Did the study just ask whether the high schoolers had heard the word “Jew” being used as an insult, or was it more specific as to contexts? Because we have quite a lot movies, plays and literature set during WWII, quite few of which contains this.
So yes, I, a Norwegian, have heard the phrase “jewish swine” being hurled at another person - during a stage production of Anne Frank. Never in real life.
This seems like one of those strange and interesting situations where many examples of individual action and words are built up into a history and campaign of a particular behaviour; then, when those individual examples are gradually refuted or whittled down, the claimed history itself remains untouched and as viable as before. And finally the history itself is used to back up the individual claims.
Well, except for the fact that not one single example was refuted or whittled down and all we have is Dick’s attempt to gainsay it with a variation on “Nuh unh! Dershowitz is a poopy head!”
But yeah, other than that, sure.
Are you referring to Dick’s claims about Dershowitz or Dershowitz’s claims about Tutu?
That’s actually a good point, I may have misread it.
I meant Dick’s claims about Dershowitz. Sorry to be unclear.
Israel might not be theocratic and the majority of Zionists may be atheists but the loudest voices from Israeli governing coalitions are always the god’s chosen people ones. Anyway, here’s the author of the article explaining in hiis own words why he wrote what he wrote. Let’s also acknowledge that he wrote lots of pro-Israel stuff in his article too :
http://sirocco.blogsome.com/2006/08/12/jostein-gaarder-clarifies-view-on-israel-jews/
You have yet to produce any evidence that the study was legit. Based on the fact that a bullshit Jewish lobbying organisation got some former employees who run a similar bullshit lobbying organisation to do a poll for them and not an actual legit polling firm then that says all you really need to know.
I called them Jewish-Americans and Likudniks to make my point that they were exact same ideological bedfellows of the ADL and thus not exactly impartial observers when it came to producing a poll. If they had been Italian-Americans, and betters still, if they’d been Italian-American professional pollsters instead of Likudnik Jewish lobbyists then they’d be in a position to produce a poll which could be seen as unbiased or even not complete bullshit. But they weren’t they were Likudniks who used to work for the ADL so I thought it was relevant to point it out. What part of this don’t you understand?
Yeah, even the ADL realised they were on a loser trying to call Tutu antisemitic. They knew they’d be completely losing their target audience on that one and they’d only be convincing the dead enders. I’m happy to let the ADL’s decision to stop smearing Tutu provide my answer on this one. If you want to continue to stand on the extreme edge where even the ADL refuse to go and continue to call Tutu antisemitic then go right ahead.
So you’re saying the pollsters aren’t reliable because they’re Jews and you’re specifically stating that had they “been Italian-Americans…then they’d be in a position to produce a poll which could be seen as unbiased or even not complete bullshit.”
Claiming people aren’t reliable because they are Jews but that they’d be reliable if they were gentiles is a pretty classic example of anti-Semitism.
The study was produced by the ADL a reputable group which, as BG pointed out is considered one of the best groups around for developing studies on racism and anti-Semitism.
Yet again, you seem to use the fact that the ADL is made up of Jews as proof they can’t be trusted.
Again, I’m not sure how this can’t be viewed as bigotry.
Certainly anyone who insisted that the NAACP can’t be trusted because it’s made up of African-Americans would be viewed as a bigot.
Septima, the phrasing for that question was: “Have you experienced any of the following in your school?” where one of the alternatives were “Jew has been used to describe someone negatively” (“Jøde har blitt brukt for å beskrive noen negativt”). The introduction to the survey stated that its purpose was to examine racism and antisemittism in schools. So I’d think very few would think insults in WWII films were relevant to the question.
The report is called “Survey of knowledge and attitudes on racism and antisemttism in Oslo schools” (“Kartlegging av kunnskaper og holdinger på området rasisme og antisemittisme i Osloskolen”), and was made in april 2011 by the municipial office for education in Oslo. The complete report (PDF in Norwegian) is here: http://www.utdanningsetaten.oslo.kommune.no/getfile.php/utdanningsetaten%20(UDE)/Internett%20(UDE)/PED/Dok/Rapport_UDA_7.6.2011.pdf
The survey included a few in depth interviews, as well as a questionaire answered by ~5600 children in 8th-10th grade (13 to 16 years old). They were asked about harassment based on both race and religion, asking about specific types of harassment from nasty comments to being beaten up.
Some of the findings:
[ul]
[li]15% had been harassed at least once because of national background. 6.9% experienced this 2-3 times a month or more often.[/li][li]9% had been harassed because of religion, 3.5% experienced this 2-3 times a month or more.[/li][li]Percentage of children who had been harassed 2-3 times a month or more because of religion:[/li][list][li]Jews 33.3%[/li][li]Buddhists 9.1%[/li][li]Other 6.9%[/li][li]Muslims 5.3%[/li][li]Hindus 2.5%[/li][li]Christians 2.2%[/li][li]No religion 1.6%[/ul][/li][li]51.5% of all children had heard the word “jew” used negatively[/li][li]35.2% had heard negative comments about jews[/li][/LIST]
Jews were the smallest group, only 36 respondents (complete list in table 4.2.2.4 “Religion/tro” in the PDF), so there’s probably more uncertainity in those numbers than the others. Still, I think these findings show that yes, antisemittism is a problem in Norway.
Another relevant report is “It can happen again” (“Det kan skje igjen”. PDF in Norwegian: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Grunnskole/Eidsvagutvalget/Eidsvag_rapport_Det_kan_skje_igjen.pdf ), which is a government report about what can be done in schools to fight antisemittism and racism. It mentions a survey in 2009 where 53% said they would not be positive to a muslim son-in-law or daugther-in-law, and 26% would not be positive to a jewish son-in-law/daugther-in-law. This report also says that there are few hate crimes which can be connected to antisemittism in Norway, but that this number increases a lot in times when the Israel-Palestine conflict escalates. The report states that “There are many indications that most of the people who commit antisemittic crimes are marginalized white youth. But also immigrant youth who fall outside of society are in this group.”
A third report is “Ung, norsk og svart” (“Young, Norwegian, and Black”, PDF in Norwegian http://www.omod.no/images/ung%20svar%20og%20norsk.pdf ). I haven’t read that one yet.
I think that the problem was that you used the word “history” instead of “fiction” 
Anyways, so now we have some nonsense that Dick has helpfully provided us which doesn’t, at all, erase the actual anti-Semitic things that Gaarder said. But, dontcha know, he originally called it “God’s Chosen People” because he wanted to address Christian Zionism. Which, naturally, he spent so much time on in the original piece. Funny how if you don’t write something anti-Semitic, people generally won’t call you out for anti-Semitism (claims of the “woe is us, we are being persecuted!” brigade to the contrary), but if you do you’re reduced to pretzeling yourself in order to explain that you didn’t mean what you said, and there’s a good reason that you didn’t actually ever say what you really meant… sugartits.
Yeep.
Shall we start running a count as to how many days it’s taken for Dick to provide even the basest bit of evidence that there’s any actual reason to distrust the study’s results, other than that he doesn’t like them and that a (gasp!) Jewish advocacy organization commissioned them?
Yeah, because you know those Jewish-Americans… :smack:
[QUOTE=Dick Dastardly;14075040 ]
If they had been Italian-Americans, and betters still, if they’d been Italian-American professional pollsters instead of Likudnik Jewish lobbyists then they’d be in a position to produce a poll which could be seen as unbiased or even not complete bullshit.
[/quote]
My, what an interesting and revealing statement.
I wonder if there are any other ethnic groups we cannot trust to run polls.
And again, simply being “Likudnik” isn’t good enough, he needs to mention that they’re “Likudnik Jewish”. Shall we wait on a cite for that claim too, by the way? So far we’ve had Dick’s cite on how Dershowitz allegedly called Tutu an anti-Semite simply because Tutu held different politics than he does… which upon even cursory examination was revealed to show that Dick’s argument was full of shit and Tutu was called on the carpet because he said a lot of blatantly anti-Semitic things. Of course, that raises the obvious question as to how Dick made such an elementary and blatant error in the first place, and how that error just happened to play into his odd little narrative.
Even now, readers will note that instead of cleaving to accuracy, Dick is rather obviously resorting to personal smears and alleging that folks are “deadenders” if they object to Tutu’s blatantly obviously anti-Semitic rhetoric. Which, we will all remember, was only alleged because Tutu criticized Israel and not because of all the anti-Semitic things he said. Which we should ignore anyways. Of course.
Do we have any reason here, sans a cite, to believe that Dick’s charges of vile “Likudnik” influence on the study are at all true?
Man, in his attempt at an “apology”, he just digs himself in deeper.
The whole notion that his target is in part “Christian Zionism” is of course complete nonsense - he never once mentions it in his original piece - but even so, this whole “kingdom of god” stuff being somehow a “late-Jewish” one is total and complete bollocks, a straw-man of the highest order. Not only is Zionism not inherently religious, but even if it were, no reputable or major sect of Judaism considers Israel the “kingdom of god”, the notion is blasphemous (especially) to religious Jews! Try telling an Orthodox Rabbi that Israel is the “kingdom of God”. 
So - stupidity piled on anti-Semitic tropes and of course Christian superiority. And that in what was meant to be his “apology” for the first screed. Remarkable.
You only say that because he disagrees with Israel!!!
And/or possibly because you are Jewish-Canadian and/or a dastardly Likudnik.
Thank you hildea, that makes more sense.
I’m not saying that they aren’t reliable or can’t be trusted because they’re Jews. i’m saying they’re unrel;iable and can’t be trusted because an ideologically extreme outfit used another ideologically extreme outfit with zero history of producing polls to produce a poll. Whether they’re jewish or Italian or anything else then those facts destroy any credibility the poll might have. What part of this don’t you understand?
I don’t understand this part: “Whether they’re jewish or Italian or anything else then those facts destroy any credibility the poll might have.”
Maybe there’s a word or two missing, but I’m not sure what that sentence is trying to say.
Nice try but you specifically said that if they’d been “Italian-Americans” then they would have been more reliable.
Also if you’re now backtracking and claiming their ethnicity is irrelevant then why did you feel the need to draw attention to the fact that the people who did the poll were “Jewish Americans”?
Look, if you don’t think Jewish people can be trusted, just say so.
I’m saying that it’s irrelevant that the variouas parties are Jewish. I’m saying that because outfit one, an organisation with a history of being quite ideologically extreme hires outfit two, a lobbying/political consultancy made up of ex-employees from outfit one and an organisation with zero history in producijng polls, to produce a poll for outfit one, then the whole thing has zero credibility. It doesn’t matter iof the two outfits are jewish or Italian or anything else heritage, the thing stinks.
Eh, beyond the fact that it’s a bit of word-salad, it’s the same nonsense argument he tried to pull with Dershowitz. He’s saying that no matter what their ethnicity is (although for some reason, previously, he felt the need to highlight it, repeatedly), we can’t trust a poll they conduct because… well, he won’t answer that, just imply something dastardly is going on. And, of course, he won’t give us any real reason to assume that the ADL are a pack of dastardly “Likudniks”, other than that he says so.
However, he recently claimed that Dershowitz is some sort of rabid, slanderous nut who’ll call anybody who simply criticizes Israel an “anti-Semite”. Dick’s argument does not take into account that Dershowitz, himself, has criticized Israel. To support this spurious charge against Dershowitz, Dick provided an op-ed in which Dershowitz took Desmond Tutu to task for a slew of obviously, blatantly anti-Semitic things that Tutu said. Contradicted by his own cite, Dick then maintains that of course Dershowitz must have been calling Tutu an anti-Semite simply because Tutu criticized Israel (and tacitly, demanding that we ignore Tutu’s own anti-Semitic statements)… because, well, that’s just what Dershowitz does. Still no cite to that effect, of coruse, showing Dershowitz doing that even one single time. But, ya know, it must be true. Otherwise Dick’s argument would fall apart and he’d have to actually condemn Tutu’s anti-Semitism rather than repeating the persecution-meme that all of Israel’s critics are horribly oppressed and cruelly called anti-Semites for the mere act of disagreeing with Israeli policy. Woe. Woe!
Now we’re told that there’s a “Jewish-American” group of “Likudniks” who conducted a poll, but we can’t trust the results… not because there’s any charge of malfeasance or any actual methodological flaws that would invalidate the entire poll, but just because they’re “Jewish-American” “Likudniks”. Of course, their dastardly “Likuddytasticness” has gone uncited, as well. Of course, Dick has gone on record supporting the genocidal racists of Hezbollah and Hamas, so why we should discard an actual poll’s results just because someone (allegedly) agrees with Likud’s stance on certain issues, but Dick’s opinions should be listened to… well, that’s anybody’s guess.
Funny, that.
Readers would probably be well served in taking united claims about the evils of Dershowitz or the ADL, or whoever, with a grain of salt. And definitely checking the sparse cites which are actually provided, in order to verify them.