Nuremberg Laws, anti-Jewish legislation and the Jim Crow Laws (due Wed., Feb. 2)
 

In a brief few years, the Nazis managed rapidly to put in place a succession of laws--from the Nuremberg laws to the cascade of anti-Jewish acts that swiftly narrowed the rights and options available to Jews living in Nazi Germany.

In the handouts you have today, you read excerpts from Jim Crow Laws in the United States as well as comments about miscegenation (racial mixing) in this country. See http://www.learntoquestion.com/class...es/000630.html

So here's the question--or should I say questions:

Are the actions directed toward blacks that were in place during the twentieth century in the United States in any way comparable or related to the anti-Jewish measures put in place in Nazi Germany? Why or why not? Be specific--and explain!

Moreover, do acts like the responses to the Reichstag fire in 1933 (e.g.---the Enabling Act and related legislation) bear any comparison to the Patriot Act and other actions in response to 9/11 in this country? Again, explain.

In other words, is there a valid comparison to be made between events in the 1930s in Germany and events in the first decade of the 21st century in the United States? Why or why not?

This is a very good subject to talk about considering our country's current situation. Think about it, the Reichstag burns down=Jews singled out and here comes these Nuremberg LAws and Hitler's brutality towards them. In 2001, the World Trade Centers get hit by terrorists, and Bush passes the PAtriot Act, allowing the government to watch every move people make. MAybe there's some kind of connection...when these big powers feel threatened...pass a law that singles out a group and let's the government sort of take control of their lives, in a sense? (Even though we know the Nazis did secrelty burn down the Reichstag in order to do such things, Hitler had to pretend he felt threatened) I don't know if there's some kind of connection.....any ideas?

I think the only way you can compare them is by saying both set of laws are singling out one group of people. However, the Jim Crow Laws just seem to sort of just say what the blacks couldn't do. The only slight similarity I see is between the interracial marriages where the Jim Corw laws say that if you've married someone who is just 1/8 black, then the marriage doesn't count. But then I remember, as we learned today in those very precise Nuremberg Laws which weren't at all confusing, it was indicated that if you were indeed already married to a Jew, you may be considered Jewish also.And then, if you were married to a Jew, you would have to do "hard labor" (i.e. concentration camps). But basically, the two both forbid the blacks and Jews from mixing in with the whites and Germans. In the case of the Jews, the laws were a lot, lot more harsh and tried to be more accurate, but they came out really confusing in some aspects. In both though something I've noticed, is that the people making these laws, trying to keep the peoples apart are treating the targeted group as if they are not really people, and they have no say in how they are treated, that they should just go along with this harsh treatment.

Though the Jim Crow laws are wrong, they do not really compare so much to the Nuremberg Laws. On the whole, all the Jim Crow laws are saying is to seperate different institutions amongst the whites and blacks so they never have to deal with one another. This is not fair by any mean, but when you think about it, there was so much prejudice in the south against blacks, that if some of these laws didn't exist, then there might have been even more gang attacks on blacks. For example, on the trains and such things. however, there are other laws there saying a black can't be buried amongst whites. Now such things as this law are ridiculous. That is definetly pushing it, and that is basically what the Jim Crow Laws seem to do, just keep trying to push the blacks to the edge, and see how far they can actually go.
Then, the Nuremberg Laws basically come out saying all the ways you can be determined a Jew, few of which are actually clear, and the penalties which come as a result. And then they set restrictions upon the Jews. They are extremely harsh and unjust, and completely unacceptable. They take penalties a lot further and are more unfair.

So to conclude, you can compare the two laws based on the fact that they both set restrictions for certain groups and discriminate against them very clearly, but you cannot compare them based on degree of penalties/strictness. The Nuremberg Laws far exceeds the Jim Crow Laws on the basis of injustice and the scale to which one is penalized for not following the laws.

As for the connection between the fire and the enabling act, and 9/11 and the Patriot act, I guess they are somewhat similar. But, I think they also differ a great deal. The Patriot act was passed at a time when our country did actually need protection, and the president acknowledged that. The enabling act, though, was quite different. While I'm sure it looked the same to the Germans who had no idea what was going on, the country was not under the circumstances where it needed such an act enabled by Hitler - after all, it was his party that started the fire.

When it comes to the Jim Crow Laws and the Nuremberg Laws, I guess they do share some things in common. Especially when it came to the marriages - both try to be specific on what exactly constitutes as a black person, or a Jewish person, with the 1/8 rule, and the 2 or 4 grandparents rule. They both put restrictions on a certain group of people...but the Jim Crow laws are much more straight forward, and for the most part work only on keeping the two races separate. The Nuremberg Laws on the other hand, seem almost as if they are meant to dissolve all the Jewish people and their relatives from Germany.

Barbers No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls. This reminds me a little bit of the rule that no German person could have a Jewish housekeeper...but Im not sure that the reasoning for each is the same.

I think the parallels between the Reichstag fire and 9/11 are striking. After the Reichstag fire (an attack on the state), Hitler got the Enabling Act (which was threatening to the people’s rights), and started creating laws that restricted the rights of Jews, who supposedly were linked to the ‘Communist arsonists.’ After 9/11 (also an attack on the state, remember the Pentagon), Bush got the Patriot Act (which also threatened the people’s rights), and a lot of Muslim-Americans reported suffering prejudice, racial profiling, and even arrests and detention. In both cases, a big public calamity occurs, and the government reacts by assuming greater powers (to protect the people, of course) and targeting a culprit group (also to protect the people, of course).

As for other comparisons… in the last thread, I drew one between the Patriot Act and the Escape Clause. Both demonstrate a greater concern for stability than for civil liberties, and both were passed in troubled times (post-WWI for Germany, post-9/11 for America). I don’t know how Germans reacted to the Escape Clause, if they reacted (or knew) at all, but many Americans are comfortable with the Patriot Act because it gives them a feeling of increased safety. I believe, however (like Ben Franklin), that basic civil liberties should never be violated by the government. Just look at what happened with Hitler, how he took advantage of that clause. We should really learn from history…

(Note: I’m not suggesting that Bush is out to commit genocide or anything, I’m just pointing out that such temporary ‘safety measures’ can be dangerous.)

On to the Jim Crow laws. They do look very similar to the Nuremberg laws in the way they aim to keep two different “races” separated. Both prohibit intermarriage, but while the Nuremberg laws seem especially paranoid about preventing any possibility of “blood-mixing,” the Jim Crow laws are paranoid about just plain segregation in seemingly every aspect of life. It is also clear that their purpose is to protect the ‘purity’ of only one of the two races, because they prohibit the placement of whites/Aryans under the charge of blacks/Jews, but not vice versa. Both sets of laws also try to define their “races” to prevent confusion (though the Nuremberg laws ended up being confusing anyway—probably because Jews weren’t a RACE); as DJDeck33 said, “both try to be specific on what exactly constitutes as a black person, or a Jewish person, with the 1/8 rule, and the 2 or 4 grandparents rule.” One difference, though, is that while Jews were forbidden to even use the nation’s flag (because the Nazis considered them aliens), African-Americans were generally, I think, treated as Americans, even if they were kept from participating in government for a long time. And whereas the Nazis intended to completely get rid of the Jews, white Americans seemed more concerned with just keeping themselves completely above blacks.

I like the comparison of the Reichstag burning in 1933 to the terrorist attacks of 2001. Though there is a important difference- the German government orchestrated the fire while the US government is not directly responsible for 9/11, the similarities are many. Both Hitler and Bush used these national tragedies to take greater control of their citizens' lives using "for your own protection" as an excuse. Also like all of Hitler's subsequent legislation, the present day Patriot Act is titled as such to gain support for it, although Patriotism has nothing to do with being able to track a person's library books. I wish more people today were concerned that the government has taken away some of our civil liberties. Bush says we must comply with the Patriot Act because we need to protect our way of life, but in the process he is disregarding the very foundations our country was built upon.

I was surprised at the many parallels between the Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws. The agenda of both was to divide the country- one into Jews and "pure-blood" Germans and the other into blacks and whites. Both recognized one group of people to be racially superior to the other. Both were concerned with intermarriage between the groups. I thought it was funny that both the Jim Crow and Nuremberg laws defined being either a Jew or black by a specific percent of a person's lineage. Both seemed like weak attempts to apply science and fact to total nonsense.

Until I read cambrasia's post, I didn't consider the part about how Jews weren't seen as citizens of Germany by the NAZIs while on the otherhand blacks were seen as American citizens. It is a good distinction to make between the documents. It shows that in Germany, Hitler wanted to make sure Jews were totally cut off from the rest of the country- he took away their homeland and made them international orphans.

a little too close for comfort...creepy!
 

The similarities between the actions taken after the Reichstag fire and the patriot act after the 9/11 attacks, are astounding. However, while in both situations civil liberties were somewhat impeded upon, it is important to consider the severity as well as the circumstances. The Enabling act, implemented by Hitler, was much more blatant then the invasion of privacy which accompanied the patriot act. Also we must remember that the Nazi party fabricated the Reichstag fire for their own manipulative purposes. Nevertheless it makes me wonder about the possibilities of such national disasters, real or otherwise, leading to similar restrictions in the name of protection and safety.

There is likewise an uncanny resemblance between the German’s persecution of the Jews and that of Americans on blacks. Both single out a “race” as inferior. In particular the Jim Crow Laws on interracial marriages, which define a Negro as having “1/8 or more Negro blood,” or “to the third generation,” are very similar to those prohibiting German-Jewish marriages as well as the attempts to define Jews.

Like DJDeck33, I also found the barbers law, prohibiting whites to be bellow blacks (ie have black individuals cut their hair) particularly interesting. However, I think they may be slightly different in that they are more focused on the issue of superiority than protection, though it is just a theory. Also the Child Custody law which states that “to dispose of, give or surrender such a white child permanently into the custody, control, maintenance, or support of a Negro” is illegal. This is similar to the idea behind the barber law, and it is also interesting the note the use of the word surrender, which carries a negative almost violent connotation.

So basically I agree with cambrasia that, “whereas the Nazis intended to completely get rid of the Jews, white Americans seemed more concerned with just keeping themselves completely above blacks.” It is also interesting to note the comments on racial mixing which concern themselves with the “corruption of blood” and “purity of the white race,” just as the Nazis claimed to be preserving the German heritage. But while both anti-Jewish German laws and the Jim crow laws took actions against racial mixing, the Germans took this a step farther, trying to eliminate the Jews, while in the US the issue was more over asserting dominance and superiority of the white race.

Hitler's response to the Reichstag fire and Bush's response to 9/11 differ greatly in terms of their intensity (invasion of privacy and rounding up illegal immigrants is not quite like taking over the government!), but they both demonstrate a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis. In times of emergency, when the nation is threatened, drastic action is taken and things that would be considered illegal in normal circumstances are embraced. The biggest difference between them, of course, is that Bush is doing this sincerely while Hitler orchestrated the entire situation in order to achieve his own ends. So on a scale of badness, Bush's actions get like a 1 while Hitler is a 10. The bottom line is that unwise as the Patriot Act may be, Bush is not Hitler without the mustache.

As far as the Nuremburg laws v. the Jim Crow laws, the primary difference I see between them is, as cambrasia pointed out, that blacks were still considered Americans, while Jews were not considered German. As far as I know, no one ever thought about getting America rid of blacks. At the very least, they were important for the South's economy! The Jim Crow laws were just to keep them down; the Nuremburg laws were to kick them out (first by making them ghosts in their own country, and ultimately by paving the way for the Holocaust). However, in terms of the obsession with racial purity, they're virtually identical. I really couldn't believe some of the comments on miscegenation on the handout. For things that were written in mid twentieth century America, thery sounded eerily similar to Nazi-era Germany.

A whole bunch of people said that the similarities between the results of the Reichstag fire and 9/11 were great, but I don't see it like that at all. First of all, the Patriot Act doesn't take away free speech, freedom of the process, right to a trial, etc. It lets the government monitor people more closely, but unless you're actually doing something that threatens the country's safety they can't arrest you. I know, this is all speaking technically, but we're comparing what the US government can and can't do vs. what the Nazi government could or couldn't do, legally speaking. It's not illegal to dislike the US - there's plenty of people within this country that really hate its policies. It's also not illegal to have any political affiliation, whereas in Germany being anything but a Nazi was outlawed.

The Bush administration didn't actually suspend any civil liberties. Yes, like dem05 said, they can track what books you're taking out. But after being attacked by a certain group that desires to destroy America, isn't it understandable that the US government would be worried about having people with similar philosophies in their own midst? And it's not like any books are banned altogether (or burned), or it's not like you can even get arrested for checking out a book that the government doesn't like. All they can do is check up on you to make sure that you're not taking your philosophy too far, and wanting to attack the US/its people.

The Nuremburg laws are, to some degree, similar to the Jim Crow laws. They both strongly limited marriage. Also, some states used the whole "3 generations, inclusive" thing, which is pretty similar to the Nazis (but they used 4). However, it seemed like the German laws were more specific. They pretty much cited the punishment for a good deal of the "crimes," whereas America's laws more abstractly prohibited certain things.

Something I think is really important to note is that the Jim Crow laws were a response to pro-black laws passed by the government at the time. The smart residents of the South figured, Congress is going to pass laws guaranteeing blacks a certain amount of freedom, so we're going to make sure that this freedom is as limited and downplayed as possible. The Nuremburg laws, however, were pretty random, for lack of a better word. These laws didn't come as a response to Jews pushing for more rights, nor were the Jews rebelling. Also, these laws, though they followed a specific event, cannot really be blamed on anything but the ideaology of a party. What I mean is, the burning of the Reichstag wasn't even attributed to Jews, nor did the Jews do anything but be Jews. Finally, Jews had been residents and citizens of Germany for years; it wasn't a new development, and the Nazis a backlash. Therefore, while the two sets of laws share certain similarities, they're not exactly similar or even comprable.

Amazing! Bush kind of reminds me of Hitler. I mean Hitler was against Jews before the Reichstag fire. He clearly held prejudice against Jews goings into the situation (Mein Kampf) and used the fire as an excellent opporptunity to gain power and try to rid Germany of Jews, homosexuals, etc. He used the nation through propaganda and focused on the ultimate goal of dealing with the Jews once and for all.

Now President Bush (G.W. that is), has used 9/11 in the same way. According to reports taken before 9/11, and the movie by Michael Moore Fahrenheit 911, the Bush administration has always planned to deal with Iraq and Saddam. Bush used the Patriot Act to focus in on private lives for "the good of the nation" as the title would seem. Yet somehow, the United States went from "WAR on Terrorism" to a war in Iraq. Bush spent billions working on the war, wasted American lives, in order to accomplsh his goal of ridding Saddam Hussein's power, as well as that nice oil that comes from over there. Come to think of it...The No Child Left Behind Act is like the one that Hitler proposed, which we read in class. The only real difference is Bush hasn't designed buildings and super highways...just kidding. Obviously Bush hasn't killed millions of Jews, but you gutta admit, there is a lot in common.

Now with the Nuremburg Laws (I don't feel like typing out the actual title) and the Jim Crow Laws both segregate in the most extreme ways. They took away basic civil rights, such as hostpital entrances, and business to other races (because Jewish is a race right?). They took away marriage, banning interracial marriages, making all previous null and void. However, I have not seen city signs in the United States saying "no black person is able to live within this city" sure, communities were segregated, but not segregated by law (unless I'm way off...feel free to correct me). The other big issue is the fact that Jews were just regular citizens in Germany. They mingled in with society and didn't live in one certain town only. Another important fact is that Jews were a major part os society. They ran businesses, had big homes, and had many possessions (I'm not stereotyping, just giving examples). All of this was taken away from them in, just about, an instant. On the other hand, the Jim Crow laws were created while black people were still trying to elevate themselves on the social ladder. The Jim Crow Laws basically kicked them while they were down, and were used to keep them suppressed.

George W. Schnickelgruber?
 

Comparisons definitely can be made between the '30s and the 21st century. True, as said by GraceIsGone, the Patriot Act is not a crazy 1984 telescreen and it does not demolish most of our valuable rights, but it DOES violate.

As Ms. Freeman said, the burning of the Reichstag building was by far one of the most notable events in Germany's history, of which every German is aware. The 9/11 attacks are referenced countless times, as I'm sure the fire is. The frame of the building remained standing...did we not have the Twin Tower lights at Ground Zero for many months after September 11th?

I think there are definite similarities in the Jim Crows and the Nurembergs. DJDeck wrote: "both try to be specific on what exactly constitutes as a black person, or a Jewish person, with the 1/8 rule, and the 2 or 4 grandparents rule. " Both sets of laws set out to define who exactly is a black or Jewish person. I am an Atheist Jew; I consider myself Jewish by association. I was brought up celebrating Yom Kippur and Hanukah and going to sunday school. BUT I do not really see myself as Jewish. I have a sister who doesn't consider herself religiously Jewish either. She has blond hair and green eyes; she looks Aryan. It seems as though the Nuremberg laws weren't really looking at the status of the individual, but more at their surroundings...(Did they really have time to do so?). My grandparents are Jews, but my father is a Protestant. I was "born Jewish". How can I be born Jewish?! I can be raised Jewish...? I have to stop because this Nuremberg racial buisness is crap...and I am confusing myself to no end!

To refer back to what DJDeck was saying - "They both put restrictions on a certain group of people...but the Jim Crow laws are much more straight forward, and for the most part work only on keeping the two races separate", I agree. The Jim Crow Laws, like the Nurembergs, focus in on separating stores and benches and the like, but they are definitely more straightforward. GraceIsGone mentions that they are "random"..very true. I was just reading it over, and I am still confused.
Who REALLY is a Jew?

Check this out.

Nuremberg v. Jim Crow Acts. While reading the "Racial Mixing Debates beyond Nazi Germany", I could see the similaries. The looking for the perfect existence, the SAY NO TO INTER"RACIAL" marriage, the subhuman-ness. I could easily mix up these quotes with both cases. For example, Frederick Sullens claims "This is a fight for sane existence, for the perpetuation of the purity of the white race" This is true about both laws. The germans wanted pure germans [look at those NUREMBERG LAWS. they really tried to find their "kindred blood" with their insane Articles] while the americans wanted, well, purely white people. The only difference is that while Hilter and his Nazi party tried to secretly exterminate the Jews, America sort of stood on it's own. Like, okay, I understand that both countries had individuals with mixed feelings about this hating on others, but America seemed to be able to do something about that. While Germany was able to kill trillions, only few people in america were able to lynch [not that that's a good thing. it's horrible]. the diversity in america seemed stronger than it did in Germany [does that make sense?]. Both societies believed in those who were superior and those who were not. They also believed that those deserving would be the only ones who had the right to vote and those who married a jew or an african would have to be punished for their "crime". inter"racial" marriages were looked down on and they still are today. There are also generalizations. While Germans believed that the Jews were sex-driven ["jews will not be permitted to employ female nationals of German or kindred blood in their household"], the white believed that the blacks would rape their woman, steal their things, etc,. One of the Jim Crow laws fined those who would try to promote equality between black and whites - this is similar to those who would try to help the Jews.

Enabling v. Patriot's Act. After the fire, everyone was freaking out and didn't know who to blame. They needed a sense of direction and protection and Hilter was the source who provided that with the Enabling Act. After 9'11, USA had this sense of nationalism and togetherness, but they still didn't know who to blame or how it happened and everyone felt the need to be with their family more. They wanted to feel comfort and safe. The Patriot Act tries to do this. However, there are still problems with these acts. . With the Enabling Act, the government decides everything, the rules, laws and legislations. In the Patriot Act, it is no different. The government has the ability to conduct secret searches, phone and internet survelliance, access to personal medical, financial, mental health and student records. It "allows FBI agents to investigate american citizens for criminal matters without probably case". This takes away the first amendment [freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press], fourth amendent [freedom from unreasonable searches], fifth [no person to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law], among other ones. Because of these acts, the people got what they wished for and more. It was like they were trapped inside a playground, destined to play follow the leader for the rest of their lives or face a punishment. These laws also provided others with the means of being even MORE paranoid and believing others as "prime suspect", using illogical reasoning rather than sensible.

There is a strong comparison between both events. It proves that when things go wrong in america, or elsewhere, there is always a need to blame someone. We don't want to blame ourselves because "heck! it's not OUR fault" ... or it's just easier to blame others. It also proves that HATE or DISDAIN for others will never disappear. Just like War is a force that gives us meaning, hate is a force that keeps us going.

The Jim Crow laws definitely bear a resemblance to the Nuremberg Laws of September 1935. Both laws define who is a "Jew" or a "negro" by their ancestry. The point of both laws is to keep the "superior" race (the German race or the white race) pure, and to prevent it from being "tainted" by the "inferior" Jewish or “negro” blood. The Jim Crow laws, it seems, go even further by segregating blacks and whites in their daily activities, such as eating in a restaurant or going to the park. According to Richard W. Edmonds, quoted on the back of our handout, segregation is necessary to preventing blacks and whites from interbreeding.

However, as cambrasia noted, the Jim Crow laws did not favor eliminating the black race, but simply keeping it separate from the white race. The measures taken by the Nazis not only kept Jews separate from "pure" Germans, but they prevented Jews completely from engaging in such activities as operating a business. The ultimate goal of the measures was to remove or eliminate the Jewish population of Germany.

The similarity between events in Nazi Germany and in 20th-to-21st-century United States does extend to 9/11 and the Reichstag fire, as well as the Patriot Act and the Enabling Act. The Nazis burned the Reichstag building in order to create fear among the Germans. This fear encouraged the citizens to unite behind a strong leader. They were willing to hand over complete authority to Hitler with the Enabling Act, especially since he promised to fight the common “enemy” which he had created: the Communists.

Although 9/11 was obviously not planned by Bush, it did instill the same fear and unity among Americans as the Reichstag fire did among Germans. For a period after the attacks in 2001, all Americans, regardless of political views, seemed willing to back President Bush in whatever actions he might take to “protect America.” Fears concerning security in the country prompted many Americans to support Bush’s Patriot Act (and how could you go wrong with a name like that?). These Americans were willing to give the government greater power and control over their lives, in exchange for protection from the new common enemy: "The Terrorists." It can be argued that the measures established by the Patriot Act are necessary, and the intent is certainly more noble than that of the deceitful Nazis. However, our nation's fear of the vague threat of terrorism made us give up, rather too quickly, some of the valued "freedoms" which are supposed to define us as Americans.

Ms. Freeman, the first question isn’t even a question! YES, the actions directed toward blacks with the jim crow laws during the 20th century in the u.s. are absolutely comparable to the anti-jewish measures in nazi germany! More than I ever realized, really. I had recently learned about the jim crow laws in my u.s. history class, but never did I realize how strikingly similar they were to the Nuremburg laws. Many of the laws are very much the same—prohibiting interracial relationships/marriages, voiding all those that are interracial, and basically maintaining segregation in every way possible—blacks and whites have to be served in restaurants exclusively, different waiting rooms and ticket windows for buses etc. and that law about colored barber shops not being permitted to serve white women and girls remind me of that Nuremburg law (I really cant remember which one it is, but I remember we were talking about it) –because the germans thought the jews were dirty, sex-hungry beasts yearning to prey on german woman! So in some cases, such as this barber shop one, they tried to prohibit the interaction of colored people/jews with white/german females as just another measure to do everything possible from preventing their (white amd german) pure blood from being tainted by others (jews and blacks).

Second question, yes, again. I’m really glad you’re asking us to think about this, cause it’s really unbelievable to think about the similarities between our nation and nazi germany’s. like we talked about in class, when a huge tragedy occurs, it just galvanizes the whole nation—such as the Reichstag burning, 9/11, and the tsunami (except this one was a natural disaster so I guess you could say it sparked more of a positive response with people’s generosity). When horrific things like 9/11 and the Reichstag burning occur, the victimized country is suddenly in a very fearful and vulnerable state. This allows for the government to step in and step up to set up whatever “precautions” they choose because they know the rest of the nation is scared and susceptible. They can almost do whatever they want as long as they have the excuse of “safety and security” backing their argument. I mean, it’s really upsetting to see that much of the American people can’t see through this—that they have been convinced that they should give up liberty for security. For that is, essentially, what the patriot act is. And the “patriot act” is SUCH a misnomer already (but that’s just something else). I still remember that around the time of soon after 9/11, the nation seemed suddenly infused with patriotism and unity and strength—and the government definitely worked on this. Bush made it clear that “you’re either with us or you’re with the enemy”--- or somewhere along those lines. People want to feel like they are being protected by any means necessary, so maybe they didn’t realize that their rights were being MAJORLY violated. Same thing goes for the germans—all the acts post-reichstag never affected them in a negative way if not in a positive way—so who were they to complain? The german government made them feel like priority citizens, safe and protected from other “parasitic” races. I guess this is the kind of thing that happens when people put too much blind faith into the government.

i believe that there is a very valid comparison to be made between events in the 1930s in Germany and events in the first decade of the 21st century in the United States. not only is this strikingly odd, but it's extremely scary and threatening! we all saw what happend during Nazi Germany and how AWFUL that turned out, so lookign at the parallels in the pre-genocide steps of germany and u.s., can you help but wonder where our government is going ? i mean, sure, things have changed somewhat for blacks over the years-- but just think about the values and morals that were instilled in our government and upon which it was built. the way i see it, not too much has changed at all.

Until now, we’ve seen the persecution of different peoples throughout history in the U.S. and compared and contrasted their fates, but not really how the oppression of peoples in other countries compares with that in the U.S. Therefore, it somewhat surprised me that the treatment of the Jews in Germany would be so similar to that of Blacks in the U.S., as seen in the Jim Crow Laws and the Nuremberg Laws, both of which sets distinct limitations on the lifestyle of a group of people. Most notably, in both, there is the distinct emphasis in forbidding intermarriage with the idea that the gene pool of the “prominent” race in society would be tainted if the blood of others were to enter it and that the children from these interracial (although not really for German Jews and non-Jews) relationships would prove to be less adept than those from two parents of a desired background. I was struck by the quote of Richard W. Edmonds in Segregation Is It Justified when he says “if you mate two strains, one notably superior to the other, the hybrid product is inferior to the better strain.” I was shocked by this comment. It seems as if Edmonds took those words straight out of Hitler’s mouth!

Cambrasia said, “while Jews were forbidden to even use the nation’s flag (because the Nazis considered them aliens), African-Americans were generally.” I disagree because the African-Americans were not really treated as Americans but rather America’s property such as a cow or a sheep that could be readily sold, beaten, killed. Although Dorchester7 makes a very good argument when s/he says that “no one ever thought about getting America rid of blacks” because American needed blacks to keep the economy going. Yet, this reminds of me of when Jews were classified either as “useful” or “not useful” or “waster” and the “wasters” were always first to go.

Many people have said that the Reichstag fire incident compares to 9/11 but I don’t really agree. The Reichstag fire was an entire internal scheme whereas 9/11 was an attack from terrorists. Although of course, both did tremendously affect the nation, but for Germany, however, after the Reichstag fire, the country really couldn’t be classified as being truly in a state of emergency as the U.S. was after 9/11 because the Nazis had everything planned out and knew exactly which step to take next. Therefore, while the Patriot Act was a plan to actually protect the nation from anything even near 9/11 ever occurring again, the Enabling Act was simply another component in the Nazi strategy.

p.s. props to Horatio for George W. Schnickelgruber--haha!

There are definitely great differences between George Bush and his Patriot Act, and Hitler’s Reich, but like many people have said the similarities are almost too close for comfort.

The Patriot Act, a meticulously chosen name, allows the US government much more leeway in terms of collecting intelligence information and in their ability to spy on people. It allows them to do it without any or little reason and offers them to almost pass by the Fourth Amendment. Hitler’s laws take this to the next extreme. They allowed him to basically do whatever he wanted, including not only spying but any sort of monitoring that he wanted to. Both of these leaders, though I hesitate to put them anywhere in the same league, used the same tactics to introduce their laws into the country. The only difference is that Hitler started the Reichstag fire, while the US government had no control over the 9/11 attacks.

In terms of the Jim Crow laws, these are strikingly familiar to all the Nuremberg Laws. They segregate and remove some of the basic rights that are supposed to be given to all human beings. Only most of the Jim Crow laws were designed only to separate the whites from the blacks in separate but equal facilities. Now we know that in most cases this never happened but this was the intent. The Nuremberg laws had no such intent; they sought to continually remove all rights until finally a Jew was nothing more than what Hitler thought it was, a bug. One thing they both shared was the idea that the blood of both 'races' should not be mixed and therefore marraige between the two shouldnt be allowed.

The Blacks in the 20th century and the Jews in Nazi Germany were definitely treated very similarly and they were both unfairly (an understatement) stripped of their rights as human beings. Basically, both treatments included the attempts to completely exclude the Blacks and the Jews from the society. The Blacks were restricted from most social contact with anyone else, and so were the Jews. They weren’t allowed to marry, eat with, work with, or even be imprisoned with people other than themselves. The only difference I can think of between the ways they were both treated is that Jews are not really a “race,” but Blacks are. No White person can become Black overnight, but anyone can convert to Judaism. The Nazis were not so sure on what makes a Jews and how they are classified; I don’t think they knew if it was a Religion or a Race.

The response to the Reichstag fire (the Enabling Act) does seem to be eerily similar to the eventual response to 9/11 (the Patriot Act). Both Acts gave way too much control to the government just because they were attacked. 9/11 is obviously much worse of an attack and also wasn’t too “mysterious,” so the two events do not perfectly coincide. Their results though, the Enabling and Patriot Act, give the control for the government to potentially give up any basic human rights the people under their rule might have. Both Acts are considerably unconstitutional: the Enabling Act lets Hitler pass any law he wants on his own and the Patriot Act allows Bush to basically watch and observe any person he wants, ridding all Americans of their privacy.

Also, the name of the laws which included the Enabling Act, The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor and the Patriot Act both have names that do not really describe the purpose of the laws but more to be catchy and appealing to the people under their rule. If people hear those names, some might agree with them before even knowing what their specific purposes are.

I agree with DJDeck33 that, though points in the Patriot Act can be paralleled to those in the Nuremburg Laws, the situations behind both accts are very different. It might seem sort of ridiculous as times, but America really does need protection, though not only from certain Arab (-American)s. The Enabling Act was based upon the dogmatic belief that Jews were out to dominate the world, so their rights were taken away, when they had not done anything nearly as extreme as the acts of 9/11. And just as sweetstuff512 said, i think the only thing both George Bush and the Nazis did similarly is single out a group of people. (That was weird.. comparing Bush to the Nazis..) But "othering" has happened outside of these two events too. So there isn't so much common ground between what happened in Germany in the 1930s and what's going on in America now, simply because we are acting in response to a horrific event in the way we feel best narrows down our retaliation, and the Jews were simply a scapegoat for the Germans to turn against. And this takes away, also, the likely comparison of the Reichstag fire with our reactions to 9/11.

The similarities between the laws in the U.S. and those in Germany are undoubtedly comparable. Many similarities could be found in the laws. Specifically the fact that both the Jim Crow laws and the Nuremberg laws required you to know your ancestry in order to categorize you as a black or Jew. In both these laws races were sure to be kept separate. Blacks in the U.S. couldn't marry whites just as Jews in Germany could not marry "true" Germans. Also the similarity between the law where a black barber could not cut a white women's hair reminds me of the law where a Jew could not have a white women for a housekeeper. Apparently both cultures were scared that the Blacks and Jews would take advantage of women. It seems when you are trying to dehumanize a culture you make the culture out to be sexual predators.
Also lets look at the Patriot Act and the Enabling Act. The enabling act seems much harsher as the government pretty much has the ability to decide everything , even all laws. The Patriot Act does not give Bush to pass laws even if it is a big breach of our liberties.
Just as the Enabling Act is a harsher version of the Patriot Act the Nuremberg laws are a harsher version of the Jim Crow laws. The Nuremberg laws go above and beyond the Jim Crow laws, restricting Jews from even working. I completely agree with Cambrasia in that in Germany the Nazi's were saying that Jews were not citizens of Germany at all, while in the U.S. the Jim Crow laws were trying to seperate blacks from whites (which the Nuremberg laws were also trying to do).
While the laws are comparable, you must acknowledge the levels of harshness and the differences. The U.S. has a ways to go before they are on the level of Nazi Germany.

The similarites are SCAAARY!!!
 

The similarities are definitely there. The whole interracial marriage thing was very much similar it just like they switch the words "German" with "White" and "Jew" with "colored/negro" and you have the same document. After reading the previous posts some of the stuff I completely agree with. Like although Blacks were persecuted I'm pretty sure they didn't want to completely get rid of them. I mean America was built on the backs of slaves, so blacks were very important to the economy of America. Unlike in Germany where they wanted to completely wipe out all Jews ( even though their definition of Jews was vague). Something else that was similar was that the Germans not only murdered Jews but in the process put Jews to work like the slaves of America, and they did profit off of them.

At the time the Jim Crow Laws were in effect, I don't think Blacks were disregarded as American, in fact they were contributing to much of the American culture at the time. Unlike in Germany many whites did listen to black music and enjoyed it. In Germany I bet the only thing they thought the Jews were contributing to the German culture was only misfortune and vices.

Although I don't agree with the Patriot Act, I don't think that the President used it unecessarily as Hitler did with the Enabling Act. Personally I don't see how the German people could've seen the fire set at Reichstag a national emergency, especially when the Nazi party immediately starts accusing people without any valid evidence. Where as we had significant evidence as to who committed those horrible acts on 9/11. I just hope we don't go on massive man-hunts on anyone who appears middle eastern and start making up stupid laws again that make absolutely no sense at all (Nuremberg Laws & Jim Crow Laws). Somehow with even George Bush wanted to make some kind of massive crazed crusade about wiping out the entire population of the Middle East, with his I.Q. I don't think anyone is really going to really follow him the way the German's did Hitler. Oh yeah holulo that picture was definitely funny, but I can't help but wonder, hmmmm. Anyways the similarities between what happened then in Germany and now in America, is definitely scary!!! :eek: