Yes, regimes that are structurally racist tend to shop around for ideas and methodologies from like-minded regimes, and learn from their mistakes. It's about creating a narrative that makes your ugly ideas look clean or at least historically inevitable / justifiable. The Nazis also looked to Turkey's treatment of the Armenians. Both apartheid South Africa and apartheid Israel drew on Jim Crow and Nazi laws, but had to do so more covertly because these ideologies were out of favour (to put it mildly). It is why veiling and hasbara have become so central to the Israeli apartheid project. You first point is a bit more debatable. In a sense, everything the Nazis did was racist because they were trying to create "Lebensraum" for a "master race". Exterminating the "weak" among your own "race" isn't seeing them as part of a different racial category, though. Which is what most of us mean when we talk of racism.
Re: your comment that other groups (socialists, gays, disabled) were sent to concentration camps.
It is my understanding that Hitler, Nazis, were seeking to "create space" for what they considered was Ubermensch, the master race, Aryan race. Those considered a threat to this race due to idealogy, physical strength or disease were considered a threat to the Ubermensch being less pure, resulting in the creation of more Untermentsch. Isn't that racism? If the goal is making space for a master race, killing whoever is considered in the way of reaching that goal is based on a racial construct.
Imagine if someone on a talk show said, "Let's be truthful, Jim Crow laws weren't about racism, they were about mans inhumanity to man". Here is why I think the root of the ideas behind such things matter: funnily enough, the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor passed by the Nazis in 1935 were inspired by Jim Crow laws. Nazi lawyers thought the U.S. racist jurisdiction was the shizzle.
What really scratched the itch of the Nazis was the way the U.S. had designated Native Americans as non-citizens even though they lived in the U.S. Ta Da: the citizenship portion of the Nuremberg Laws stripping Jewish Germans of citizenship and classifying them as nationals.
Now, imagine masses of people at the time the Nazis were cooking their stew understood, had a nuanced insight of how groups in history used race to exploit and kill others and feel righteous about doing that. Maybe, maybe they would have been stopped.
I do agree people should not be fired for sharing their ideas in a format structured to share ideas. But. . . it is a little entertaining to watch woke folks swim in their own difficult sea. I'm hoping Whoopi takes her two weeks to read Mein Kampf. . .or perhaps more useful for her edification and cancel culture types: Robspierre and the Red Terror.
Whoopie Goldberg seems to point out that governments define racism according to need whether to justify land theft or to create a common enemy. Martin Luther King pointed out that the establishment in the South gave the poor white man Jim Crow to eat. Likewise, in Germany, Native Americans were admired. When the Third Reich was accused of war crimes they tried to shoot back by pointing to the genocide of Native Americans. The treatment of Goldberg reveals another issue with the tight control over the history of the Holocaust: Should not everyone be allowed access to this time period and learn their lesson? Cementing the narrative could mean that younger people cannot connect to it. Or people globally are forbidden from formulating their insights. Who determines what millions of people died for?
Yes, regimes that are structurally racist tend to shop around for ideas and methodologies from like-minded regimes, and learn from their mistakes. It's about creating a narrative that makes your ugly ideas look clean or at least historically inevitable / justifiable. The Nazis also looked to Turkey's treatment of the Armenians. Both apartheid South Africa and apartheid Israel drew on Jim Crow and Nazi laws, but had to do so more covertly because these ideologies were out of favour (to put it mildly). It is why veiling and hasbara have become so central to the Israeli apartheid project. You first point is a bit more debatable. In a sense, everything the Nazis did was racist because they were trying to create "Lebensraum" for a "master race". Exterminating the "weak" among your own "race" isn't seeing them as part of a different racial category, though. Which is what most of us mean when we talk of racism.
Re: your comment that other groups (socialists, gays, disabled) were sent to concentration camps.
It is my understanding that Hitler, Nazis, were seeking to "create space" for what they considered was Ubermensch, the master race, Aryan race. Those considered a threat to this race due to idealogy, physical strength or disease were considered a threat to the Ubermensch being less pure, resulting in the creation of more Untermentsch. Isn't that racism? If the goal is making space for a master race, killing whoever is considered in the way of reaching that goal is based on a racial construct.
Imagine if someone on a talk show said, "Let's be truthful, Jim Crow laws weren't about racism, they were about mans inhumanity to man". Here is why I think the root of the ideas behind such things matter: funnily enough, the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor passed by the Nazis in 1935 were inspired by Jim Crow laws. Nazi lawyers thought the U.S. racist jurisdiction was the shizzle.
What really scratched the itch of the Nazis was the way the U.S. had designated Native Americans as non-citizens even though they lived in the U.S. Ta Da: the citizenship portion of the Nuremberg Laws stripping Jewish Germans of citizenship and classifying them as nationals.
Now, imagine masses of people at the time the Nazis were cooking their stew understood, had a nuanced insight of how groups in history used race to exploit and kill others and feel righteous about doing that. Maybe, maybe they would have been stopped.
I do agree people should not be fired for sharing their ideas in a format structured to share ideas. But. . . it is a little entertaining to watch woke folks swim in their own difficult sea. I'm hoping Whoopi takes her two weeks to read Mein Kampf. . .or perhaps more useful for her edification and cancel culture types: Robspierre and the Red Terror.
Whoopie Goldberg seems to point out that governments define racism according to need whether to justify land theft or to create a common enemy. Martin Luther King pointed out that the establishment in the South gave the poor white man Jim Crow to eat. Likewise, in Germany, Native Americans were admired. When the Third Reich was accused of war crimes they tried to shoot back by pointing to the genocide of Native Americans. The treatment of Goldberg reveals another issue with the tight control over the history of the Holocaust: Should not everyone be allowed access to this time period and learn their lesson? Cementing the narrative could mean that younger people cannot connect to it. Or people globally are forbidden from formulating their insights. Who determines what millions of people died for?