New Restaurant Bears Hitler's Name

More like the beginning of the end.

A lot of people around here would say that Saddam and Bush are in the same League. Comparing them to Hitler is stretching it a little bit though.

But in a lot of other countries Bush is seen in a much worse light than he is even by his strongest critics here in the states. I've talked to many people from other countries, thanks to the internets, its almost embarrassing to live in the states right now.

That is hilarious indeed.

I just thought he was mentioning a couple other historical leaders, and Bush and Saddam are the two he thought of first. But who knows?

A lot of people around here would say that Saddam and Bush are in the same League. Comparing them to Hitler is stretching it a little bit though.

You could call it "The Bush League". haha ahhhh im such a kidder

The internets? You sound just like Bush!

The internets? You sound just like Bush!

I think was intended, and meant to be funny. I often refer to the internet as "Dick Cheney's Internets" for comedic purposes.

Actually, polls indicate that more Indians like America than Americans do. Somewhere in the range of 90%. There was an article on Newsvine a while ago, but I lost it.

A lot of people worldwide consider Bush Jr in the same league as Hitler and Saddam. He IS the most protested individual in the history of the world, more than Stalin, Pol Pot, Lon Nol, Henry Kissinger etc etc

A lot of people wordlwide consider Bush in the same league as, at least, Saddam. Hitler is, indeed a stretch. Bush is the most protested individual in the history of the world, though. A title that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam or even Henry Kissinger cannot lay claim to.

Bush is the most protested individual in the history of the world, though. A title that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam or even Henry Kissinger cannot lay claim to.

i could not help but roll my eyes at this one. (and people wonder why normal americans think liberals are exremist wackos)

I would guess that's because the most of the people who were brave (aka dumb) enough to protest the Pol Pots, Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, et. al. quickly met with a gruesome and quiet end.

(and people wonder why normal americans think liberals are exremist wackos)

Funny - I'M a "normal american" AND a "liberal". And I'm a moderate.

So, what's a normal american exactly? What a silly statement.

"Bush is the most protested individual in the history of the world"

any facts to back that up? references? i'd consider Louis XVI the most protested individual, but that's just because he lost his head during the protests...

what's a normal american exactly?

people who don't identify themselves as liberal, nor conservative.

A lot of people define themselves as liberla or conservative.

I don't think I'd use that metric for "normal."

A lot of people wordlwide consider Bush in the same league as, at least, Saddam. Hitler is, indeed a stretch. Bush is the most protested individual in the history of the world, though. A title that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam or even Henry Kissinger cannot lay claim to.

I cant see many people protesting against Pol Pot , and Im sure anyone who tried to protest against Hitler, Stalin or Saddam would not have survived for long after - so I think trying to measure how hated they were by number of protestors is an irrelevancy at best.

Indeed, I wouldn't eat there...but I wouldn't want the government to force a name change either. If people find it offensive..they won't go, and if he looses enough business or gets too much grief over it and decides to change it, cool.....and if not...that's cool too. Yay capitalism.

So Rukh, let me ask you this. If a restaurant opened in this country and called themselves "Jews Deserve to Die," that would be ok with you?

Would I be "ok" with it? No, of course not. It would be terribly offensive and frankly pretty idiotic. But that does NOT mean I would want the government to step in. If it was within a decent proximity of where I live I'd no doubt be involved with making sure the owners know exactly what is thought of the name and anyone who agrees with it's message...but if they can stay in business, and aren't breaking any laws, then I can't see a reason that the government should get involved or anything.

But that does NOT mean I would want the government to step in.

Exactly.

Freedom isn't just for you and those that you agree with. It is for everyone. As long as someone else is not limiting your (or anyone else) freedoms, they are doing nothing wrong. You may not agree with them, they may in fact be offending you. But offending someone is not limiting their freedom. You are in turn free to protest, write letters, etc. You can't block people from entering their establishment, you can't harass people, or assault them but you can let your feelings be known. Or you can ignore them.

That's what bugs me about so many conservatives these days in the united states. Trying to pass laws that tell other people what they can and can't do. That pisses me off. If you don't like it, don't do it. Leave the rest of the people alone.

Actually, I'm 100% for freedom of speech. However, there are laws regarding hate crimes and hate speech. I'm not saying this falls into that category, I was just curious as to what you'd say to my question. I actually don't think that the government should force a name change as much as I dislike it.

To be fair -- hate crime legislation hasn't had a really solid constitutional test yet and hate speech legislation has to pass some pretty hard core muster. Essentially, if the State can't demonstrate that there is a Clear and Present Danger or that it has a Compelling Interest, it can't limit your speech legislatively.

I don't know the law surrounding hate crimes/speech, nor have I indicated I did. I just mention it because it seems relevant to this, generally speaking (though not in India, I suppose). Honestly, I had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing this but almost immediately afterward agreed that governments shouldn't be restricting this sort of thing. It's just in *such* bad taste. But really, that's the greatest facet of freedom of speech, that it can (and must!) allow the things you (or I) dislike to be seen and heard.

There's a funny habit some people have when someone pops up in the news for being a dick. People say things like, "If he wants to be a dick, that's his right." Others challenge that, and the same person will say, "I don't agree with the sentiment, but I'm just supporting his right to say it." Of course everyone has the right to say what they want (in more public circumstances). But those of us opposed to such things as this restaurant's name are rarely (college campuses can be different, but for good reason) arguing for government intervention.

Can't you just say, "I'm glad someone won't get arrested for that sort of thing, but the guy is being a dick and ought to change the name"?

Also, they're in India, not the United States. I'm fairly certain the right to freedom of speech doesn't apply.

I don't know the regulations and laws in India. However, most countries have their own set of laws to govern the naming of a business. Any words, names, etc that might infringe the rights of the other people, businesses, or names that are offensive to the public are deemed disallowed. A business may comply with the health and safety regulations, report taxes, etc. If that business name doesn't comply with its country business acts, then that is still illegal.
Some people think we are making a big deal out of a business name, let alone it is half way across the globe. Would these group of people feel hurt or betrayed if some businesses were named so inappropriately according to these people's religion beliefs, moral standards, etc? Remember one thing--when you do finger pointing, there are four fingers pointing back at you.

or names that are offensive to the public are deemed disallowed.

Uhh, not in this country, The United States, they aren't.

That's what bugs me about so many conservatives these days in the united states. Trying to pass laws that tell other people what they can and can't do.

Ha! If I sent this line: "Trying to pass laws that tell other people what they can and can't do" to my conservative friends and asked them who it was referring to, they would immediately answer, "Liberals".

So do we chalk it up to "power corrupts" or "sore losers"?

Talking points.

There are some things that are just too vile to take lightly

Nonsense. Ideas like that are screwing this world up. Everybody just needs to f'ing relax a bit.

I'm not sure where to start with a comment like that.

Hitler and his actions, and the actions of his followers are not becoming mainstream. If it were, then the owner of this restaurant would not have bothered using such a controversial figure in the naming of his business. That there are still countries that do not understand the context of the name in history and the record of human rights is very disturbing, but reminds us why we continue remembrance of the holocaust, not just for the sake of the Jewish people, but for
all people who are subject to, or may be subject to persecution.

Just because it seems many people in the neighborhood of that store do not express a problem with the name, does not mean there are many more (non-Jewish) people around the world who
would have a problem with it.

Israel is important to a lot of people. Both in the history of the creation of the modern state, and the understanding of the reasons for it to come into being. There are other countries whose creation is similarly important on the world stage. But the idea that people should need to feel they have a place to move, to avoid persecution flies in the face of why we remember the holocaust as well. We seek a world where people do not have to run from persecution, but where those who would persecute others are put on the defensive in the name of human rights and solidarity.

The people at that restaurant should be asked if a restarant called "the Black Hole of Calcutta" would also seem like a good place to eat. Then point out that is exactly the level of taste that is applied in the naming of this establishment.

Cary you are right, at least I hope you are.

But taken in the context of world events and expressions of anti-semitism that are more and more open, flagrant and unapologetic, this seems like just one more slap in the face.

In other words.. my reaction was emotional, yours was logical.

Pauline, I would not say your reaction was simply emotional. If you take a quick reminder at the words of the powerful Ahmadinejad, "the Holocaust never happened." They have a 'make fun of the Holocaust' day now in Iran, in response to a cartoon about Mohammad. Now, take a quick trip into history towards the time of Hitler's reign and the Nazis you will find out what the problem may be coming from: Scroll down to WWII I am not saying that the 50% Muslim population in India supports the Holocaust; but the evidence is damning.

If we are looking for a world of peace, we should stop promoting and defending the evil around the world, regardless of their freedom of speech.

It's called Freedom six, you do believe in that concept dont you? The day that India tells this restaurant to close down is the day they become no better than Hitler himself. Of course, it is a sickening name, it seems to me that the owner used the name exactly for the attention it is bringing. I contend he is making MUCH more money off of all this attention and the indignation of people like you than he ever would have if he just named his restaurant Bombay Fish Market. As someone else said as well, if people don't go to his restaurant out of disgust for it's name, that is how it should be, and his restaurant will end up closing down, with no help from the government whatsoever. Leave things in the hands of the people and things tend to work themselves out. Dont rush to always look for a government solution. Dont you see that a government solution was exactly what Hitler was pursuing to his own Jewish problem?

Also, how can this be a shock, this is not an area of the world that is particularly known for it's love of all things Jewish. This particular area of the world happens to agree with a lot of what Hitler preached, that the Jews are to blame for all the world's ills. I contend they are only responsible for about half of it, but that's another topic altogether.

Do they forget that if Germany had had a large Asian population at the time, they would have gone to the camps along with the Jews, Gypsies, and anyone else who wasn't blonde and blue-eyed? The Jews did have a special place in that Holocaust but they were by no means the only ones!

How could an entire country be so ass backwards as to not know what Hitler did and not care about it even for the one's who do?

Most people know that Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler, but no one makes a fuss about it.

Actually I would bet their educations included about as much mention of Stalin as it did of Hilter.

How could an entire country be so ass backwards as to not know what Hitler did and not care about it even for the one's who do?

Most people know that Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler, but no one makes a fuss about it.

I would like to mention one thing in this replying to my comments, i never once mentioned somebody should force them to change their name. i simply said how much it appalled me. i would not dream of taking somebody's freedom to do such things as this, I just can't believe people support it, it blows me away.

as far as stalin killing more jews, at this point i dont see any relation to this story. nobody has decided to name a restaurant after him and set their logo as a symbol of probably the largest feared symbol in the history of mankind, other than the cross for god fearing people. that is why nobody is currently making a fuss about it.

six0h, please re-read the article. The swastika has been used as a positive religious symbol in India for thousands of years. Hitler appropriated it from them. They never stopped using it. It's probably what gave the the restauranteur the idea in the first place.

I did take that into consideration when writing my reply. I guess is makes that appropriate in this particular case, however, the rest of the world looking on doesn't see it the same way, he HAD to know he would generate this much hype.

It's kind of like the Bush supporters in the US. They all believe that their views and ideals are the correct views and ideals, while the rest of the world shakes their head at what a bad idea re-electing him was.

well the rest of the world didn't get a vote, so who cares

Dude, they may not have gotten a vote, but it sure as hell affects the rest of the world. That's what a lot of people don't take into consideration when voting, "How would this president handle world affairs." They all knew he would go to war and they all knew he would continue the war when they re-elected him. Sounds like a genius country to me. Way to help world affairs.

The Da Vinci Code = Created by people outside of India.
Political cartoons of Mohammad = Created by people outside of India.

"Hitler's Cross" = The name of a restaurant created by a citizen of India.

There does seem to be a hint of protectionism involved.

I agree with Cary. I had originally taken the governments non-intervention as the most appropriate behavior in this situation; you should be able to theme your restaurant however you see fit (especially since they aren't directly propagating anti-semitism).

However:

But while India is ordinarily sensitive to causing religious offense — recently taking action to bar "The Da Vinci Code" movie and cartoon drawings of the prophet Muhammad — at least one local leader said the name Hitler didn't bother him.

This made me rethink my evaluation. The Indian government is taking a particularly lax stance because the religious offense is rooted in an Indian business, and, perhaps, because it's offensive to the Jewish community.

Love it...

He can hurt you. If people forget what happened it is more likely to happen again. That is why Hitler's legacy (if you can call it that) must never be forgotten.

While I see what you're saying, Vulgrin, (I'm a Harry Potter fan, too ;-)), I have to see Pauline's point as well.

You're right in that we shouldn't be afraid to say Hitler's name, because to do so would give him unnecessary power and mystery. There was nothing supernaturally evil about Hitler. He was only a man with very evil ideas, who through political machinations and manipulation of his country's weaknesses managed to put them into action.

But on the other hand, context is key. To openly discuss Hitler and Nazi Germany in a historical or ethical context is one thing. To use his name as a PR stunt is another. It cheapens the losses that so many Jews (and others) suffered at his hands.

kayjay: Have you ever used a spell check that didn't flag the majority of names (people and places)?

Bombay shows up in the spellchecker.

well of course, Bombay is the name of a Gin. And we all know it is important to spell our liquors correctly. Sheesh. Of course Tanqueray kills my theory.

This is why I'm a vodka and rum fan.

We have no such spelling qualms: as long as we know that Absolut is good, damn all the spellcheckers in the world to hell. :-p

"I wonder if they serve Jews."

This has so much potential. lmfao

Good point. The Christians killed a lot of muslims during the Crusades - how about opening a place called "Crusaders' Coffee?" or "The Salad(in) Bar?"

I'll open "Inquisition Ristorante" where the specialty is pulled pork.

I'll open "Inquisition Ristorante" where the specialty is pulled pork.

boo - that one was really bad :O) made me laugh but still bad.

It'd only really work if you had out of work actors roaming around saying:

"NO ONE EXPECTS THE PULLED PORK! MUAHAHAHAH!"

No one seems to have any problem with Little Ceasars, the Genghis Khan Restaurant in Seattle, hundreds of Neroes, Bloody Marys, Kaisers . . . there's even a Jack the Ripper. It's time to recognize that that's in the past and move on. It's not like the Jews even have a monopoly on peoples murdered by Hitler's regime. A lot of people, including gypsies, gays, Christians, etc were killed. The Jews were just more organized and had a bigger media machine to get the world to feel more sorry for them than anyone else.

Gwenny, I actually do agree.

Hitler was the leader of one of the most brutal genocides in history, but he was not by far the only one, or even the most brutal one. To put it bluntly, it's partly because his crimes were committed in an age of close-knit information networks, and partly because the Jewish people never waver in reminding themselves and the rest of the world about their singularly non-unique tragedies.

Such PR isn't bad. It raises awareness. The Holocaust was a horrible event. But, a good Jewish friend of mine says that she often has nightmares about being caught in a Holocaust concentration camp, seeing the people around dying horrible deaths, and being led to execution. She's twenty years old. Aside from a slight obsession with hand sanitizer, she is for all intents and purposes psychologically perfectly normal. This type of historical indoctrination is about more than rememberance.

It's not that "The Jews were just more organized and had a bigger media machine." Antisemitism bound together Nazi ideology so that it was a necessary precondition for the Holocaust. No other group played that role or could have.

But, on to less serious matters, none of the other examples you mention are comparable. Ceasar, Genghis Khan, and Nero were too far in the past. There are still a few Holocaust survivors alive. Bloody Mary was not only 500 years ago, but not necessarily a central figure in persecution of Protestants. (And, for that matter, Protestants are a lot more secure today than Jews are.) Prior wars in Germany were hardly motivated by anything remotely so exceptional. Jack the Ripper had maybe as many as 20 victims and hardly led an ideology that could live on after his death. If you think any of these are remotely similar, you need to go back and read some more on the Holocaust.

I disagree that no other group played the role or could have. "The victims of the Holocaust were Jews, Serbs, Poles, Russians, Belarussians, Communists, homosexuals, Roma (also known as gypsies), the mentally ill and the physically disabled, intelligentsia and political activists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and Protestant clergy, trade unionists, psychiatric patients, Africans, Asians, enemy nationals, common criminals, people labeled as "enemies of the state" especially a large portion of the country's rich and liberal dissidents, and many who did not belong to the Aryan race. These victims all perished alongside one another in the camps, according to the extensive documentation left behind by the Nazis themselves (written and photographed), eyewitness testimony (by survivors, perpetrators, and bystanders), and the statistical records of the various countries under occupation." (From wikipedia under Holocaust)

Yes, there are still a few Holocaust survivors alive. I've known a few. There are also Chinese alive who suffered at the hands of the Japanese and the Japanese interred by the US. And, yes, the people I mentioned are ancient. So I will give you a new one. Chairman Mao. Apparently in Singapore they have the House of Mao, with a picture of the Chairman up on the wall. Surely he rates with Hitler for being recent (he died in 1976)and a murderer. ( is the link to a story about how popular the Mao hat is becoming in American society. Sure, look a kid up for having a swastika, but it's fine if he emulates Mao.)

I. TRANSFORMATION AND THE NATIONALIST STRUGGLE, 1900 TO SEPTEMBER 1949

2. 105,000 Victims: Dynastic and Republican China 3. 632,000 Victims: Warlord China 4. 2,724,000 Victims: The Nationalist Period 5. 10,216,000 Victims: The Sino-Japanese War 6. 3,949,000 Victims: Japanese Mass Murder in China 7. 4,968,000 Victims: The Civil War

II. THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

8. The People's Republic of China: Overview 9. 8,427,000 Victims: The Totalization Period 10.7,474,000 Victims: Collectivization and "The Great Leap Forward" 11. 10,729,000 Victims: The Great Famine and Retrenchment Period 12. 7,731,000 Victims: The "Cultural Revolution" 13. 874,000 Victims: Liberalization

Yes, there were many different types of people who perished at the hand of the Nazis. However, they weren't all the same in the minds of the Nazis. They were all inferior, and threats to racial purity, but the Jews served a special role. The unifying ideology of Nazism was that Germany was threatened by a Jewish plot to control the world. Consider this classic Nazi propaganda poster depicting Jewish power controlling Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union. There were no similar ideas about the Roma or any of these other groups. They were not the immediate threat to the Nazis that the Jews were. In fact, when Germany was losing the war, it failed to divert resources from the genocide to the war effort, because even then they saw the Jews as their most immediate enemy.

No other group did or could have served that role in Nazism. The claim that "Jews were just more organized and had a bigger media machine " is categorically false.

ignoblus, we remember the Holocaust not because of the precise reason that Nazis persecuted Jews more than others. We remember the Holocaust for being a genocide that slaughtered 6 million Jews. We remember it for being the genocide.

When we think of atrocities, we think of the Holocaust, and when we think of the Holocaust, we think of the Jews, and I believe that the reason these two relational connections being so much stronger than any other (atrocities - Nanjing, atrocities - Great Leap Forward, Holocaust - Christians, Holocaust - blacks) is because the Jewish people have not let anyone in the world even begin to consider putting the Holocaust in the past. Jews have legally wrangled with Swiss banks for decades, they have pursued the prosecution of Nazi war criminals for a generation. This is why the Holocaust can be used as an immunity against current criticism, and this is why labels of anti-Semite are so singularly abhorrent. The Great Leap Forward? Right, like a Western layman really knows much about that at all. The Japanese slaughter of Chinese? Right, because Germany dares to omit Holocaust from its history textbooks. The Holocaust? That's a very different story. This is because Jews have made sure to keep the Holocaust a current issue. I admire the Jews for their tenacity in keeping this memory very much alive and at the forefront of our collective consciousnesses, but the infamy of the Holocaust is not wholly due to its cruelty.

It was an atrocity, but the reason it is remembered as the atrocity cannot only be attributed to good understandings of Nazi ideologies.

I think the reason too few Westerners know about the Great Leap Forward has more to do with their being Westerners. The claim I was arguing against, however, was that the Jews were not special within the context of the Holocaust. They were. There is a reason they were.

This is why the Holocaust can be used as an immunity against current criticism, and this is why labels of anti-Semite are so singularly abhorrent.

Now, I have a problem with this statement. First, there is real antisemitism in the world, and no one should be able to dismiss that. Second, it doesn't provide immunity. I can point to plenty of critics of Israel who have never been called antisemites for the simple reason that they aren't. I've been told (by people I tend to believe) that the charge has been made too often, but I've only ever seen it made against arguments or people who truly were antisemitic. In fact, I've seen tremendous effort by most people not to claim that they were laying the charge against a person, except in extreme cases, but only against specific arguments.

Every educated Indians speak English in India, so you can imagine how uneducated the Indians in Surrey who do not speak English.

Although we Americans should not dictate how you should run your country but i think Canada needs to adopt the US standard in immigration as currently Canada is welcoming every uneducated tom, dick and harry into the country unlike the US. Even with a bachelors, it is difficult to emigrate to the US but you can get into Canada, even if you don't know English. Hope Steve Harper will do something about it.

Perhaps you could learn to talk and write English properly before preaching about another country's immigration policies on allowing uneducated people into the country.

Actually, the Canadian immigration policy has two major components: 1) Re-uniting families, (so if part of a family is here it's easier for the rest to come), and 2) Bringing skilled, educated immigrants to Canada.

However the problem is that once all of these skilled, educated imigrants are here we refuse to recognize any of their education or experience. For example, (From CTVs W5), an Osteopath from India, who I believe was the head of his department, was told he would have to go back to school for a year then do a four year internship before he could practise in Canada.

That isn't entirely true, all education from recognized Universities is recognized. Its hard enough to say BSC from UofC = BSC from UofT, let alone comparing some college that gives degrees in a different country to a Canadian University degree. (in canada you get diplomas in college).

Also, I dont think you should talk @!$%# about our immigration policy with the retarded number of illegal immigrants you get in the U.S. The U.S may only accept extremely qualified people, but the unqualified still come, and are a major drain on your economy, taking away alot of jobs by accepting less than minimum wage.

It's not like we're fighting for space here in Canada, our population would be in decline if it wasn't for the people immigrating into our country.

K. Hodge, I agree with your sentiments in spirit, but on the following point, you're mistaken:

The U.S may only accept extremely qualified people, but the unqualified still come, and are a major drain on your economy, taking away alot of jobs by accepting less than minimum wage.

Having immigrants who take very low-paying jobs does not cripple our economy. I would argue that it is helping to bolster our economy. If workers demanding higher wages took the same jobs, our consumer price index would need to rise accordingly, which would most probably lead to inflation and a loss in purchasing power parity.
Illegal immigrants working menial jobs for dirt-poor isn't a drain on our economy. It's a boon. That being said, I agree with you about the hypocrisy of the statement you're referring to.

Oh god I feel so ashamed… T_T

Because it has over 70 votes and 130 comments ... and you and I just added another two.

eenie meenie miny moe. Up until about 5 years ago I had never known the racial history behind that phrase. I grew up knowing it as "catch a tiger by the toe"

I was shocked it used to reference people and not tigers.

It's troubling to me that some might "not" know the history.

Anytime a nursery rhyme is utilized to teach bigotry to our kids -- we need to remember that we made the mistake.

Rewriting the nursery rhyme to gloss over it's initial hatred doesn't erase the memory from those who lived it.

Nor should we allow it to.

Yeah, never knew the history of "Eenie meenie miney moe."

That being said, I would have to actually think about whether or not I'm going to continue using it. I doubt anyone I personally know in real life is at all aware if its racist roots. Hmmm...

I am in my 50s, and we used the original version as kids. Recently I told my son (age 22) about it and he was pretty shocked.

im 34 and we used the original as kids thinking that Tigers were the original and we were the ones changing it. Who knew? Having said that, the nursury rhyme today is so far removed from the original writers and singers of it, that it it most definitely NOT being used today to teach hatred as Brian implied it is. Most people dont even know the history of it, let alone the original rhyme. I didnt. But then again, I grew up in the South.

Rewriting the nursery rhyme to gloss over it's initial hatred doesn't erase the memory from those who lived it.

Racists / neo-nazi's in the Netherlands have always done the opposite (in the last 5+ years that I've been dealing with them, anyway). They take normal "landmark words" (like the dutch spelling of the Netherlands) and create racist anagrams for them, or they take nursery rhyme and rewrite them to have a racist message, sometimes subliminal.

The amount of subliminal-ish propaganda on some Myspace-like sites is insane (though the one I worked for has done a great job at ensuring these people's profiles get deleted within a day after creation, usually within hours). It's also pushed to the extent that even most of their own "targetted audience" isn't even aware of all the subliminality.

Anyway, just saying that it's not always the case that nursery rhymes start out as racist. As such, when a nursery rhyme gets abused for racism, I personally feel that parents should just teach them the rhyme and completely refrain from making the link to racism (as made by others) until the kids are in their teens. Keep the rhymes safe (when they're innocent).

The amount of subliminal-ish propaganda on some Myspace-like sites is insane (though the one I worked for has done a great job at ensuring these people's profiles get deleted within a day after creation, usually within hours). It's also pushed to the extent that even most of their own "targetted audience" isn't even aware of all the subliminality.

Which site might that be. I have a lot of profiles out there and I want to be sure I remove any support for any company that promotes censorship.

To those who say that we should be allowed to forget that a nursery rhyme was once used as hate speech or that we should be allowed to overwrite history by saying "catch a tiger"

You know, my half-sibs said "catch an Injun". It was a slur at me because I was the half breed bastard their family hated. And I wouldn't have been bothered by seeing it because *I* know that the meaning has changed, just as many meanings have changed. In my world you let go and move on.

I hope they also believe that we should be able to similarly reclaim Hitler's name and the imagery he used to instill fear and terror into millions of Jewish human beings.

Millions of humans, some of whom were Jewish.

Yet today those safe Jews are under attack (from your article you posted): See: Lashkar-e-Toiba Terror Attacks Against Jews

Lashkar-e-Toiba is not an Indian outfit. It's based in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The government of India recognizes it as a terrorist organization as does the US government.

there are 5,500 Jews in the whole country according to the article. Thats like 0.0007% of the whole country. There are suicide cults in the states with more of a following than that.

Basically if 200 people in Canada took opposition to something. Would anyone do anything about it?I doubt it.

I thought you claimed you were a Pakistani. So, that idea won't fly in India.