NYU Scholar Compares American National Anthem to Nazi Salute
“made the analogy in a tweet that received thousands of shares”
You may remember George Ciccariello-Maher as the former Drexel University prof who wished for white genocide. Now he is at NYU and he’s still saying inflammatory things.
The Daily Caller reports:
NYU Scholar Compares National Anthem To Nazi Salute
A New York University scholar and former “white genocide” professor compared the American national anthem to the Nazi salute Friday.
Former Drexel University professor and current NYU scholar-in-residence George Ciccariello-Maher made the analogy in a tweet that received thousands of shares.
The scholar posted a photo of an article describing Germany’s 1934 ban of a football club after its members failed to give a Nazi salute at a game against a French team. The German team did not salute after threats that they would not be paid and that the French would not play if they did so because unspecified parties were concerned the Nazi salute would cause the crowd to riot. Ciccariello-Maher implicitly compared this incident to the NFL’s mandate that its players must either stand or remain in the locker room during the playing of the national anthem.
*cough* @NFL *cough* pic.twitter.com/H9SskJ8q4Q
— George Ciccariello-Maher (@ciccmaher) May 25, 2018
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The analogy is correct. The difference is not in the defiance and lack of patriotism but in what sort of country was being defied. The fallacy here is not in comparing the two signs of patriotism, but in the false equivalence between the two countries.
If you start with the assumption that all countries and causes are equal, and that all that matters is how we relate to them and implement them, then in fact it follows that this German team was wrong, and deserved the penalty, just as NFL players who spit on the USA in this manner deserve to be punished. Similarly it follows that deserters from the Wehrmacht should be treated with the same contempt as deserters from the US Army, and of course that the White Rose conspirators who attempted to kill Hitler should be regarded the same way we do Booth, Oswald, Hinckley, etc.
The flaw is in that initial assumption. All countries and causes are not the same. In the 1930s and ’40s, the USA and its allies were righteous, and Germany and its allies were wicked. Americans who sabotaged our war effort were despicable, while Germans who did the same thing to the German war effort were heroes. Right and wrong are not relative, there is a right side and a wrong side, and virtue lies in supporting what is right and opposing what is wrong.
It is not the means we use that makes us right or wrong, but the ends we pursue. The exact same means, when used for good are good and when used for evil are wrong. That is simply how it is, and no amount of academic sophistry will change it.
Very well put Milhouse.
“The analogy is correct.”
Sorry Milhouse, but while I will not downvote you I must say the analogy is wrong on its face.
For two important reasons.
Firstly, *N@zi* Germany was not equivalent to the United States as a country. Not just ethically, morally, philosophically, legally, or the like as you address, but in basic conception.
The NSDAP’s Third Reich was a (Single) Party-State, and even Party-Race. The ideas being that the Party was the State, which was the organic Aryan “race.” Not just a country ruled over by one party, but one that derived its entire identity from the National Socialists. The Founders never envisioned political parties *quite* like the ones we have and did expect power to be transferred peacefully.
When US courts refused to try German exiles for chucking the N&zi flag into the river while leaving the (at the time co-legal) Imperial tricolor intact under the logic that the latter was a national flag while the former was merely a party one, the N&zis responded by outlawing the Tricolor and insisting their cartweeling plus sign was the only National flag.
Likewise, the “N&zi”/Pseudo-Roman salute was never as apolitical, organic, or widely accepted as the normal salute.
The “military” salute was an organic, apolitical case of evolution for hundreds of years, the modern one tracing back to the middle of the 18th century. It also evolved similarly in multiple (European) cultures, hence why both the US and pre-N&zi Germany practiced it.
In contrast, the “Roman Salute”/Fascist Salute was a speculative romantic gesture that popped up somewhere in the late 18th century based off of misunderstood Roman literature and wild guessing, before being resurrected and monopolized by groups like the Fascists (to the point where even similar or identical salutes like the Bellamy One were removed). And to totalitarians nothing is apolitical, to the point where after the Bunker Plot H!tler forbade the use of the bog standard military salute.
So the normal American salute and the N&zi salute were not viewed as equivalent. Not just by us today. Not just by anti-N&zi dissidents like the White Rose. But even by generically racist and authoritarian goons like those infesting the middle and upper echelons of the Wehrmacht.
Ergo why this tard “professor” is even wrong-er than you think.
The US was concieved of as a nation that could transcend parties, and even gender and color. (Hence why several states-even Southern ones- allowed Blacks of proper property criteria to vote and a few even enfranchised women for a bit after the Revolution).
The “Third Reich” was completely beholden to one totalitarian, genocidal, racist political faction that monopolized all public expression. Including salutes.
I remember this moron. My advice to him was that if he wanted white genocide so badly that he lead by example and off himself. But as with most liberals their ideas/rules/laws/delusions (take your pick) always apply to others and never to themselves.
Yup, similar to how many famous Libs have armed guards at work or in public, but Gaia forbid any plain old poor schmuck who can’t afford to hire protection provide his own.