More than one person has IMed me with the statement/question: “the new pope was in the nazi youth?!” My first instinct is to wonder why these people don’t investigate for themselves if it seems so odd to them. That’s the first thing I do. The phenomenon is similar to what John Dvorak notes in his recent column, “The Dumbing Down of America“.
[People ask] really dumb questions that they could easily get the answers for themselves. But they ask a person rather than do simple research. I’m not talking about someone asking me what, in my opinion, is the best digital camera. I’m talking about someone asking me who makes digital cameras. Or where you can buy CompactFlash cards. Or where you get a program that unzips files. Or “Are there any word processors on the market besides Microsoft Word?”
Now the question that my friends asked me is not as remedial as the computer questions used in the example; a little more research would be required. The idea is the same though. Just now I did a Google search for “Benedict Nazi youth” and found all kinds of articles. Now when my friends had asked me before, I had already read something that explained it all so it had become part of my knowledge and could tell them without looking anything up. The point is they could have easily done the smallest amount of investigating themselves and become just as learned as I on the subject. They would have found things like this from The Jewish Week:
The new pope’s background as a member of the Nazi Youth organization and the German army during World War II drew attention in media profiles in recent weeks, but the Jewish spokesmen said Benedict XVI has shown no sympathy to Nazi teachings.
“It was the standard in the Hitler era that every teen was a member” of the Nazi Youth, often pressured into joining the organization, said Rabbi Schneier. “If anything, he will go out of his way to show that he is different from the [German] past.
“I would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt,” Rabbi Schneier said. “I’m not at all nervous.”
As well as this:
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a prepared statement, “Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact. In our years of working on improving Catholic-Jewish ties, ADL has had opportunities to work with Cardinal Ratzinger.
“Having lived through World War II, Cardinal Ratzinger has great sensitivity to Jewish history and the Holocaust. He has shown this sensitivity countless times, in meetings with Jewish leadership and in important statements condemning anti-Semitism and expressing profound sorrow for the Holocaust.”
I think finding quotes like this makes the whole thing a non-issue. It took me less than 30 seconds on the internet to find this. Maybe it would take someone else a minute and a half, but still… Then again, they could just be asking for my opinion, which I am always happy to give. One of my friends did openly admit that I was her reference source for investigating deeper. It’s good to know I’m a reputable news source.
[Note:] Just so you know the extent of my penchant for looking things up that I want to know: when deciding whether to put the period inside or outside the quotation marks around the title of Dvorak’s article I looked up websites about English grammar. I probably spent more time on that than anything else relating to this post. I found that in British English “punctuation around quotation marks is more apt to follow logic.” If it’s good enough for the British, it’s good enough for me, I say. Actually I just like that it’s logical. This is what the most helpful website I found had to say in a footnote:
There are peculiar typographical reasons why the period and comma go inside the quotation mark in the United States. The following explanation comes from the “Frequently Asked Questions” file of alt.english.usage: “In the days when printing used raised bits of metal, “.” and “,” were the most delicate, and were in danger of damage (the face of the piece of type might break off from the body, or be bent or dented from above) if they had a ‘”‘ on one side and a blank space on the other. Hence the convention arose of always using ‘.”‘ and ‘,”‘ rather than ‘”.’ and ‘”,’, regardless of logic.” This seems to be an argument to return to something more logical, but there is little impetus to do so within the United States.