Anti-Semitism on College Campuses

[Kimstu]

@Odesio

This sounds like something college educated individuals might know

? Because only college educated individuals can read a dictionary, for example? I mean, if you look at a standard online dictionary entry on racism, it offers as definitions both “a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” (i.e., prejudice) and “the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another” (i.e., institutional power).

So, no, I don’t agree that the “privilege + power” interpretation of racism is really all that esoteric or inaccessible to ordinary people.

[Odesio]

@Kimstu

So, no, I don’t agree that the “privilege + power” interpretation of racism is really all that esoteric or inaccessible to ordinary people.

You cite two separate definitions but fail to give any reason why one is more valid than the other. If you didn’t go to college and learn anything about privilege or other social theories, why would you think one definition was superior to the other? Why aren’t they both equally valid?

[WalterBishop]

@Kimstu

So yes, according to that interpretation—which, again, is not particularly new or niche—it’s valid to say that in the US black people cannot be racist against white people, no matter how much they may be prejudiced against white people on account of their race.

The problem (well, one of the problems) I have with that is that the same young progressives I’ve been describing don’t seem to be willing to apply this premise consistently. They will argue that, if five black guys beat up a white guy for being white, the black guys are exhibiting prejudice rather than racism. But at the same time they’ll happily say that a white guy with an ‘All Lives Matter’ sticker on his car is racist rather than prejudiced. Indeed, they’ll insist on it. But it seems to me that if we’re applying the ‘racism = prejudice + institutional power’ model consistently then either both examples are racist or neither of them are (for the record, I’d argue both are racist).

[DemonTree]

@WalterBishop

In DemonTree’s defense, it’s my experience that the sort of progressives they’re describing are far from rare. In fact, on social media they seem to be quite common. For instance, I’m semi-active on Threads and I’ve had dozens of interactions with progressives who genuinely seem to believe that it’s physically impossible for a black person to be racist, who believe that whites have always held every scintilla of institutional power America has to offer, and who believe that the most disadvantaged white man in America has it easier than Beyoncé because he’s a white man and she’s a black woman and that’s all there is to that. They seem completely incapable of thinking about concepts like privilege in anything but the broadest, most simplistic terms, and they’re happy to write off anyone who doesn’t align with them as a racist.

I don’t see people saying Beyoncé has it better than a poor white man. They do explain intersectionality by saying “but the poor white man still has advantages Beyoncé doesn’t”. And they categorically deny that white people can ever experience racism, and are always willing to repeat the axiom that “racism = privilege + power”, while refusing to consider that other definitions are preferable or even possible. I am frankly baffled that anyone would deny this is the standard progressive position; it’s what’s in diversity trainings, it’s what civil rights groups publish on their websites.

And on the current topic, people who say Jews in Israel should “go back to Europe” (or even more ridiculously, “to America”) are rare. But those who say Israelis are colonisers and Israel is a colonial nation are not. Calling the war in Gaza a genocide is extremely common. Inveighing against Zionists is common. They got these ideas from somewhere. The solution most young progressives seem to advocate for is a single state, secular democracy, which is a good demonstration of their general degree of ignorance.

@WalterBishop

Now, I’m happy to acknowledge that these people are idiots. I accept that they aren’t familiar with the nuances of progressivism. I understand that they haven’t done the reading, and that their knowledge of progressivism probably owes more to Instagram memes than anything else.

Doing the reading, understanding nuance is the exception, not the rule. If you want and expect a lot of people to support your ideas, you have to accept most are not going to have a deep and nuanced understanding of them, and consider what that entails.

@WalterBishop

Individually, I don’t believe these people don’t have any meaningful power to speak of. However, as a group I believe they have a great deal of power. Their combined voices have the power to completely derail important conversations about race, sex, the Israel/Palestine conflict, and a slew of other topics. If there’s one thing we can take away from the ascendancy of Donald Trump it’s that we underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups at our own peril.

Yes. It’s very strange to look at a large social movement that’s disproportionately popular among the educated and young people and assume that it has no power and never will. Evangelicals have power in the US at least partially because they are a large voting block. If no politician is representing them, one soon will be.

@puzzlegal

I learned the theory of privilege, etc., from college students, quite recently.

I’m really surprised to hear that; I’m sure people have been talking about it on this board for at least 15 years. Best I can remember, I learned about it on blogs in the early 2000s. “Unpacking the invisible knapsack” was a popular phrase back then: doing this was supposed to help people recognise all the advantages they had versus others that they had never thought about or noticed. I’ve read plenty on the subject and know most of the arguments by heart; if I misunderstand it so egregiously, what hope do the 19 year old college students watching tiktok memes have?

[DSeid]

That said she had heard McGill asked it more clearly first. And McGill’s response. But yes she was consistent in not answering when stated about Black mass murder as well.

Your knowledge of Harvard reality - a student calling for the general mass murder of Blacks would not face any discipline unless it crossed into direct to individuals threat (conduct)? Really?

Nevermind. Getting too astray again!

[Kimstu]

@Odesio

You cite two separate definitions but fail to give any reason why one is more valid than the other.

I’m not claiming that either of those juxtaposed definitions (I’m not sure in what sense you’re calling them “separate”: as my link makes clear, they’re part of the same entry on the same word in the same online dictionary) is more valid than the other. I’m just pointing out that their juxtaposition in the dictionary entry illustrates the widespread recognition of the “prejudice plus power” interpretation of racism.

In fact, given all the online chatter in the past several years about debating questions like “can black people be racist against white people”, whose entire raison d’etre is the issue of whether racism requires an institutional-power component as well as a personal-prejudice component, I’m kind of surprised that anybody still views this interpretation as some kind of esoteric academic discourse that no ordinary folks will have heard of.

@WalterBishop

The problem (well, one of the problems) I have with that is that the same young progressives I’ve been describing don’t seem to be willing to apply this premise consistently. They will argue that, if five black guys beat up a white guy for being white, the black guys are exhibiting prejudice rather than racism. But at the same time they’ll happily say that a white guy with an ‘All Lives Matter’ sticker on his car is racist rather than prejudiced. Indeed, they’ll insist on it. But it seems to me that if we’re applying the ‘racism = prejudice + institutional power’ model consistently then either both examples are racist or neither of them are […]

Nope, I don’t agree. It seems to me that the examples you give are a textbook illustration of the difference between “prejudice” and “prejudice plus institutional power”.

By that interpretation, since US society is not historically and systemically oppressive towards white people, a bunch of bigoted anti-white black people who beat up a white person for being white are not being racist. They may be despicably prejudiced and criminally violent, mind you, but that’s not the same thing.

Since US society is historically and systemically oppressive towards black people, on the other hand, a bigoted anti-black white person flashing an “All Lives Matter” sticker is being racist.

In both cases, the determining criterion for racism is not about the degree of racial prejudice or the heinousness of the act(s) inspired by the racial prejudice. It’s about the presence or absence of the required component of institutional power.

Anyway, I did say a couple of posts ago that I didn’t want to launch a hijack on this subject, and I seem to have got to the point of trying to explain the same argument multiple times, so I suppose it’s time for me to shut up about it.

[iiandyiiii]

@DemonTree

I don’t see people saying Beyoncé has it better than a poor white man. They do explain intersectionality by saying “but the poor white man still has advantages Beyoncé doesn’t”.

Sure. This is, broadly speaking, true. It doesn’t mean Beyonce has it harder than poor white men, it’s just recognizing the fact that, due to various forms of discrimination built into American (and other) institutions, there are some privileges that even wealthy and famous black women don’t have.

And they categorically deny that white people can ever experience racism, and are always willing to repeat the axiom that “racism = privilege + power”, while refusing to consider that other definitions are preferable or even possible. I am frankly baffled that anyone would deny this is the standard progressive position; it’s what’s in diversity trainings, it’s what civil rights groups publish on their websites.

This is definitely NOT a “standard progressive position”, at least not at all in my experience. Some progressives believe this, but it’s a pretty small minority, in my experience (if you have different data, I’d love to see it). And it’s just a semantics point anyway.

[DemonTree]

@Spice_Weasel

In a similar manner, I have seen people on the internet comment that the reason autistic and ADHD people self-identify as such on the internet is because we can’t stand the fact that we’re privileged and we just wish we were as oppressed as Black people. This perspective ignores the fact that autism and ADHD are massively underdiagnosed in people of color and women of color in particular, but if you’re white and talking about the challenges of being neurodivergent, you’re just wannabe oppressed. That actually sounds like a conservative hot take, but it came from a progressive.

I understand people doing this, since it can bring real advantages in progressive spaces. But I suspect it’s often unhealthy to base one’s identity on having a mental or physical ailment or disability, rather than seeing it as an incidental part of oneself, or something to overcome in the case of anxiety or depression.

@Spice_Weasel

Are there smart and thoughtful progressives? Buckets of 'em. I work with a great many. Are there flaming idiots? Buckets of them. I encounter them mostly online, but who the hell knows what my colleagues post on the internet.

I have found plenty of smart and thoughtful people on social media, who were willing to put aside their preconceptions and debate various issues. Unfortunately there are also plenty who are only interested in classifying others into ideological boxes, and name calling. Neither are limited to one part of the political spectrum. I don’t think progressives are bad people in general, or have bad intentions. Rather, I am afraid that just like with religion, strong ideological beliefs can make good people do bad things and hurt others.

[puzzlegal]

@iiandyiiii

Beyonce has it harder than poor white men, it’s just recognizing the fact that, due to various forms of discrimination built into American (and other) institutions, there are some privileges that even wealthy and famous black women don’t have.

Serena Williams nearly died giving birth because her doctors ignored her educated and informed concerns about her health. That’s statistically much more common to happen to Black women. Was it BECAUSE she’s a Black woman? No way to prove it on an individual case, but it seems likely.

[DemonTree]

@iiandyiiii

This is definitely NOT a “standard progressive position”, at least not at all in my experience. Some progressives believe this, but it’s a pretty small minority, in my experience (if you have different data, I’d love to see it). And it’s just a semantics point anyway.

I suspect the actual semantics point here may be the definition of progressive. I’m not talking about anyone who believes in technological and societal progress, but those who share a loosely-defined set of beliefs about intersectionality, anti-racism, equity, and oppression. There really isn’t a good term to describe this group of beliefs.

And why are you dismissing a point as semantic? You don’t believe language is unimportant when it comes to eliminating terms that are offensive or may influence people’s thinking in undesirable ways (eg ‘chairman’), do you?

[Babale]

@Kimstu

However, I think it’s worth pointing out that for decades, a very widespread and well-known interpretation of racism has invoked the concept of “prejudice plus institutional power”. That is, according to this interpretation racism is understood to be something more than just racial prejudice: it’s the combination of racial prejudice with a dominant culture that endorses and enforces that prejudice.

That’s a fine and dandy lens through which certain situations can be usefully analyzed. But using the same lens at all times regardless of context is extremely myopic. And here we are talking about antisemitism, which indeed is precisely one of the situations that this lens often fails to see.

[DemonTree]

@Kimstu

By that interpretation, since US society is not historically and systemically oppressive towards white people, a bunch of bigoted anti-white black people who beat up a white person for being white are not being racist. They may be despicably prejudiced and criminally violent, mind you, but that’s not the same thing.

By that interpretation, a Palestinian in Gaza who calls for the genocide of all Jews in Israel is not being racist, correct?

[Babale]

@DemonTree

By that interpretation, a Palestinian in Gaza who calls for the genocide of all Jews in Israel is not being racist, correct?.

Yes, but only until they get far enough along in their plan that the Jews become the oppressed minority again, at which point the Palestinians become evil colonists and the Jews become freedom fighters.

[Babale]

I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that racism means prejudice based on race, and institutional racism means prejudice based on race plus institutional power. And then pointing out that institutional racism can be destructive in ways that vanilla racism on its own isn’t.

In fact, in my experience, that’s how most progressive people I’ve actually met view racism. The idea that institutional racism is the only real form of racism is not one I have encountered outside of terminally online spaces.

[iiandyiiii]

I’m talking about the political label, and I think you are too. But you aren’t supporting your assertions about this group. You could at least try and find polling about various beliefs among self described Democrats, liberals, or progressives. Maybe you’d be surprised by what you found.

As for the “semantics” point, I didn’t mean to dismiss it - just to point out that while some can disagree about the meaning of a word like racism, the more interesting thing IMO would be to find out what people actually believe about discrimination, oppression, etc., not which words they use for their various incarnations.

[Babale]

@iiandyiiii

As for the “semantics” point, I didn’t mean to dismiss it - just to point out that while some can disagree about the meaning of a word like racism, the more interesting thing IMO would be to find out what people actually believe about discrimination, oppression, etc., not which words they use for their various incarnations.

I think there is an key point there, in that it is important and appropriate to note the difference between institutional racism and plain old racism; and that it is important to point out the compounding effect that institutional backing has on racism; yet we should not minimize the other sorts of racism by declaring that they aren’t real racism.

(And I’m not really talking about black on white racism there, so much as about antisemitism, and about racism against Blacks/Latinos/Asians in the Black/Latino/Asian community, etc.)

[Kimstu]

@Babale

I don’t see what’s wrong with saying that racism means prejudice based on race, and institutional racism means prejudice based on race plus institutional power.

I don’t see anything wrong with that either. But I also don’t see anything wrong with saying that racial prejudice means prejudice based on race, and racism means prejudice based on race plus institutional power. (Nor do I agree that the latter definitions are necessarily “minimizing” the harms of racial prejudice, which are real and important even when they’re not reinforced by institutional power.)

I don’t think that either of those sets of semantic conventions is intrinsically superior to the other, nor that any particular individual or group is uniquely entitled to decide how racism should be defined.

[puzzlegal]

@DemonTree

@puzzlegal

I learned the theory of privilege, etc., from college students, quite recently.

I’m really surprised to hear that; I’m sure people have been talking about it on this board for at least 15 years.

I wasn’t here 15 years ago. And i do spend a lot of time hanging out with college students. I think i first heard it from my daughter, when she was in college, but I’ve since heard a lot about it from other college students.

[Slithy_Tove]

An argument in favor of Zionism:

Suppose, for the sake of this argument, one of those messianic Second Great Awakening religions (maybe the Mormons, but there were plenty of others) decided to found, instead of a New Zion in the American West, their (as they clearly saw it) their place in the Old Zion. Towards this end, they bribed the Ottomans, established flourishing communities, and made converts in the rest of the world to build economic and political power. Not really too much of a stretch of the imagination. And if the indigenous Arab population objected to this, especially if they’d been displaced as forcefully as had the natives of Utah had been herded onto reservations, the world would allow the Mormons no consideration.

But that’s not Israel, nor Zionism. The Jews do have an ancestral claim to Palestine, and besides that, it’s been demonstrated that they as a people are in peril of genocide if they reside in any nation not under their total control.

If you bought this so far, you’re not an anti-Zionist, and certainly not an antisemite. (FTR, this is why I’m a pro-Zionist US atheist)

Its not a matter of opposing principles. A matter of objecting to (IMHO) corrupted principles.

For an illustration of corrupted principles, pro-Zionist American Henry Kissinger:

1. Witnesses and experienced Nazism; more than most, and so hates it even more than most
2. Has access to the data that shows Stalinism is as bad as Hitlersim. (a reasonable conclusion)
3. May or may not believe that Communism always results in Stalinism, but in America, political power always flows to those who do (and here begins the compromise, always hates in hand with ambition)
4. The most oppressive anti-communist regimes are also the most reliable allies against it. Their support is valued despite their crimes against even their democratic opposition, let alone their communist opposition.
5. So, how much of a Nazi are you willing to be in order to combat Nazism?

That was one man, albeit a very influential one. How about me, the pro-Zionist nobody?

1. Pro-Zionist for the reasons given above. Jewish legitimacy and necessity for a homeland
2. Not to get all Christopher Hitchens about it, but honestly, I can only draw one conclusion about how Moslem-majority nations order their societies. I don’t like how they do it, but I’m not proud I feel that way.
3. Hard-liners always lose on the long run. “Live and let live” is fundamental human nature, unless exploited by ambitious assholes. What’s going on in Israel/Palestine is the aftermath of the fall of the USSR: a massive influx of Soviet Jews who needed more space than the non-occupied zones could accommodate, and their impact on the Palestinian labor market.
4. Good government is usually just making the best of a bad situation, and this too shall pass.

Easy enough for me to say, as some American who never lived in the same town with people like the IDF or Hamas who came to my house at night with guns? But in 1968 some men who objected to my parents’ involvement in the Civil Rights movement did just that, when I was 8; and it was indeed terrible. I’m honestly not sure I’m not somewhat fucked up for life because of it. And yet I don’t ascribe to a simple “kill them all, hate anyone who refuses to hate them” philosophy. And any hard-liner who preaches it can go to Hell.

[MrDibble]

@Babale

In fact, in my experience, that’s how most progressive people I’ve actually met view racism.

That’s definitely how I view it.

@Slithy_Tove

it’s been demonstrated that they as a people are in peril of genocide if they reside in any nation not under their total control.

If you bought this so far,

I have not bought the last point. Does that make me an antisemite (I’m definitely anti-Zionist)?