us with a conclusion? It's obvious.
I can never die.
As I already went over, the Jews were happy with the guarantee, the French (who had—and still arguably have—a terrible official record with Jews, stemming from before and after the Dreyfus Affair) were happy with the concession on their part, the North Africans were happy with this. Now they can go fight Nazis. Or, I guess, FDR could have sat there and fought with the French, pissing off the Jews, and let the Nazis keep murdering more Jews in order to make you happy sixty years later. Maybe he made the wrong decision there.
Yes, when he was proven utterly wrong he still maintained that he was right. What a hero.
There is absolutely 0 evidence for this, but as long as you believe hard enough, maybe it'll work. It hasn't come close to believing in the Invisible Hand saving us, but maybe this time...
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
I understand your skepticism, but you may not want to disregard these allegations as conspiracy theory nuttery or partisan half-truths so quickly. I did some quick searches. Similar articles were also published by the LA Times and Washington Post.
Indeed, and all by the same author whom Kman is quoting. Keep in mind, this author, Rafael Medoff, is directly counter to every other biography about FDR I know of. Two of which have been cited in this thread, as well as the fact that FDR had (I believe) the highest number of Jews in his office in history—15%. There were all kinds of smears on him for handing the country over to the Jews. The old equivilent of Lew Rockwell used to call the "New Deal" the "Jew Deal."
Aside from Mr. Medoff, I haven't really found anyone in my brief research who has made a case for Roosevelt being anti-semetic at all. Quite the opposite. I also do think it's pretty damning, in honesty, to be asked by someone for a source which is given—but only after the context is edited out—as my last post went over.
It seems that Jewish people themselves were pretty happy with Roosevelt's compromise with the French.
But look. I'm not saying that Roosevelt would have had a modern conception of races or anything—though I do know that he was further along than most people of his time, if nothing else by virtue of Eleanor would would attend meetings of blacks and other minorities and push him to concede. But the Libertarian crazies need a boogeyman, and he has been it in the US since Reagan at least.
How does libertarian Newspeak justify anything it does? Change all terms so that you're a Nazi if you don't agree with the libertarians. How do you paint the guy that beat the Nazis into being a Nazi? He secretly agreed with the Nazis.
So far as I can track down, that's all the further this has gone.
Kman wrote:Lew Rockwell is a great intellectual and he is more trustworthy than any university professor, despite his bias, bias doesnt make one a liar, a fact that most of you university people seem incapable to comprehend. Your also forgetting that it is impossible to be unbiased when it comes to history, everyone have an opinion on economics and history, they might be centrist, left-wing or right-wing but everyone is biased some way or the other, that is just how humans work.
If he's such a great intellectual and you're so proud of him, why did you hide him as a source?
And bias doesn't necessarily make you a liar, but it does give you a reason to lie. Especially if you're someone that thinks getting money makes you right, and you make money by lying.
And it is quite possible to be unbiased when it comes to history. This line of thinking, that your opinion is as important as fact is the first thing you need to purge undergraduate students of. I'm finishing my scrubbing this term, actually, by having had my students read Davis' The Return of Martin Guerre. In it, she makes lots of assumptions about what she would do in certain situations and applies them to the historical figure. In a piece from another historian, he criticizes this approach by pointing out that you need evidence in order to come to any kind of conclusion. Would a woman know who her husband is, even after not seeing him for ten years? We like to think so, but if there's no evidence, how do we know?
After the undergraduate student learns that he needs evidence to make conclusions—that is, be objective—he or she can go on to learn real history. You should try it, Kman.
Kman wrote:No matter what source you use it will be "completely biased", there are no historians devoid of bias.
The thing I pointed out was that the author used one word as a quote and then built a mythology around that without sharing any more than that one word. It's like those production companies that change around reviews to look positive:
Forbes wrote:Salon’s Willa Paskin is quoted in the ad calling “The Newsroom” “captivating, riveting, rousing.” Here’s what she actually wrote: “The results are a captivating, riveting, rousing, condescending, smug, infuriating mixture, a potent potion that advertises itself as intelligence-enhancing but is actually just crazy-making.”
Except the ad actually got three words quoted instead of one. Further, the bias is the same. We don't sit and wonder, "Why would HBO say that someone who hated their show really liked it?" It's obvious. Why would someone who hates FDR lift one word, give us no context to it, and then present us with a conclusion? It's obvious.
Kman wrote:And your not a partisan hack mister flaming commie history professor? Tell me more about your superhuman abilities please.
I can never die.
Kman wrote:Jews were being given their full rights while a quota was imposed on how many of them could work as doctors? That is twisted and distorted logic being used there, if they were given full rights they would have been able to work in whatever profession they wanted to work in and not have a certain percentage imposed on them (Hitler imposed a percentage of 0% unlike the % that Roosevelt preferred).
As I already went over, the Jews were happy with the guarantee, the French (who had—and still arguably have—a terrible official record with Jews, stemming from before and after the Dreyfus Affair) were happy with the concession on their part, the North Africans were happy with this. Now they can go fight Nazis. Or, I guess, FDR could have sat there and fought with the French, pissing off the Jews, and let the Nazis keep murdering more Jews in order to make you happy sixty years later. Maybe he made the wrong decision there.
Kman wrote:I just trust Lew Rockwell far more based on my intimite knowledge of his incorruptable character, he was a man of firm conviction during the darkest days of the libertarian movement.
Yes, when he was proven utterly wrong he still maintained that he was right. What a hero.
Kman wrote:FDR probably had a machiavellian calculating streak about him, he probably understood that the jew hatred was not nearly as strong in the United States as it was in Hitler's Germany so despite his strong personal hatred of jews he tried to kiss the ass of the jewish community by doing this in order to gain political capital.
There is absolutely 0 evidence for this, but as long as you believe hard enough, maybe it'll work. It hasn't come close to believing in the Invisible Hand saving us, but maybe this time...
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!