French hamlet Death to Jews 'must be renamed,' says Jewish group


spaminator
+1
#1
French hamlet Death to Jews 'must be renamed,' says Jewish group
QMI Agency
First posted: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 03:43 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 03:56 PM EDT
It's time for the French hamlet Death to Jews to change its name, says a prominent Jewish organization.
La Mort aux Juifs, a small hamlet just south of Paris, has held its name since the 11th century, wrote Simon Wiesenthal Centre spokesman Shimon Samuels in a letter to French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve.
"The name remained under Napoleon's emancipation of French Jewry," Samuels wrote. "(That) it was unnoticed during seventy years since the liberation of France from the Nazis and Vichy is most shocking."
Samuels urged "the earliest removal of this genocidal name and its replacement with an identity rather more welcoming to all."
The deputy mayor of Courtemaux, the village that has jurisdiction over the hamlet, dismissed Samuel's pleas.
"Why change a name that goes back to the Middle Ages or even further? We should respect these old names," Marie-Elizabeth Secretand told Agence France-Presse.
The hamlet of La Mort aux Juifs - translated to English as "Death to Jews." (Screenshot from Google Maps)

French hamlet Death to Jews 'must be renamed,' says Jewish group | Weird | News (external - login to view)
 
Blackleaf
+1
#2
Another town which should change its name is Swastika, Ontario.
 
Corduroy
#3
I don't see why they need to respect the name. What's there to respect about it?
 
DaSleeper
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Another town which should change its name is Swastika, Ontario.

Quote:

The town was named after the Swastika Gold Mine staked in the autumn of 1907 and incorporated on January 6, 1908. James and William Dusty staked the claims alongside Otto Lake for the Tavistock Mining Partnership, even though there is a legend that it is named after a native American word for "Good luck".

Source: Swastika, Ontario - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)


Nazi Germany adopted the swastika symbol in 1920
 
petros
#5
Hindus are Nazis.
 
lone wolf
#6
Anything for attention might be a good name....
 
Blackleaf
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Source: Swastika, Ontario - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)

Nazi Germany adopted the swastika symbol in 1920



So what? It's not pre-1920 anymore. It's 2014, a time when Europeans and other people (even Canadians, I assume) know the sinister connotations connected to the swastika.
 
lone wolf
+2
#8  Top Rated Post
So what? It's not pre-1920 anymore. It's 2014. Isn't 2014 a time when you should be looking into what 2015 wil bring if there's any hope of climbing out of the rut and moving forward?
 
Blackleaf
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Source: Swastika, Ontario - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (external - login to view)


Nazi Germany adopted the swastika symbol in 1920

When people around the world think about the swastika, 99.9% of the time they think of it as the symbol of the most evil regime in history, a symbol of bigotry and racism of the worst kind. That is the symbology it has in today's modern world. The fact it was once some sort of Hindu symbol is about the last thing that enters most people's heads when they think of the swastika..

Likewise, whenever anyone in any part of the world discovers there is a town in Canada called Swastika, they don't think: "Oh, those lovely Canadians. They've named a town after that lovely Hindu symbol, the Swastika, a symbol of love and peace." No. They actually think: "Those bloody liberal Canadian drugged-up hippies have a town named after the symbol of the most evil regime in history, a symbol of bigotry and racism of the worst kind. Isn't it time they got rid of this offensive name once and for all and gave the town a nicer name? I think those Canadians are largely ignorant as to what the swastika represents in today's world."

And, anyway, the Hindus are only one of many people and cultures around the world to have adopted the swastika. Civilisations around the world have used it for millennia, not just Hindus. However, its main symbology today, the one that the vast majority of people associate the swastika with, is of anti-Semitism, death, hatred, bigotry, violence and murder - but there is still a town in Canada called Swastika.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

So what? It's not pre-1920 anymore. It's 2014. Isn't 2014 a time when you should be looking into what 2015 wil bring if there's any hope of climbing out of the rut and moving forward?


Having a town called Swastika doesn't help us "move forward".

Did you know that in Germany and many other European countries, swastikas are banned? They are outlawed because of the offence they can cause and because of their modern symbology. Yet Canada has a whole town called Swastika.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#10
Are you naturally that stupid or do you work at it every day?
The name of a town isn't a symbol ....If someone somewhere in the world with the same name as your hometown does something bad are you going to petition your town to change it's name? be realistic and take your head out of your a$$.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Are you naturally that stupid or do you work at it every day?
The name of a town isn't a symbol ....If someone somewhere in the world with the same name as your hometown does something bad are you going to petition your town to change it's name? be realistic and take your head out of your a$$.

I think he works at it every day.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

When people around the world think about the swastika, 99.9% of the time they think of it as the symbol of the most evil regime in history, a symbol of bigotry and racism of the worst kind. That is the symbology it has in today's modern world. The fact it was once some sort of Hindu symbol is about the last thing that enters most people's heads when they think of the swastika..
Likewise, whenever anyone in any part of the world discovers there is a town in Canada called Swastika, they don't think: "Oh, those lovely Canadians. They've named a town after that lovely Hindu symbol, the Swastika, a symbol of love and peace." No. They actually think: "Those bloody liberal Canadian drugged-up hippies have a town named after the symbol of the most evil regime in history, a symbol of bigotry and racism of the worst kind. Isn't it time they got rid of this offensive name once and for all and gave the town a nicer name? I think those Canadians are largely ignorant as to what the swastika represents in today's world."
And, anyway, the Hindus are only one of many people and cultures around the world to have adopted the swastika. Civilisations around the world have used it for millennia, not just Hindus. However, its main symbology today, the one that the vast majority of people associate the swastika with, is of anti-Semitism, death, hatred, bigotry, violence and murder - but there is still a town in Canada called...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
We should change the name of London Ontario too, seeing as how it has been the seat of genocide and murderous wars for centuries, and lets not forget colonialising pricks still to this day. Now there's a Satanic record of murder hard to beat. Most of the world will forget the NAZIS hundreds of years before they forget the evil British Empire.
 
lone wolf
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

When people around the world think about the swastika, 99.9% of the time they think of it as the symbol of the most evil regime in history, a symbol of bigotry and racism of the worst kind. That is the symbology it has in today's modern world. The fact it was once some sort of Hindu symbol is about the last thing that enters most people's heads when they think of the swastika..
Likewise, whenever anyone in any part of the world discovers there is a town in Canada called Swastika, they don't think: "Oh, those lovely Canadians. They've named a town after that lovely Hindu symbol, the Swastika, a symbol of love and peace." No. They actually think: "Those bloody liberal Canadian drugged-up hippies have a town named after the symbol of the most evil regime in history, a symbol of bigotry and racism of the worst kind. Isn't it time they got rid of this offensive name once and for all and gave the town a nicer name? I think those Canadians are largely ignorant as to what the swastika represents in today's world."
And, anyway, the Hindus are only one of many people and cultures around the world to have adopted the swastika. Civilisations around the world have used it for millennia, not just Hindus. However, its main symbology today, the one that the vast majority of people associate the swastika with, is of anti-Semitism, death, hatred, bigotry, violence and murder - but there is still a town in Canada called...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
So what.... Newfoundland has a place called Dil do - and Brit prudes still controlled it until 1949.

Wasn't it Brit Bard Billy who said: "What's in a name?"
 
petros
#14
Does Blackpool offend Africans?
 
Zipperfish
#15
This just in: the hamlet has agreed to rename itsef. New name: Spicniggawopkike.
 
petros
#16
You'll have to drop the kike. It's offensive to Jews but the rest is fine.
 
spaminator
#17
Mayor of French town 'Death to Jews', vows to change name
QMI Agency
First posted: Thursday, August 14, 2014 02:27 PM EDT | Updated: Thursday, August 14, 2014 02:36 PM EDT
The mayor of the French hamlet Death to Jews has bowed to pressure to change the locale's controversial name, according to a report.
La Mort aux Juifs, a small hamlet just south of Paris, has held its name since the 11th century, wrote Simon Wiesenthal Centre spokesman Shimon Samuels in a letter to French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve.
"The name remained under Napoleon's emancipation of French Jewry," Samuels wrote. "(That) it was unnoticed during seventy years since the liberation of France from the Nazis and Vichy is most shocking."
Samuels urged "the earliest removal of this genocidal name and its replacement with an identity rather more welcoming to all."
The deputy mayor of Courtemaux, the village that has jurisdiction over the hamlet, dismissed Samuel's pleas.
But on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported (external - login to view) the mayor said he would submit a proposal to change the name, which now only exists on official land records after the town removed all signs and everyone's addresses to numbers in the 1990s.
Mayor of French town 'Death to Jews', vows to change name | WORLD | World | News (external - login to view)
 
Blackleaf
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

We should change the name of London Ontario too, seeing as how it has been the seat of genocide and murderous wars for centuries, and lets not forget colonialising pricks still to this day. Now there's a Satanic record of murder hard to beat. Most of the world will forget the NAZIS hundreds of years before they forget the evil British Empire.


To compare the British Empire, the most benign empire in history, to the Nazis is just shocking. That is the same British Empire which defeated the Nazis and put an end to their evil.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

So what.... Newfoundland has a place called Dil do - and Brit prudes still controlled it until 1949.

And you should give it back.

Quote:

<B>Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper

Are you naturally that stupid or do you work at it every day?
</B>
The name of a town isn't a symbol ....If someone somewhere in the world with the same name as your hometown does something bad are you going to petition your town to change it's name? be realistic and take your head out of your a$$.

A perfect example of why Canadians today - stuck in their own pot-smoking little liberal universe - just don't understand just how evil the Nazis were and just how offensive the term "swastika" still is to many millions of people and that the name "Swastika" for a town just isn't appropriate today.

Back in 1935 the government of Ontario - much wiser back then than modern liberal Canadians, who aren't as concerned about the feelings of Jews and Holocaust survivors as they are about the feelings of Muslims - knew just how offensive the name "Swastika" is and proposed to change the town's name to Winston. This was similar to how, back during WWI, the town of Berlin, Ontario changed its name to Kitchener. However, unbelievably, the townfolk of Swastika preferred the name "Swastika" over "Winston", and refused to change the name.

In 2014, however, the term Swastika is even more offensive than it was back in 1935, and it's now definitely time for the people of that town to start having a serious think about changing its name to something more appropriate.
 
captain morgan
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

And you should give it back.

You're welcome to come and try to take it back, albeit, it would be horribly embarrassing for you to be expelled from NorAm a second time in a row.
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You're welcome to come and try to take it back, albeit, it would be horribly embarrassing for you to be expelled from NorAm a second time in a row.


Who's going to expel us? The Mounties?

Newfoundland was English, and then British, long before it was ever Canadian. What makes you think Canada has more right to Newfoundland than Britain has?
 
DaSleeper
#21
You know BL? you are a pompous ignorant A$$ so full of your Briddish self..........


This is all you deserve as a response to your silly pompous posts...

You39re an - YouTube

 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

You know BL? you are a pompous ignorant A$$ so full of your Briddish self..........

So still no answer to my question: "What makes you think Canada has more right to Newfoundland than Britain has?"

It's a perfectly reasonable question. Newfoundland has been British for far longer than it's been Canadian, and it was British BEFORE it was Canadian. So why the hell do you think Canada has some sort of God-given right to claim Newfoundland?
 
captain morgan
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Who's going to expel us? The Mounties?

Newfoundland was English, and then British, long before it was ever Canadian. What makes you think Canada has more right to Newfoundland than Britain has?

I am simply stating the facts as they exist.

North America expelled you and your ilk.... First we stated it nice and friendly... You didn't get the message... The next step was a more stern approach and gently forced you from our shores... Sure, you thought it was a war, but in reality, we put on the kid-gloves as to not fully humiliate you on the World stage.

I recommend that you take my advice and humbly withdraw any such ideas.

I accept your apology and maybe now we can all move forward together
 
Blackleaf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

North America expelled you and your ilk....

No, it didn't The American settlers expelled the British from BRITISH territory with French help. It was BRITISH territory. That was nothing to do with Canada or Canadians. Canada was still British well into the 19th Century.

When are the Americans going to give Virginia back to the Duke of Westminster? His ancestors had that place long before the Yanks did. Again, just like Newfoundland, what makes the Yanks think they have a God-given right to 13 BRITISH territories, that were ours for centuries before America even existed??

Quote:

First we stated it nice and friendly... You didn't get the message... The next step was a more stern approach and gently forced you from our shores... Sure, you thought it was a war, but in reality, we put on the kid-gloves as to not fully humiliate you on the World stage.

Patronising, historically-ignorant twaddle. You make it sound as though Britain invaded America and Canada and then you "kicked us out." You completely ignored the fact that Britain FOUNDED America and Canada; that those two countries wouldn't even exist were it not for the glorious British Empire; and that YOU yourself, unless you're a Red Indian, are most likely to be a descendant of one of those British settlers.
 
captain morgan
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

No, it didn't The American settlers expelled the British from BRITISH territory with French help. That was nothing to do with Canada or Canadians,.

You were dismissed, plain and simple.

In the end, we saw no value in having you in our country and as such, took the necessary and humane steps to allow you to leave.

We tried our best to do it in a manner that offered you some dignity, but you're not having got the message, a different tack was taken.

Regrettably and in the end, your 'forces' (that is an overly generous word in this case) ran cheeping like mice.

... We didn't want to do it, but felt that we owed it to you to prove that any more nonsense would be met with a sound thrashing

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Patronising, historically-ignorant twaddle.

They are factual and entirely accurate
 
Blackleaf
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

You were dismissed, plain and simple.

What school did you learn history in? I always thought that Canada didn't become fully independent of Britain until 1982. So much for you lot running the British out of Canada. You didn't get your full independence from Britain until Thatcher was in power.
 
captain morgan
#27
Much like encouraging a weaker and slower brother that they too can run fast, jump high, etc, we kept the facade ongoing as long as we thought prudent as to not fatally bruise your fragile national identity.
 
Blackleaf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Much like encouraging a weaker and slower brother that they too can run fast, jump high, etc, we kept the facade ongoing as long as we thought prudent as to not fatally bruise your fragile national identity.

You've got an army of 21,000; your air force has just 258 planes and 14,500 personnel; your navy has just 15 surface warships. Who is REALLY the weaker country here?
 
darkbeaver
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

What school did you learn history in? I always thought that Canada didn't become fully independent of Britain until 1982. So much for you lot running the British out of Canada. You didn't get your full independence from Britain until Thatcher was in power.

What school did you flunk out of? Canada still isn't independent of Brutian, we are still forced to entertain your inbred royals.
 
captain morgan
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You've got an army of 21,000; your air force has just 258 planes and 14,500 personnel; your navy has just 15 surface warships. Who is REALLY the weaker country here?

We wouldn't need any of those.

One good smack upside the head and I expect the British invaders would flee with trembling lower lip and tears in their eyes.
 
no new posts