So apparently for lemmy.world mods pointing out that the word "anti-semite" is far more used than "antigypsyism, anti-Romanyism, antiziganism, ziganophobia, or Romaphobia” even though the Nazis targetted both Jews and Roma in the Holocaust, is, somehow, "Criticizing Jewish people as a whole".
Or maybe it's the whole "I don't care about any one specific race, I care about people and think it's always unjusct when people are treated differently based on things they were born with, such as race" that was deemed "Criticizing Jewish people as a whole".
Good old lemmy.world: they were called on it repeatedly so eventually walked back on the whole "criticizing Israel is anti-semitic" but apparently if you don't go along with the view that racism against a very specific group is much worse than racism against people from other groups, then you must be against that specific ethnic group.
My comment in text for reference:
All clearly as frequently used as "anti-semitism" /s
And yeah, I don't care about race, any race, I care about people, which includes that they're not unjustly treated for things that were not their choice, such as the race they were born into.
It's Racists who feel the need to care about a race or races, defending things for some races which they do noit defend for others, doing little performances about how others must care about those races too and that those who don't "are against those races" - for them race comes first, defining a person and dictating how they should be treated.
For Humanists race is something that should be of as little importance to how somebody is treated as the color of their eyes or how tall they are, and yet they see again and again race weponized by Racists to treat people differently even though those people haven't actually earned such treatment through their actions: in other words race fro Humanists is something that should be irrelevant yet has been turned by others into a pivot for injustice.
It's pretty obvious from your little performance which one you are
Okay, I really don't have the energy or health capacity for getting into an argument, so I hate myself for doing this, but since no one else speaks up:
No, Nazis did not target Roma in the same way as Jewish people. While both were seen as "rootless" and "parasitic", Jews were seen as evil, behind every misfortune, infiltrators, conspirators, actively behind every great crime in history. Eliminating Jews symbollically and materially was absolutely central to Nazi ideology, eliminating Roma was not.
This was also not an invention by the Nazis, but has had a long tradition in Europe (e.g. the myth of Jews killing Jesus making them a force of genuine evil in the eyes of many Christian thinkers) and, yes, also the Arab world, where it really took off with the rise of nationalism, similarily to how it was in Europe.
The claim of the second comment, of "but what about Roma [or Poles, or Slavs more broadly]" is used all too frequently to distract from the totality of extermination that was planned and carried out. Not "just" colonialist genocide, not "just" eliminating "unworthy life", but a genuine belief in eradicating evil, that characterised the Holocaust, targeting Jews specifically, as the "architects of evil."
And the claim that now, Jewish people have simply moved into the "Übermensch" category, as in the second comment shown, is precisely prescribing those attributes to them - as a people that now plots to destroy other ethnicities for being unworthy. That is way beyond criticising the genocide in Palestine as a colonial-paranoid genocide. Without knowing more of the context, its hard to say how heated things got, and what your underlying idea was, but you did cross lines here. It is possible to oppose genocide and settler violence without crossing those lines.
You're wrong about antiziganist Nazi views:
So, no, Roma people are not in the same category as Poles and Slavs when it comes to the Holocaust. They are actually in the same category as Jews, Hitler put them there.
Antiziganism has deep deep roots in Europe, and has its own version of the blood libel. That Europeans are often completely oblivious of the depth and breadth of the problem is just further proof of how deep rooted and pervasive it is. For example, almost nobody know that the Roma were legally chattel slaves in Romania until the 1850s. For another example, Roma communities right now face systemic incrimination and racism all over Europe and it simply is not an issue. There is no continent-wide Roma Lives Matter movement, there is no Roma History Month, there is no widespread remembrance of the Porajmos, and there is no attempt to link the problems facing Roma people today with that legacy. There are no Oscar awarded movies about them, their stories and their suffering. The main name used for them is still a slur. Roma history is a black hole in the heart of Europe.
NOTE: I only after already writing all this noticed you weren't OP poking me with a second comment, which sort of sent me into a bit of an emotionally laden wall-of-text, because truth be told, I am not all that well at the moment. I will still leave the text as-is, but of course, some of the points or the overall tone is not fair as being directed towards you. I do agree, more broadly, that the Porajmos is underappreciated. I do still maintain, that antisemitism was much more central to Nazi ideology, and their attempts to eliminate Jews were much more driven and fanatical, however.
I really do not want to get into this much further, I have an easier day today, but I am definitely not stress resistant enough at the moment to go into large and long-lasting internet arguments about a topic like this - but I think you are missing why people were disagreeing with you. I can cherry-pick facts from articles too. From the same you posted, which I reviewed before posting my original comment:
Or:
Such a discussion and disagreement all the way up to Himmler would have been completely unthinkable to Nazi ideology to have with Jewish people in the same way. Just imagine Himmler saying, some select Jews should be preserved for their worth as a race. Antisemitism dripped from every facet of Nazi ideology, it was absolutely central, and their efforts to exterminate Jews were going above and beyond all rationality. Them just being in the same category (as I said, both "rootless" and "parasitic", thusly seen as incompatible with nation states) does not mean they were viewed in the exact same way in practice.
You are also missing the point on where you are crossing lines. This is not about antiziganism not being a more pressing issue in many European countries concerning their present politics, it absolutely is, especially but not only in many Easter European states - and it has definitely been addressed in a worse way, the pitiful and late reparations given are a good indication for that.
This is not about that issue not being a fact, it is about you using that to downplay antisemitism and antisemitic structures, which are also still very much alive, and downplaying their absolutely essential and central role in Nazi ideology historically. That is the issue. Even if you did not intend to do it, you reproduced antisemitic dog-whistling and whataboutism.
And even though in some countries it is less than antiziganism for sure (even though - sidenote, a very numbing part of reality is, that antisemitism has been reduced more thoroughly from parts of Europe, because Jews where wiped out and displaced more thoroughly by the Nazis, so there were none left to reproduce the old stereotypes against in everyday live afterwards), and some organisations have wrongly utilised the term "antisemitism" to try and silence opposition - writing out "anti-semitism" in quotes, essentially doing a "but #alllivesmatter" thing about races. That is classic downplaying behaviour.
Antisemitic crimes are well and alive, I know only the statistics for Germany, and not off the top of my head, and I don't have the strength to look those up now, too - but even just casual shit like swastikas spray painted on historical Jewish graveyards (is a regular occurrence around where I live) or videos going viral of some dude off the street saying "I am against Nazis, but I think Hitler did some stuff right concerning some people, you know which ones I mean." - things like that still happen. Hell, Jewish spaces here in Germany are often ridiculously in need of security and high walls, and that is not all just their paranoia - there have been terrorist attacks on them, e.g. in Halle not too long ago for one attack that made bigger news. There have been people wearing the Kippa attacked in the street. That all happens.
Also: Analysing how fascist elements are active in Israel, and some structures have fascist characteristics is completely okay. Resolutely claiming them to be "Nazis" is at best blind towards history and Nazism, and how it actually played out and what its ideological foundations were/are - and at worst, an actual antisemitic dogwhistle you have, I hope accidentally, reproduced.
And again: This is part of a century old history, reproduced from generation to generation, and cause of one of the most horrid crimes committed against humanity - which is why the things you said are indistuingishable from dog whistles and concern trolling and, yes, antisemitism. I truly believe you did not want to communicate it like this, but you did reproduce the same arguments. And it is possible to try and bring across those points without crossing those lines.
I really can't invest much more energy into this, but it seems you are still emotionally invested in your comments getting removed, hence me getting poked with a stick after your first answer. Which is why I did not want to write anything at first, but I hope, even though I must admit, I was getting a bit dismissively emotional there, I could still bring across better what the actual problem was. I don't think I will have another answer in me, especially since probably no one but us two will be reading it anyway days after the fact.
Take care buddy. Poking this shit is stressful as it is, no need to make yourself worse.
I'll just mention one factual error in your writing, that discussions and disagreements about the fate of Jews among Nazis are unthinkable. 1939-1940 discussions about the Gypsy Question were in the same period that the Nazis were debating what to do to the Jews. In the summer of 1940 the Nazis were approving the Madagascar Plan. It was in January 1941 when they decided on the Final Solution. Until then they were putting Jews in ghettos "pending a decision". Which means, there were discussions ongoing up until the Wannsee Conference.
Again, take care, none of this is worth your health.
You are right, and thank you.
Still, I have to add one small thing, quickly, because I did indeed not communicate what I meant well for that point: My point there was about Himmler having (superstitiously) thought of some "pure" Roma people potentially being essentially a worthy "Aryan precursor race" - that belief also being connected to his expeditions to Tibet/India. That was the point I maintain would have been completely unthinkable for Nazis to even entertain for Jewish people, whom they deemed as fundamentally, irredeemably evil and without worth. And while, yes, things like the Madagascar plan (essentially a less direct form of genocide) were discussed, I maintain, that the implementation of finding, registering and exterminating of Jewish people after it was decided upon as a "solution" was more "urgent" to the Nazi state.
We are all living the intergenerational consequences of the crimes and delusions of those fuckers.
My Greek yiayia was talking about being a kid during the occupation and being hungry. Intergenerational trauma: I feel horrible throwing expired bread away. They supposedly admired us for being Greeks and at the same time subjected us to famine and massacres.
I maintain that it is also intergenerational trauma and abuse that we are brought to splitting hairs about ordering nightmares.
Take care.