WALT DISNEY: THE ANTI SEMITE DEBATE

Walt Disney is the creative genius that gave 90's kids a childhood along with happiness to generations of Americans. However, his name has one negative parasite on it after all these years and that is the rumor (or fact) that he was an anti-semite. He basically is getting in trouble posthumously for having what was once an 1,000 year popular opinion.

One of the hardest things to do is prove someone isn't racist. Sure they can be nice to someone of a particular race openly but then that seems forced and fake. What we have is a back and forth of people's word against each other and select few events.

An article published by jsn.org written by Rafael Medoff stated:

“Of the Jews who worked [with Disney], it was hard to find any who thought Walt was an anti-Semite,” Gabler reported. “Joe Grant, who had been an artist, the head of the model department, and the storyman responsible for Dumbo... declared emphatically that Walt was not an anti-Semite. ‘Some of the most influential people at the studio were Jewish,’ Grant recalled, thinking no doubt of himself, production manager Harry Tytle, and Kay Kamen [head of Disney’s merchandising arm], who once quipped that Disney's New York office had more Jews than the Book of Leviticus. Maurice Rapf concurred that Walt was not anti-Semitic; he was just a ‘very conservative guy.’”


Here we have a situation resembling "I'm not racist, my best friend is (insert race here)" Does having Jewish people working for him in upstanding positions make Disney not racist? it definitely helps his case but doesn't cover him completely. Again, all we have is witness accounts. If I was a racist asshole at the head of a huge company filled with talented Jewish people making me successful I would be nice to them as well, and also still be a racist asshole.

The other side of the debate has people's witness accounts as well,

"On the other hand, one former Disney animator, David Swift, has claimed he heard Walt make an anti-Semitic remark, and another ex-staffer, David Hilberman, has alleged that one employee was fired because he was Jewish. (However, according to Gabler, Disney himself was rarely involved in firing anyone except the top brass). In addition, the original animated version of the “Three Little Pigs” portrayed the Big Bad Wolf as a stereotypically Jewish peddler, although after complaints, the segment was altered."

Think about it guys... Why would Disney go out of his way to make the wolf Jewish when his entire goal in the movie is chasing after pigs? Doesn't make any sense. As we know from psychology witness accounts are about as reliable as jet fuel melting steel beams. Who knows what influenced the perceptions of these people to make the claims they did.

The concrete evidence definitely stacks in the favor of Disney being a supporter of Jewish people based on the numerous donations he made and the lack of any hard evidence to the contrary. In fact, I wonder how rumors of this magnitude even start when there is no concrete examples to base the claims off of.

Turns out that Walt has been tragically called Anti-Semitic by association, as explained in the following:

The “anti-Semitic industry lobbying group” with which Disney was associated was the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The group’s statement of principles said nothing about Jews; its declared purpose was to prevent “Communist, Fascist, and other totalitarian-minded groups” from gaining a foothold in Hollywood.... But some of its other members were accused of being privately anti-Semitic, and in general it had a reputation as being reactionary... Walt Disney certainly was aware of the MPA’s purported anti-Semitism, but he chose to ignore it… The price he paid was that he would always be lumped not only with anti-Communists but also with anti-Semites.”

Here we have reached the 2nd objective of my blog which is to clear up a name in history. Scream it from the mountain tops people, Walt Disney was not an anti-semite. It seems like the only thing he hated was reasonably priced food and thin people, judging by Disneyland today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PEOPLE YOU SHOULD KNOW: PART 2- ALAN TURING

Alan Turing has had some fame as of late thanks to the brilliant movie about his life called The Imitation Game which I highly recommend. Benedict Cumberbatch played the mathematical genius that Turing was very well and this post serves as a further insight into the man that he was and the reason everyone should know his name.

Turing was born in Britain in the early 19th century and was gifted from day one. His parents and family friends all agreed that in his early life he showed, as they put it, "the personality disorder that leads someone to become a great mathematician." At the age of seven while on a family picnic, Alan noticed that the families he was with had forgotten any sweetener for their tea. By studying the flight patterns of the bees in the surrounding area, he found the main source of their honey and brought it back to the picnic. Seven years old, people. Seven.

Another anecdote that shows this further is about when Alan's first bike began to break down. He noticed that every 4 or so rotations of the bike chain would cause it to fall off the tracks and break. He rigged a machine to anticipate when this would happen based on when he predicted the chain would break and place the chain back where it was supposed to be. Most 13 year- olds would buy a new chain, that was too boring for Alan. In fact, Alan apparently told his mother that buying a new chain didn't even cross his mind.

Alan Turing would grow up to be a pioneer computer scientist, mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, mathematical biologist, and marathon and ultra distance runner. Also, he is essentially the inventor of something you might of heard of recently called the computer.

Back then he called it the Turing Machine and it was used to crack the German army's formerly unbreakable code called Enigma, basically winning the war for the Allies. It is estimated that Alan's work cut 3-5 years off of the war and saved countless lives because of it. During his work on code breaking, Alan, who never was one for social graces, would bring in apples for everyone that he worked with as his way of reaching out. Some of you might have connected the dots already.

After the war he was the pioneer on the discovery of several scientific findings, one being on the chemical basis of morphogenesis, and predicted oscillating chemical reactions such as the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction that wouldn't emerge until the 1960's.

So out of everything I've stated above, why is it that it took 70 years for us to finally give this man the recognition he deserves? This is because in the 3 years before Alan's mysterious death, he was convicted of being a homosexual and sentenced to hormone therapy. This eventually lead to Alan's alleged suicide by poisoning in 1952. Well, someone who was very influential to the past 2 decades knew he had Alan to thank for his success.

That man was Steve Jobs. Ever wonder why Apple is called Apple? Ever wonder why their logo was rainbow? It is rumored that Steve Jobs made these decisions as a silent homage to the great man Alan Turning was.

Looking at the big picture here, there is no way we could quantify the progress we made because of Alan or what we would be like if he had never existed. What we can conclude is that Alan Turing is arguably the most important person to ever have lived in the 20th century and he was killed (or driven to suicide) because of something as trivial as sexual orientation. Of course now we look at this as immoral because it is, however, this brings up an alarming thought.

Who is the Alan Turing of our time? And have we built a society that allows him/her to grow and change the world or hate themselves for something they can't change? Research shows that women in America are less likely to pursue careers in science because of the patriarchy and this is saddening. The female Alan Turing could be out there being told that she would make a better housewife or mother rather than saving lives and progressing humanity.

This was a short summary of the great man Alan Turing was and I suggest you all read further into his life and work. Not only to honor him but to remember that the strange and peculiar people of today could be the genius that change the world tomorrow. Alan was one of the most gifted minds of the century and who knows where we would be today if he had lived a full life and was accepted for who he was.


More on Turing:

http://www.systemtoolbox.com/article.php?history_id=3

PEOPLE YOU SHOULD KNOW: PART 1- SIMO HAYHAH

Simo Hayhah was a simple farmer and hunter providing for his small family in the harsh forests of Finland leading into WWII. This man should be honored by all people as a example of how far a man will go to protect his family and the land he loves.

Simo grew up learning the layout of his farm and the forest around it and when he came of age, completed his mandatory year of army service at age 25. Even though he had only served a year, he was honorably discharged (my new band name) having achieved the rank of corporal. His next job was with the Finish Civil Guard where he was given what he would later become infamous for, a Russian modified Mosin-Nagat rifle. At the end of his service there it is said that he could hit a target 500 feet away 16 times in a minute. I think the only thing I've hit 16 times a minute is the Tinder "like" button.

1939 arrives. Hitler becomes the world's worst neighbor and Stalin invades Finland. The first town his army's reach is Simo's. The Finnish soldiers were as outnumbered as the Russian's were out skilled. The Finnish used a guerrilla style warfare tactic that they called "Motti". They knew the Russians had to use the roads to travel because they couldn't navigate the forest. So they would hide, wait until the Russians passed, and ambush from all sides. Also the size of the Russian army had it's own disadvantages that the Finnish were able to capitalize on. Different battalions spoke different dialects of Russian so in battle communication would fall apart quickly. Also, this coincidentally was the harshest winter in Finland in a long time. To put that into perspective, the winter was so severe even the Russians couldn't handle it. If you listen closely, you can hear Napoleon Bonaparte laughing from beyond the grave.

However the Finish being outnumbered did take a toll as the original 50 soldiers began to lessen and lessen every week. Simo decided to take it to the next level. He ventured out into the forest dressed in all white camouflage with his Mosin-Nagat and began protecting his country on a whole new level. Using only his iron sights, because a scope could give away his location with the glare from the sun, he killed any Russian solider foolish enough to cross into Finland.

Soon he was known by the Russian army as "The White Death" and became that front of the war's top priority. Soon, instead of patrols and scouts coming his way, it was full batallions and anti-sniper teams. Even those couldn't stop The White Death who was a ghost in the nightmares of Russian soldiers.

Stories of The White Death spread across the Soviet ranks and they responded with counter sniper teams and artillery strikes, which all failed miserably. Eventually a sniper barely missed Simo's head and hit a tree next to him. Unfortunately for Simo that was an explosive round and it sent Simo into a coma.

For 11 days, then he woke up on the day the Winter War was over.

Over the course of 100 days, Simo had killed an estimated 500 Soviet soldiers with his rifle, sub machine gun, and knife, backed by Simo's determination to protect his family.

Simo lived to be 97 years old and is a hero in Finnish history, as he should be.

(December 17, 1905 – April 1, 2002)

Conact me on here or on Twitter (@externaljew) with people you want to see me write about! Till next time!

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: HISTORY’S FAVORITE RACIST.

Many regard good ol’ Honest Abe as a champion of race relations and someone who was far ahead of his time. He was our 5th President if your mom dropped you when you were little and is one of the most respected men ever to be in the White House. Further digging into the man he really was shows that he was a little too honest in his beliefs. In a debate with Stephen A. Douglas, a representative from Illinois, he said the following:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. (1)

There’s very little redeeming value in the above statement. The first sentence is about as clear cut as is can be, coming just short of him flat out stating, “I hate black people.” This was in 1858, a time period that was so racist “negro” was considered polite. Fortunately for us, we have access to the transcript of the debate allowing us to analyze this further. I relate this transcript to waves eroding a beach front that is the Abraham Lincoln we once revered. What is alarming to me about the above comment is that he opened with it, meaning that it wasn’t a curve ball question or “gotcha” journalism. It can also be logically concluded that he hadn’t planned on speaking about this subject. The couple sentences he said before the above statement spell this out clearly,

While I was at the hotel to—day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. (2)

Firstly, not only was that his opening statement, it was also his opening joke. It is very telling and upsetting that the mention of equality was met with “great laughter”. Secondly, the transcriber of the debate was so racist he separated the word “today”. Another distasteful statement rose it’s ugly head a couple sentences later when the subject switched to interracial marriage,

I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] (2)

Lincoln states that even if it was legal for whites and blacks to marry, he still couldn’t imagine doing it. That’s like when Leslie, a high school crush of mine, said to me after I asked her out, “I have a boyfriend, but even if I didn’t, I don’t think I would say yes.”

What I would like to discover is how we developed this skewed view of Abraham Lincoln in the first place. My theory is that people read the statements he made about opposing slavery then stopped reading further. Lincoln did say that slavery was wrong but a cornerstone for the Southern economy, therefore some kind of necessary evil in his eyes. Part of him being mislabeled as a race relations visionary was his Emancipation Proclamation, even though it did very little at the time of it’s relevance. Lincoln’s intentions were not to end slavery because it was wrong, even though he grew to believe that. It was because he believed that a country that is half free and half slaved couldn’t function properly.

However, my Grandmas words of discouragement rattle about my brain. Why tarnish the image Abe has in today's world? Simply put, because it is a pernicious belief that slavery ended in 1865 and then all was well again. This is tragically wrong and a failure to our school system, as I remember being taught this myself in my early education. The truth is that from 1865 to 1900 there were still slaves in the South and indentured servants in the North. From 1900-1975 is considered to be the era of segregation and discrimination. From then until now people have considered this to be an era of extreme progress, but I think that historians looking back on this time will do so with cringed faces and shaking heads at the illusion of racial progress Americans think they have made. This is in part because of skewed representations of history, such as Abe Lincoln and others, that water down the horrific treatment of black people in our country's early history. It seems like every 10 years the US government says slavery was 100 more years earlier than it actually was, which both steals the historical context for African Americans to dissent and is a sugarcoating of someone else's suffering.

The two sources I used (amongst others not cited) are below and as always feel free to research these people yourself to see what else you can learn! Till next time!


(1) Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

(2) http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-lincoln-douglas-debates-4th-debate-part-i/

Welcome to Day Ruiners!

Welcome! Thank you for visiting my humble blog. My only hopes for each subsequent post are that you leave my blog having laughed, learned, and had your day somewhat ruined. My posts will fall into one of two catgeories. Either I will expose a historical figure who is revered as a "good" person and argue that they aren't or vice versa. Most will probably be the former.

"Why Anthony? Why attack these revered and inspirational figures? Aren't you just a little cyncial and bitter? You should really just grow up and stop disappointing everyone you meet."

Now, I usually agree with what my Grandma says but this time she's wrong. I see myself as more of a realist in a world of people that idealize things. In this blog I will have posts about Mother Theresa, Abe Linclon, Gandhi, and other historical figures that have very strong inspirational ties to people all over the world. I would like to state at the beginning that I don't expect to change anyone's views on anything contained in this blog. People are always going to believe what they want to believe despite how much information to the contrary there is around them.

Therefore, for yours and my own good, take a deep breath and open your mind to the possibility of it being dramatically changed by the contents of this blog. Also, don’t accept what I tell you in this text as absolute truth either, because like you I am just a small part of an average sized species on a relatively insignificant rock floating through a vast, nightmarish, and fascinating universe.

What I can promise you is the most accurate knowledge to my ability, credible and numerous sources, and hopefully enough laughter to ease the inevitable pain of the burden knowledge has. Through my own experiences I have felt the anger and frustration of my beliefs being challenged. I understand how upsetting it can be when new findings shatter an image of an event or person that we previously had. Therefore, trust me, that the joy I felt when I changed my mind-set to being open about new information was life changing. So, all that being said, disconnect your emotions from the knowledge you brought into this text and be open to learning. If you can do those two things the following posts will be much more enjoyable.

Socrates said once, “The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing.” I hold this statement to be the backbone of this blog for two reasons. The first is self evident, we must be open to the possibility that we actually know nothing or else we will never learn anything new. Secondly, historians have very little information that Socrates even existed at all. Thus, here we have a quote by someone who we thought for certain existed stating that we should of never been certain that he existed.

That brings my intro post to a close, stay tuned for an eye opening Abe Linclon post coming soon!