>>1) WHICH Europeans are you talking
>>about? England? The
>>only thing they condemned was
>>Nazi desires to gain economic/political
>>control over Europe. France?
>>No. Italy? No.
>>Russia? Nope. Spain?
>>Nope. Switzerland? Not at
>>all. Eastern Europe? They
>>might have, but they were
>>all killed or imprisoned.

>>So there was NO "total condemnation,"
>>especially not where genocide was
>>concerned. Any objections at
>>all (and this includes America)
>>addressed the Nazis' plan for
>>Aryan domination.


>Are there not Jewish organizations today
>that search for Nazi officials
>today?

Yes. But that's really unrelated to European "condemnation" of Nazi actions. This has been a LOOOOONG time coming.

That's what I was writing about above.

>The question then
>becomes: When found, why are
>they allowed to be held
>up on charges or expedited
>to Israel for punishment?

They usually aren't (found, tried, or expedited).

>If they are in America

They're not. They're in the Balkans, Africa and Latin America.

>Why were Nazis even brought
>up for "War crimes" ?

Did you really ask this?

>Let's look and compare media depictions
>of the Jewish holocaust and
>the African experience in the
>Americas and on the continent.
>Why are Africans consistently
>misrepresented and in many cases
>Europeans depicted as "good" or
>"savior" of the heathenous people?

I agree completely (as I said before) with your statement that the genocide of Africans that has occured in the Americas and Europe is not sufficiently exposed, or understood. There's no contention here.

>Oh I forgot Jews control the
>media.
>
>My bad.

There IS contention here. Let me get this clear. You're implying that JEWS as members of a particular religious group have purposely attempted to stifle understanding and exposure of the African genocide. That's just wrong.

Jews (and others) in positions of POWER and WEALTH do this stifling. That includes anyone involved in the formation of our majority culture. Whether or not jews control the media (which, depending on how you define "jews," they basically do), the salient feature of that group is not their RELIGION but their POWER and their IGNORANCE. Just like the salient feature of Latino men who work in all of CA's agrabusiness is their DISENFRANCHISEMENT and LACK of power, not their ethnicity. We can certainly talk about the links between ethnicity and empowerment, but to say objectively that ethnicity DETERMINES empowerment (instead of saying that our current society makes such a determination based partially on ethnicity but also on wealth and location) is prejudiced -- as I'm sure you know.

Alek



>All I'm saying is that despite
>intra-group conflict among Europeans and
>European Jews, JEWS ARE STILL
>EUROPEANS.

I'm not a European, and I'm Jewish. Jews in North Africa? Not European. Jews in Middle Asia and the Mediterranean? Not European. It's only European Jews that are European.

>For the Afrikan, "siding" with this
>so-called "oppressed minority" is SUICIDE.

Well, I've gotten the sense from you that you feel siding with ANYONE would be "suicide." I personally think that forging sincere unity will only help, but we don't have to get into issues of tolerance again (or at least, let's do it privately).

>How can you unite with
>someone when you don't know
>WHO YOU ARE? That is
>foolish.

I agree, up to a point. Keep in mind, though, that groups often (well, usually) define themselves by who they are in accord with. In deciding who to ally with, they DO need to understand themselves, but also they need to understand the other.

Alek
________________________________
"Say some shit that suprise me...
My face don't change."