Jump to content

Manx war time concentration camps?


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

Lord kitchener invented the concentration camp. His version involved cribbage and mental acuity games, in a bid to educate. Trust those pesky germans to pervert his original idea. Bloody buggers the lot of them.

Yes, and no. The idea of concentrating “others”, “outsiders”, persons with different “racial”, “political”, “philosophical” or “health” characteristics and/or beliefs has been around since the dawn of recorded time. Think prisoners of war in classical times, the workers who built the pyramids, Jews in ghettos, Napoleonic war prisoners.

Kitchener was the start of modern, industrial style, gathering together and containment. And such concentrating  has always given rise to artistic output, as well as education, or re-education, and perversion to forced labour, medical experimentation, and extermination, hasn’t been the sole preserve of the Germans, Brits have had a go, Russians, Pol Pot, China. Virtually everyone. 

The justification is always fear of the outsider.

29 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

It's a long stretch Max to compare internment camps in the IOM and U.K. to Nazi concentration camps. We certainly paint a rosy picture of internment (Gardening, painting, music, theatre etc.) but you wouldn't have found gas chambers and piles of kids shoes at Knockaloe. This is stupid historical revisionism and dumb anti-Britishness at its worst. 

Max is well capable of defending his own comments, but the IOM did put internees to work, on the land, other jobs where they could be “trusted”. The flowering of the arts was largely the inmates passing time, avoiding boredom, creating things to sell, using pre existing skills and developing new skills.

No, we didn’t have gas chambers, or many of the horrors of the Nazi system. But the UK did have crystalnacht type trashing of the chip shops and cafes and ice cream parlours of Italians ( particularly in Scotland ), we weren’t welcoming to Jews, we did confiscate property and divide families. We did deprive many people of their liberty and livelihoods on flimsy or down right spurious reasons.

And worse, especially on the Island, we at best tolerated, and at worst encouraged, camps that put all Italians, in one building or camp, Germans in the another building or camp, irrespective of what type of internee they were,  controlled by their own. And their own were often Nazi or Fascist political internees bullies, or thugs.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Like I said John, there's absolutely no comparison.

They’re all “concentration” camps, just at different ends of a spectrum in terms of how they were run and what happened at the end. Doesn’t stop them being concentration camps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shake me up Judy said:

It's a long stretch Max to compare internment camps in the IOM and U.K. to Nazi concentration camps. We certainly paint a rosy picture of internment (Gardening, painting, music, theatre etc.) but you wouldn't have found gas chambers and piles of kids shoes at Knockaloe. This is stupid historical revisionism and dumb anti-Britishness at its worst. 

I'm not comparing the Nazi death camps to British concentration camps at all, we didn't create our camps to exterminate the inmates like they clearly did. All I'm saying is that what we like to call detention camps were, to all intents and purposes and to definition, concentration camps. The USA did much the same with those of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbour. People of the same race or nationality were put together in concentrated groups. We did it for a multitude of reasons, partly for their own safety but it was probably the best thing for everyone at that time, unlike the Nazi version of the same thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Wright said:

They’re all “concentration” camps, just at different ends of a spectrum in terms of how they were run and what happened at the end. Doesn’t stop them being concentration camps. 

Not to most people they aren’t. Very, very different things Have you been to the exhibition centre opposite Knockaloe ? Definitely worth two hours reading and viewing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Not to most people they aren’t. Very, very different things Have you been to the exhibition centre opposite Knockaloe ? Definitely worth two hours reading and viewing.

Yes. I’ve been. And to Aushwitz-Birkenau. You can call them detention centres, internment camps or concentration camps. The origin of the concept is identical. They are all concentration camps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Yes. I’ve been. And to Aushwitz-Birkenau. You can call them detention centres, internment camps or concentration camps. The origin of the concept is identical. They are all concentration camps.

Maybe in your legal eyes, but in practice were chalk and cheese. You know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Maybe in your legal eyes, but in practice were chalk and cheese. You know that.

It’s not to do with legal. It’s what they do. They concentrate, others, outsiders, opponents. 

You’re confusing what they do, which is why they’re so named, with what happened in them in one perverted iteration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s not to do with legal. It’s what they do. They concentrate, others, outsiders, opponents. 

You’re confusing what they do, which is why they’re so named, with what happened in them in one perverted iteration.

Not confusing what they do. It is just terminology. Nobody at Knockaloe had their nails pulled, their hair, both head and pubic shaved to fill pillows, they were no experimented on nor had their teeth or fillings removed. If you have read p, you will know they were all well fed, given respect and decent meals. They were given the materials and mechanisms to create crafts and toys, they made clocks and carved ornaments etc etc etc. That is not what most people would consider a concentration camp. Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scotty said:

Not confusing what they do. It is just terminology. Nobody at Knockaloe had their nails pulled, their hair, both head and pubic shaved to fill pillows, they were no experimented on nor had their teeth or fillings removed. If you have read p, you will know they were all well fed, given respect and decent meals. They were given the materials and mechanisms to create crafts and toys, they made clocks and carved ornaments etc etc etc. That is not what most people would consider a concentration camp. Just saying.

That confirms that you confuse what they do, and why they are so named, with what happens in them, after concentration has taken place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, John Wright said:

It’s not to do with legal. It’s what they do. They concentrate, others, outsiders, opponents. 

You’re confusing what they do, which is why they’re so named, with what happened in them in one perverted iteration.

I strongly disagree because meaning is contextual and changes over time. We are not pedantic literalists stuck with the initial meanings of terms. Many other words in our language no long mean what they once meant. Language evolves.

The term "Concentration Camp" might previously have had some other meaning. But today it is most closely associated with the Nazis. Because of the scale of their atrocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pongo said:

I strongly disagree because meaning is contextual and changes over time. We are not pedantic literalists stuck with the initial meanings of terms. Many other words in our language no long mean what they once meant. Language evolves.

The term "Concentration Camp" might previously have had some other meaning. But today it is most closely associated with the Nazis. Because of the scale of their atrocities.

The Holocaust Museum provides this definition.

“The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The Holocaust Museum provides this definition.

“The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.”

That's a literal pedantic historically strict definition. It's not what people mean by the term today.

Also - Britain's WW2 internment camps did not keep people "under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...