We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

What’s in a name IV?

· Media & Journalism · Middle East & Islamic

Samizdata.net often makes references to the importance of the ‘meta-context’ in explaining and determining events around us. A question to consider: What would happen if the mainstream media were somehow forced to refer to Saddam’s old regime by its own official title, which is The Arab National Socialist Party or Arab NAZI Party? What a thought…

September 25th, 2003 |

17 comments to What’s in a name IV?

  • Paul Coulam
    September 25, 2003 at 11:55 am

    People would likely be even more sceptical of any alleged connection of interest between these ‘National Socialists’ and the international religious Islamic fundamantalists of Al Qaeda than they already are.

  • Dale Amon
    September 25, 2003 at 12:06 pm

    Old Arab saying: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    Or, to those who have been Risk players, you bring down the big guy first, then you turn on each other.

  • Jim McDaniels
    September 25, 2003 at 5:45 pm

    “People would likely be even more sceptical (sic) of any alleged connection of interest between these ‘National Socialists’ and the international religious Islamic fundamantalists of Al Qaeda than they already are.” Paul Coulam

    The German Nazi Party had no problem with making a secret deal with the Communists of Russia (whom they hated with a passion) to split up Poland in the late 1930’s. These Nazi’s also made a pact with Imperial Japan. The Japanese at that time worshipped their Emperor as a god.
    I state the above to make the point that countries, political parties, and individuals will make pacts or agreements that best suit their interests at the moment, even if the other party’s or group’s interests are completely different from their own.
    As to the original question above, the American public would most certainly take a more negative view of Saddam’s political oganization if it was referred to as the Arab Nazi Party. Calling it that would have been a fair and accurate portrait. Unfortunately, the American media has not been fair and accurate for many years now.

  • b-psycho
    September 25, 2003 at 5:59 pm

    Funny, the media doesn’t even mention “socialist” in their name, let alone “national socialist”.

    Same thing they did with Milosevic. Dropped the “socialist”. Makes you wonder…

  • Nathan Koren
    September 25, 2003 at 6:25 pm

    I am neither Arab, nor nationalistic, nor socialist, so don’t construe this as a defense of the B’aath party. However — calling it the “Arab Nazi Party” would be a pretty transparent and innacurate piece of propaganda. “Nazi” has connotations that go vastly beyond the meaning of “national socialist”. “Nazi” connotes thousand year reichs, theories of racial superiority, death camps, eugenics, pseudo-pagan religion used as a tool by the state, et cetera et cetera. The B’aath party was an oppressive and obsessive regime run by a jackass podunk dictator; equivocating it with the Nazis would not only make us blind to that present-day reality, but would be a mockery of our past.

  • Been there
    September 25, 2003 at 6:43 pm

    Just to comment on the last post- take your point, but as a matter of fact the Ba’athists, specifically Saddam, where racists (heavily into Arab superiority and national destiny), they ran death camps (they had purpose built prison camps where they regularly exterminated their enemies which sounds like the same thing to me), Saddam had a big “neo-Nebuchednezzar” thing going, i.e. trying to resurect an ancient “thousand year Reich”, he had the full “semi-pagan religious” cult equating himself with Nebuchednezzar (check out his palace murals), and of course his party was heavily into gassing it’s enemies and hating Jews. Of course their military was not a fraction as effective as the Waffen SS (thank God) and they had no eugenics programme I’m aware of, but overall not too unfair a comparison. Oh, and of course they admired the real Nazis.

  • Seamus
    September 25, 2003 at 11:28 pm

    While I understand that the Ba’ath party derived some of its ideological inspiration from the Nazis or the Italian fascists, their official name was actually the Arab Socialist Renaissance Party and that “ba’ath” is the Arabic word for “renaissance.”

    At least, that’s what Encyclopaedia Britannica says (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=13913).

  • Paul Coulam
    September 26, 2003 at 2:21 am

    I should point out to Jim McDaniels, who I assume is an American, that in England we spell sceptical without a ‘k’.

    I am distressed to learn that you think that the American public are so dull and easily gulled that simply calling Saddam’s regime ‘Nazi’ could induce them to think even less of it than they already do. The Hitler analogies have been played out many times already with respect to Saddam and calling people Nazis is so commonplace these days that it scarcely commands any fresh attention.

  • timekeeper
    September 26, 2003 at 1:38 pm

    calling people Nazis is so commonplace these days that it scarcely commands any fresh attention.

    Paul, the difference is that the only people that get called nazis in the US are conservatives or libertarians. People who actually advocate the same issues as the Nazis are “progressives”.

  • Mashiki
    September 26, 2003 at 10:34 pm

    For those of us who feel bound to tell the truth about historical facts in the world, the writer is correct and that is what Saddams party was originally called. It was only after Saddam seized power that he changed the name, but kept the policies. Ba’ath politics are far different then Nazi politics, I’d suggest going back and looking up your history.

  • DANEgerus
    September 27, 2003 at 12:33 am

    ‘”Nazi” connotes thousand year reichs, theories of racial superiority, death camps, eugenics, pseudo-pagan religion used as a tool by the state, et cetera et cetera’

    OK… Ba’athist preached racial supremacy, worshiped Saddam as a god, have mass graves holding 500,000 , waged wars of aggression to acquire economic benefits and intended to setup Saddam’s son’s in the succession as an Iraqi reich…

    So yeah… no similarities worthy of the comparison here…

  • Jim McDaniels
    September 27, 2003 at 2:44 am

    “I am distressed to learn that you think that the American public are so dull and easily gulled that simply calling Saddam’s regime ‘Nazi’ could induce them to think even less of it than they already do. The Hitler analogies have been played out many times already with respect to Saddam and calling people Nazis is so commonplace these days that it scarcely commands any fresh attention.”

    I am sorry Mr. Coulam is distressed. Perhaps an antacid will help him. One with calcium would be best for him, as that is good for ones’ bones, including the bones in your spine.

    Calling Saddam’s regime Nazi is very appropriate as so well explained in Been There’s and DANEgerus’ posts above. His regime was true to extreme Socialist policies. Now, again, back to the original premise of this thread. Would the American public have had a more negative view of Saddam’s regime if the American media had correctly referred to his political party as the Arab National Socialist Party? I am embarrassed for those above who cannot or won’t see the obvious answer. America is a CAPITALIST Democracy. Iraq WAS a SOCIALIST Totalitarian state. The Socialist word itself, if it had been regularly used by the media would have made Americans more inclined to wage war. However, the reason the media did not use the word Socialist was because that would have been hard for the Liberals, mostly Democrats, in this country to explain. This is because many of the Democratic Party policies are Socialistic.

  • Tom Fox
    September 27, 2003 at 11:08 am

    The fact is that “Ba’ath” does not mean Arab National Socialist. Hence this thread is based on a false premise; whether or not one believes there are similarities between their two moustache clad leaders.

  • Bill H
    September 28, 2003 at 5:20 pm

    There is no false premise, Tom. The original post stated that the Arab National Socialist Party was the official name, not the translation. Even if saying the ‘Arab Nazi Party’ is a bit of a stretch, the party’s leaders knew exactly what they were doing when ANSP was listed as the party’s official name. I’m willing to bet it’s listed that way in Syria, too. The common name, Ba’ath, was probably coined to make the party more palateable to the West.

  • billhedrick
    September 30, 2003 at 4:15 pm

    I have a small quibble with the comparison as hitler and friends could run an efficient economy, Saddam and co. ran their country like Mafia chieftains, draining the country dry for their own aggranizement with no thought of tommorrow

  • TMS
    November 23, 2003 at 6:07 pm

    Paul, the difference is that the only people that get called nazis in the US are conservatives or libertarians. People who actually advocate the same issues as the Nazis are “progressives”.
    Posted by: timekeeper on September 26, 2003 01:38 PM

    Wow. i’m suprised no one else has blasted you for this one yet. Ok, libertarians don’t get called nazi’s as the only thing they want is for the gov’t to not do anything. i don’t think the nazi’s wanted deregualtion of industry or decriminilization of drugs. So i don’t get why you would mention them, that is pretty random. No one cares enough about them to make that claim. If they did they would be very silly indeed.

    When it comes to progressive/conservatives you have it totally bassackward. Conservatives, in the US at least, advocate racism, anti-semitism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, and aggression. The ONLY differences between conservatives in the US and the nazi’s in Germany are that a) conservatives here are capitalist, and b) conservatives have been held at bay from doing what they really want to do (by progressive types). If the republicans in the US had an opportunity like the nazi’s had in their time you’d see they are not that different. Your claim that progressives have the same causes as nazi’s shows that you don’t have a clue as to what either group wants/ed. Spend a day or two watching the history channel or read up on WWII and you’ll see how wrong you are. Any or ask any junior high school student to explain it to you.

    You might as well say that the goal of NOW is to make sure every woman is barefoot and pregnant. Or that the NAACP wants a return of black slavery. Perhaps you think the Christian Right wants a gay pope. Do you also think RIAA actually wants people sharing mp3s? Or maybe you also believe that pepsi wants people to buy coke. Let me guess, you think that during the civil war that the south was fighting to end slavery? Does microsoft want competition? Is THAT the real reason for their monopolistic practices? Would you also state that the ACLU wants martial law and a repeal of the bill of rights? Perhaps the NRA wants people to get rid of their guns.

    *shakes his head in dispair*
    —–
    Calling the Ba’ath party socialist wouldn’t have meant anything but to the most ignorant people who still fear “the Reds”. All countries are socialist to some degree, by virtue of having social policies like public schools. America has some socialist policies. Most of Europe is very socialist. The nazi’s were a sort of socialist, but the nationalist aspect was far more dominant.

  • RexCurry.net
    May 6, 2004 at 1:14 pm

    On V-E Day (Victory in Europe Day, May 8th), libertarians join everyone in celebrating the victory over socialism and over the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis). The U.S. helped end a war that began in 1939 when Poland was invaded by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as allies in their scheme to divide up Eastern Europe. (http://members.ij.net/rex/socialistwar.html)

    It is often forgotten that “Nazi” meant “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” An easy way to remember that Nazis were self-proclaimed socialists is that the swastika resembles two “S” letters overlapping and the Nazis often used stylized “S” lettering in their symbols. (http://members.ij.net/rex/swastikanews.html)

    Even after it split from the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics went on to kill even more people.

    WWII led to the Holocaust, and it led to the socialist Wholecaust, in which hundreds of millions were slaughtered. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics killed 62 million; the People’s Republic of China killed 35 million; and the National Socialist German Workers’ Party killed 21 million (numbers from Professor R. J. Rummel’s article in the Encyclopedia of Genocide). (http://members.ij.net/rex/socialists.jpg)

    It is scary how close the U.S. came to joining the socialist trio of atrocities. During WWII, the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag used a straight-arm salute similar to that of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (http://members.ij.net/rex/pledge1.html).

    The Pledge was created by a self-proclaimed National Socialist in the U.S. (Francis Bellamy) three decades before the National Socialist German Workers’ Party adopted a similar salute.

    The salute changed because of WWII. But there are still government schools where teachers must lead children in robotic chants of the socialist’s pledge daily, on cue.

    V-E Day is also V-S Day for our libertarian victory in the ongoing struggle against socialism.

«  
  »