Gold Man Sacks is an ethnic slur?

[raventhief]

Well there is THIS site:

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=645

The comments in particular refer to Gold-in-Sacks, Gold Sacks , etc. i didn’t click on any of the side links but there’s one about "a Christian America - not a Jewish America! "

[Colibri]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Not really. The claim has been made but there’s zero supporting evidence other than the specious logic y’all used to reach your conclusion.

You didn’t search very well. Here’s an antisemitic sitethat uses it.

Recall how former New York Stock Exchange CEO Bernard Madoff was tried and convicted without any court testimony… because he could spill the beans on larger ponzi schemes and outright thefts on Wall Street? Phonetically, Goldman Sachs (Gold Man Sacks) is an appropriate name!

…

A British banker paid Marx to set in motion a plan for the theft of the whole planet. Nathan Rothschild’s checks issued to Marx are in the British Museum. Rothschild also had Marxists in Abraham Lincoln’s administration, financed both the North and the South in the War of Northern Aggression that ended the republic of American states.

…

Lenin was a Jew, and David Ben Gurion cut his political teeth in the Bolshevik Revolution before taking his brand of terror to found Israel in 1948. The history of socialism is deeply rooted in an evil cabalistic Jewish culture permeating world financial houses, our movies, media and the academic institutions.

[Colibri]

There’s some antisemitic posts here, in which one poster uses the term.

One poster says in part:

Goldman Sachs people include (among others)

Robert Rubin: former Treasury Secretary (Jew)
Hank Paulson: former Treasury Secretary (Jew)
Stephen Friedman: (Jew) held various posts under W. Bush

To which another replies:

No worries. Gold Man Sacks. I’m very familiar with vice president positions. Believe me when I say this, VPs are nothing. There are many VPs in the corporate world who have no clout, especially in zionist owned corporation. They don’t make much money either, even with their bonuses. Since she is not a CEO or a very senior officer, then the Cruz lady has no real pull. She is just married to a clown. She should get used to wearing ear plugs too, because the insults will be unbearable. Goldman will win either way. Whether Republican or Democrat, there is money to be made at Gold Man Sacks.

[Colibri]

Here’s another antisemitic post that uses the term:

Gold man sacks.
A very quick scan of wikipedia on gold man sacks has it looking like a rothschild affiliated zionist ,one world order ,rockefeller ,organisation.
To get a good handle it pays to read about how the rothschilds started their empire.To much to relate here but it makes an interesting read.There are various web sites it pays to look at a few as some are better than others.Sorry dont have time to do links.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Meh. “Gold Man Sacks” looks to me like something a badly-written autocorrect program would write on someone’s behalf.

If “Man Sacks” is hyphenated, it might be very slightly naughty, though I’m not in any case seeing the slur unless one forces it.

I’d be okay with telling a poster to knock off repeated use of it, though. Same case for someone who kept writing “$cientology” or “MicroSuck”, the latter of which was a habit of a poster named lissener, as I recall.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Colibri

You didn’t search very well. Here’s an antisemitic sitethat uses it.

Thank you for finding those.

Let’s look at more of what you quoted:

We have been tempted and defrauded to exchange real goods and real estate for worthless paper. Now the paper is being burned by the banksters, who each, like Al Capone, wanted to be seen as a “legitimate businessman”. We are being liquidated! Recall how former New York Stock Exchange CEO Bernard Madoff was tried and convicted without any court testimony… because he could spill the beans on larger ponzi schemes and outright thefts on Wall Street? Phonetically, Goldman Sachs (Gold Man Sacks) is an appropriate name! Is this the “Golden Rule” Christ spoke of? Of course not! It is time for a jubilee of debt repudiation… the jubilee noted in that verse from Leviticus 25:10, partly inscribed on the Liberty Bell. America’s Spirit of ‘76 railed against the Bank of England’s usury. As long ago as 1694, the Bank of England’s charter declared “The bank hath benefit on the interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.” A British banker paid Marx to set in motion a plan for the theft of the whole planet. Nathan Rothschild’s checks issued to Marx are in the British Museum. Rothschild also had Marxists in Abraham Lincoln’s administration, financed both the North and the South in the War of Northern Aggression that ended the republic of American states. We are deemed to be chattel under the 14th Amendment. The Bank of England is a major shareholder in the Federal Reserve Bank.

It seems to me that screed is about bankers, not Jews. It seems clear to me that “Gold Man Sacks” is a play on the notion that “gold=money and banks deal with money”.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Sorry, I missed the edit window:

I agree with you, Colibri, that the final paragraph displays quite a bit of naked anti-semitism (as well as a bunch of other general conspiracy nut indicators).

[joyfool]

@Snowboarder_Bo

If I have a beef with a reporter who continually writes stories I think are biased and with the fact that multiple news outlets repeat his stories and I were to refer to the “lame stream media”, would the fact that the reporter used a wheelchair instantly elevate my use of “lame stream media” to a slur on the physically handicapped? Even if I had written a whole screed decrying the ADA and the need to install ramps at so many public places, the answer is no, it doesn’t turn “lame stream media” into a slur against the physically handicapped.

But that’s the logic used to tie “Gold Man Sacks” to being an anti-semitic slur.

I understand that, but it’s not what I’m talking about. Supposedly, the objectives is that the other poster made a lame attempt at humor. The only attempt I see there, is of the second grade variety, “Ha ha! You said doo doo!” or something. If that is indeed the case, how often does that happen? Where someone is so wedded to one really weak joke that they use it over and over again after mods (an important distinction, I’d think) have told them to stop. Nor explain to anyone what the joke really is if it is indeed that silly.

So, that’s what I don’t get. Does that help?

[Colibri]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Sorry, I missed the edit window:

I agree with you, Colibri, that the final paragraph displays quite a bit of naked anti-semitism (as well as a bunch of other general conspiracy nut indicators).

The term is certainly used by antisemites to make a connection between the bank and Jews. And it’s a fairly obvious link to make. So even if the poster didn’t intend to make that connection himself, it would be legitimate to ask him to stop using the term.

[Chronos]

I don’t get this, either. As it is, the term is making the connection that a bank acts like a bank. The only Jewish connection is in the fact that the bank is named after a Jewish man, and that connection is thus actually weakened, not strengthened, by slightly changing the name. “Goldman” is a common Jewish surname. “Gold Man” is not. Using “Gold Man” does not in any way highlight the connection to a Jew or Jews.

[Colibri]

@Chronos

I don’t get this, either. As it is, the term is making the connection that a bank acts like a bank. The only Jewish connection is in the fact that the bank is named after a Jewish man, and that connection is thus actually weakened, not strengthened, by slightly changing the name. “Goldman” is a common Jewish surname. “Gold Man” is not. Using “Gold Man” does not in any way highlight the connection to a Jew or Jews.

Yes it does. By highlighting the “Gold” part of the name, it’s making the connection that Jews just care about gold.

[John_Mace]

Has anyone been to the Bank of Jap-an?

Hey, that’s not a racist statement. I was talking about a bank, not a person. The bank just happens to be names after the country, that’s all.

[Penfeather]

I used to nickname my balls the Blue Man Group, until it was pointed out that this was offensive to Tories.

[John_DiFool]

@CarnalK

Ask the Drumpf people. Or the Shrillary people. Or the Bernie Bros people. Etc etc

Or the quarry [del]people[/del] person.

[Chronos]

Quoth Colibri:

Yes it does. By highlighting the “Gold” part of the name, it’s making the connection that Jews just care about gold.

It might, if there were any particular connection to Jews in the first place. But there isn’t. All it’s actually saying is that banks just care about gold, which is pretty much accurate.

This is like the argument that Tolkien’s depiction of dwarves is anti-Semitic, because his dwarves behave in ways similar to the stereotypes of Jews.

[Colibri]

@Chronos

It might, if there were any particular connection to Jews in the first place. But there isn’t. All it’s actually saying is that banks just care about gold, which is pretty much accurate.

Have you really missed the part where Goldman is a stereotypical Jewish name, and the founder of Goldman Sachs was Jewish?

It’s like you haven’t been reading the thread at all.

This is like the argument that Tolkien’s depiction of dwarves is anti-Semitic, because his dwarves behave in ways similar to the stereotypes of Jews.

No it’s not.

[Chronos]

OK, so if I say “Goldman Sachs is a bunch of greedy money-grubbers”, is that anti-Semitic? Because it’s still got that Jewish name right there in it.

And if that’s not anti-Semitic, how is it any more so to change “Goldman” to “Gold Man”?

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Chronos

I don’t get this, either. As it is, the term is making the connection that a bank acts like a bank. The only Jewish connection is in the fact that the bank is named after a Jewish man, and that connection is thus actually weakened, not strengthened, by slightly changing the name. “Goldman” is a common Jewish surname. “Gold Man” is not. Using “Gold Man” does not in any way highlight the connection to a Jew or Jews.

This post received the original mod note: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19479246&postcount=407

Here’s an excerpt:

@Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur

Rahm Emmanuel
(1) Served in the Clinton administration to help pass their crowning achievement
NAFTA.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/January-2011/Luis-Gutierrez-on-Why-Rahm-Emanuel-Should-Not-Be-Mayor/
(2) Made 16 million on Wall Street and with Gold Man Sacks. Hillary loves Wall
Street since her son-in-law runs a hedge fund financed by Lloyd Blankfein CEO
of Gold Man Sacks.
(3) Has seen military action. Not for the United States. But for a foreign country.
(4) Wears spandex as a ballet dancer. You want a feminine figure to balance out
Hillary’s masculine qualities.

This is in an elections thread, not the Pit. I perceive a thread of anti-Semitism running through that post and I think asking him to “…stop with that ‘Gold Man Sacks’ stuff” is reasonable.

[kopek]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

He’s mocking it by playing into the Jewish stereotype. That’s the problem.

OK - remembering that 9 times out of 10 I think the Mods are right and accepted that he was ignoring the Mod Note and that drew the warning.

I’m still not seeing it. Using the colors as he did I read it as Gold Sacks, a play at all bankers being money-grubbing misers. I am just not getting the anti-semitic thing. Maybe its because all the actual real people I know named Goldman are Gentiles (the only Jewish Goldman who springs to mind is Mort on Family Guy) or whatever. Maybe he used the phrase before in a more obvious context. But I’m just not getting it here.

[Riemann]

@Measure_for_Measure

Here’s an excerpt: This is in an elections thread, not the Pit. I perceive a thread of anti-Semitism running through that post and I think asking him to “…stop with that ‘Gold Man Sacks’ stuff” is reasonable.

Hmm, I’m not seeing it at all in that example. It seems to be to be portraying Goldman as an archetype of bad Wall Street behaviour, not bad Jewish behaviour.

Goldman is a major force in the financial markets, and the bank has engaged in some dubious money-grubbing activity, worthy of commentary per se provided no generalizations are stated or implied about Jews. An anti-semitic comment would be “Goldman Sachs is a money-grubbing firm, typical of all Jews”.

Likewise surely we can say “OJ Simpson is a violent lunatic” when discussing (say) the legal implications of his crimes and trial, without being accused of making a de facto generalizaion to the “black men are thugs” racist trope.

To suggest otherwise would imply that when particular people do things that happen to conform to behaviors that bigots have in the past generalized into false stereotypes, we can’t refer at all to the specific instances if they are worthy of comment per se.