MSNBC’s Chuck Todd says “you can’t call” the concentration camps at our southern border “concentration camps.”
“Be careful,” Todd warned – comparing the Trump administration’s camps, where we are keeping migrants, including many children, against their will, in horrific conditions – “comparing them to Nazi concentration camps. Because they’re not at all comparable in the slightest.
He is extraordinarily wrong.
Todd, who hosts NBC’s “Meet the Press” and MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily,” also serves as the network’s political director. Perhaps he should reach out to a few historians and a few experts on authoritarianism, maybe experts in Nazi concentration camps, before opining in such a degrading and condescending manner (watch the video below.)
Todd is actually criticizing Democratic lawmakers for not condemning Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks.
Keep in mind, she never said “Nazi concentration camps,” nor did she say “Nazi death camps.”She said “concentration camps,” which Hitler did not invent, and which have been used before, even by the U.S. – as many who studied America’s horrific Japanese internment camps know. Some, like George Takei, say the comparison is legitimate. He should know. As a young boy he lived in two.
I know what concentration camps are. I was inside two of them, in America. And yes, we are operating such camps again.
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) June 19, 2019
Chuck Todd is extraordinarily wrong.
Todd opened his segment by saying he’s “obsessed with what’s happening at our southern border.”
If he were, he wouldn’t focus so much on what AOC and historians are calling the camps, and would do something about them.
Todd goes on to say what’s “as upsetting as” AOC’s comments are the Democrats who refuse to condemn her for them.
Why should they? She’s 100% correct.
Andrea Pitzer, who wrote “One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps,” today writes in GQ that Trump’s camps are the “heirs” of concentration camps.
“A camp in a country in which the leader openly expresses animosity toward those interned, in which a government detains people and harms them by separating children from their parents or deliberately putting them in danger, is much closer to a concentration camp than a refugee camp.”
Others have been less generous.
I did my dissertation on #ConcentrationCamps, so I have a few thoughts about @AOC‘s use of the term to describe the build up of camps on the US southern border. For those in a hurry, here’s the take-home message: By any reasonable definition, these are concentration camps
— Lester Andrist (@landrist) June 18, 2019
“Things can be concentration camps without being Dachau or Auschwitz. Concentration camps in general have always been designed…to separate one group of people from another group.” – Waitman Wade Beorn, Holocaust and genocide studies historian at the University of Virginia https://t.co/1gaFpj0pwK
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) June 18, 2019
Chick Todd is extraordinarily wrong.
Ocasio-Cortez’s comparison of ICE detentions to concentration camps did border detainees “a tremendous disservice” #MTPDaily
“She said she didn’t use those words lightly,” Chuck Todd said. “Well, neither did I.” pic.twitter.com/5CIOfWn7BQ
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) June 19, 2019
Conservative columnist: Republicans should dare to impeach over Ukraine
The latest Trump international scandal emerged when an anonymous whistleblower in the intelligence community lodged a complaint related to President Trump's discussions with a foreign leader. Although not much is known about the content of the complaint, speculation has arisen that Trump offered the president of Ukraine foreign aid in a way that could be interpreted as quid pro quo for dirt on Vice President Joe Biden.
Writing in the conservative publication The Bulwark, columnist Jonathan V. Last outlines the Republicans' options. They can continue to do nothing to rein in the president. They could try to make the story about Biden. Or they could dare to impeach.
This influential feminist philosopher didn’t believe in being ‘a strong woman’ — here’s why
In The Second Sex (1949), Simone de Beauvoir argued that women were at a disadvantage in a society where they grew up under ‘a multiplicity of incompatible myths’ about women. Instead of being encouraged to dream their own dreams and pursue meaningful projects for their lives, Beauvoir argued that the ‘myths’ proposed to women, whether in literature or history, science or psychoanalysis, encouraged them to believe that to be a woman was to be for others – and especially for men. Throughout childhood, girls were fed a steady diet of stories that led them to believe that to succeed as a woman was to succeed at love – and that to succeed at other things would make them less lovable.
A psychological analysis of Nazism reveals the danger of governments led by narcissists and psychopaths
After spending his early life suffering under the Nazis and then Stalin, the Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski devoted his career to studying the relationship between psychological disorders and politics. He wanted to understand why psychopaths and narcissists are so strongly attracted to power as well as the processes by which they take over governments and countries.
He eventually came up with the term “pathocracy” to describe governments made up of people with these disorders – and the concept is by no means confined to regimes of the past.