Printable View
There is a Second Generation website for any interested: http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/2ndGen_Holocaust.htm. In a sense I agree with you both, Pike, and Delta. Vengeance does not help, nor does it help the children of holocaust victims, all it does is transfer the sense of needing vengeance to the next generation. This is the way feuds start and continue down the generations.
I'm sorry, Dreamwoven, nothing you said above shows you agree with me at all. And if you, too, are going to inexcusably and irrationally blame holocaust survivors for the Israel/Palestine conflict and other future suffering because they supported righteous vengeance against their Nazi tormentors who killed their loved ones, you should be ashamed of yourself, as well. That is simply reprehensible. You are in no position, ethically or experientially, to negatively judge their deserved and cathartic vengeance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamwoven
And I checked your link. Not only is it not an official historical site; it has no accounts whatsoever of the Nuremberg trials, its executions, and its affects. You can't just throw any link out there; you need to attach one that supports your position. Considering how horrible yours is towards those Holocaust survivors; you will find it hard to find one.
I said in a sense I agree with you both. I can see both points of view. That is why I have not joined this debate on one side or the other.
You chose the holocaust as an example. How dare you use your descendency as a passport to accuse me of things you have no knowledge about? I suggest you stick to the points of the discussion and use another example.
How do you know they were happy, let alone "perfectly" happy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
I didn't claim "descendancy" nor did I "use it as a passport." And the one without knowledge is you; that's why you reprehensibly blamed holocaust victims' righteous vengeance against Nazi mass murderers for the Israel-Palestine conflict and other ills:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
"The descendants are relevant because they carry the legacy forward having been shaped by the victims themselves. Take a look at the state of affairs between Israel and Palestine. I don't believe justice is a fixer. It doesn't remove PTSD, bitterness, hatred - all things which descendants may have to shoulder and pass along to the next generation."
Not only is this erroneous placing of blame terrible, it is completely unsupported by any facts at all. If you are going to inappropriately--and, to many, offensively--blame victims' righteous vengeance for things entirely unconnected to it, you need to back it up. You have yet to do so.
How do you know they or anyone who participated in vengeance was unhappy? You certainly haven't provided any support for your claims. As to the Israeli Holocaust survivors, I read many of their stated desire for the executions and many of their statements of relief and gratification after they were carried outQuote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Nobody can know for sure if anybody was entirely unhappy or happy with their vengeance. If we need to do so to make either claim, the whole discussion is pointless.
For vengeance, isn't there always the danger that a a series of grievances becomes a cycle of violence? In moments like that I think Aeschylus's Oresteia is still a powerful lesson of the benefits of cool, honest, and fair justice. Now you don't always have that - but it is surely an ideal we should aim for. There are times for intimidation, but ultimately we must be 'civilized'.
I have answered your first question many times, and vengeance is not always violent, by the way. So, I will answer your question again:
"Throughout human history, many--if not most--people, tribes, and cultures could not and/or did not receive justice from a governing third power. The only justice they could attain from a wrong was through personally or tribally inflicted vengeance. And while that vengeance could be "exacted from a purely emotional state," it very often wasn't. The definition of vengeance, by the way, is: "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense." So, being exacted from a purely emotional state is not an inherent element of vengeance.
This applies to personal vengeance, where a governing third party is also usually not involved nor can be. For example, if our spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend cheats on us, emotional states will factor, but the act of vengeance to leave/break up with them can also be a rational one, as the aggrieved can no longer trust the cheater."
So, civilization and justice actually often depend on vengeance. Also, to use the Oresteia as an argument against vengeance itself is like using Macbeth as an argument against listening to your wife. It's both extremely anecdotal and illogical. And to actually compare those seeking righteous vengeance, like the Israeli Holocaust survivors, to Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes is just plain wrong.
I don't feel like I've done that. I wasn't addressing any point or post, I was just dumping my thoughts (yes, I am the kind of ******* who responds to threads without reading them in full).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
Violence certainly does have it's place - but how long can you make someone suffer for their crimes? Remember that Myrtilus placed a curse on Pelops, initiating the cycle of violence that lead to the action of those plays. The resolution of The Oresteia is the ideal, a celebration of civilized justice and the satisfaction of both sides against unchecked violence.
Say if all nations on earth launched their nuclear weapons, using 'vengeance' as justification, and that meant the end of the human race - well, maybe that would mean we were not good enough for this planet. If forgiveness can save life on this planet though, however much it deserves to be there, I'm going to ultimately advocate it.
I don't have to back anything up. You introduced the word blame in your text to grant yourself permission to accuse me. Please stop drawing preposterous conclusions just because you chose the holocaust as an example for the purpose of this discussion. I'm perfectly happy not discussing it so move on will you?
You clearly didn't read my post; so, I politely ask that you do so before misrepresenting my arguments. I never said vengeance was always violent, I never defended violence per se, and I never said vengeance should be protracted. So, your arguing as if I did is just posting irrelevant, inaccurate straw men. And the Oresteia is hardly the ideal of vengeance for the rest of the world; that is an erroneous claim you need to back up. It was a tragedy, which means its heroes had tragic flaws and made significant errors; so, their actions weren't even ideals for Aeschylus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetaster
And using your extreme nuclear war scenario to negate the legitimacy of all vengeance is as absurd as using the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify all torture. Finally, now that you do know that the vengeance of the Holocaust survivors is part of the discourse, you are comparing their vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and Nuclear War. That is reprehensible, and you really should consider the ramifications of your statements.
The only one who made preposterous claims was you. And you do have to back up your offensive claims blaming Holocaust victims vengeance against Nazis for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if you want to support them as true. However, since they are not true, you clearly can't do so. So, your making those claims against those Holocaust victims is truly sad. And I introduced nothing to correctly "accuse" you; I didn't need to. Your claims were ridiculous and callous, and I just correctly pointed out they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
As to the discussion being over, I'm fine with that. We can move on.
I'm not talking about non-violent vengeance, only violent vengeance, since the original poster mentioned the Icelandic sagas. If I didn't make that clear with my first post then I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pike Bishop
I feel the need to stress: I'm not a part of whatever conversation you are having. Since we are coming in on different beats, we aren't likely to have a very meaningful conversation. I suggest we stop things here, or we'll end up with Miltonic fire.
That's why I mentioned cycles of violence, and nuclear weapons. It's basically saying 'An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'. I know it is on me to prove what I said, but can you think of a place where adapting that attitude would not make good moral sense?Quote:
And the Oresteia is hardly the ideal of vengeance for the rest of the world; that is an erroneous claim you need to back up.
Yes, I've read Aristotle's Poetics too. Unless you can prove he was documenting the Athenian philosophy of composition, I'm going to continue assuming he was only recording his own thoughts on what makes good literature. As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born.Quote:
It was a tragedy, which means its heroes had tragic flaws and made significant errors; so, their actions weren't even ideals for Aeschylus.
I'm pretty sure I didn't 'negate the legitimacy of all vengeance'. In fact, I'm pretty sure I did the exact opposite of that.Quote:
And using your extreme nuclear war scenario to negate the legitimacy of all vengeance is as absurd as using the extreme "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify all torture.
What is reprehensible about saying the Jewish people can only take so much vengeance for crimes committed against them? This feels like an argument from emotion. Personally, since I am only talking about violence and not whatever you have been talking about, I'm as glad Israel isn't sending terrorists to Germany for 'pay back' as I am glad that camp guards are still being tried in courts of law. At some point, you have to stop.Quote:
Finally, now that you do know that the vengeance of the Holocaust survivors is part of the discourse, you are comparing their vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and Nuclear War. That is reprehensible, and you really should consider the ramifications of your statements.
If that makes me reprehensible in your eyes then I can live with that. That is only how you see it after all, and I don't feel I need to be bound to any code of ethics other than my own.
We are not on the same beat, and so aren't having a very fruitful discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poetaster
1. Firstly, if you want to end a discussion, the appropriate thing to do is stop continuing it; otherwise, you're just jockeying for the last word. I am, however, fine with ending the discussion.
2. As far as the cycle of violence; I am against it, as well. However, not all vengeance leads to a cycle of violence, and many other forms of justice do.
3. Aeschylus being born before Aristotle does not, in any way, make the Oresteia any less of a tragedy, nor does it make the actions of its "heroes" any less tragic or misbegotten. So, their actions were a perfect example of tragically bad vengeance, not a substantial indictment against vengeance itself.
4. And you absolutely negated the legitimacy of all vengeance with your poorly-chosen nuclear war and Oresteia examples. They directly implied that vengeance is inherently damaging and will lead to the world's destruction. You can't negate legitimacy any more than that.
5. Again, you misread my posts. I never said anything about all acts of vengeance by the Jewish people. So, your erroneously saying I did is an inaccurate, misleading strawman. I only addressed the specific righteous vengeance of Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis. So, what I correctly found reprehensible about your argument was your comparing that vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and in Nuclear War. That was reprehensible. Also, since I was only talking about Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis, everything you said about Israel's later actions was irrelevant to my argument.
Finally, we agree we're not on "the same beat," so there is no point in our continuing our discussion.