Jewish Dopers: Have you ever watched the film "Defamation"?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@monstro

I don’t understand why nothing is ever analogous to the Holocaust. FinnAgain argues why it’s different from slavery–a notion that is so facile that I don’t know why he bothered. Analogies, by definition, are different. But why are the two not comparable? Why is this country’s history with black people not analogous with Jewish hatred in general?

The Shoah is something so painful and horrible that Jewish people feel as if they own it. And perhaps they are entitled to this feeling…I’m not passionate enough to argue for or against this. But to shut down ANY dialogue by saying it’s not analogous to this or that incident of oppression is to make people like me–folks who are very sympathetic to what Jewish people have been through–ANGRY. It is frustrating to be shut down like that. Just as it was frustrating watching Foxman be so condescending to the Ukrainian PM, who hadn’t uttered a single word about the Ukrainian famine as far as we could tell.

Well, I think the Shoah and the slavery experience that black people faced were quite different, so in many ways they aren’t comparable. I think a better way to look at it is that, in their own way, they’re both equally horrible and both have left emotional and psychological scars long after they ended. If anything, I’d say the legacy of slavery has had a much longer impact on African-Americans than the Holocaust has on Jews and no, that’s not meant as a knock at the Holocaust.

Beyond that, the motivations and justifications for the two were dramatically different. The Shoah occurred due to Scientific racism and the belief that Jews were evil and parasites.

Slavery on the other hand was justified on the theory that black people were stupid and and over-grown children. This was the theory that justified slavery and what 19th Century whites regularly claimed. If you read Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, you’ll notice he spends a ridiculous amount of time “proving” that black people were less intelligent than whites and therefore couldn’t survive without them.

Raw hatred of blacks didn’t really come about till after the Civil War during reconstruction when Southern whites’ illusions about blacks being happy as slaves and grateful to their masters was shattered and they reacted very violently.

Moreover, after slavery ended, blacks in the South and to a lesser extent in the North faced 100 more years of effective Apartheid which, if anything, has been much more influential than slavery.

For once in my life, I got to see Jewish people doing things that my people have been accused of doing by so many, for so long–playing the “victim” card. I do not think the filmmaker created these people out of thin air, although–as I have said repeatedly–I think he didn’t try too hard to show the full picture. But it was interesting to ME to see that they in fact exist…and it would trouble me if there is a possibility that they are guilting people into doing things that are against our country’s best interest.

True, but to varying degrees everyone plays the victim card. I’ve met plenty of Muslims and Middle Easterners who do. FWIW, I do agree that Israel has a siege mentality and a massive victim complex that doesn’t help matters, but when roughly half of all Israelis are the descendants of Holocaust survivors and the other half are descendants of Middle Eastern Jews who’d faced centuries of discrimination and eventually ethnic cleansing at the hands of Muslims and they’re surrounded by nations who want to kill them and have tried to kill them there’s only so much one can expect.

That said, I think one can make legitimate criticisms of this phenomenon as can be shown in this skit from Israel’s answer to* Saturday Night Live*.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Sdkps0Quo

It merely seems to me that the documentary goes a bit overboard.

But I see a double-standard here. If I were to say the Civil War was bullshit because it wasn’t about freeing the slaves, people would be jumping all OVER me. I would be seen as an ingrate, or someone with a giant chip on her shouder, trying to be all controversial and junk. So even though people are always patting themselves(!) on the back for what the Union did for slavery, I say nothing. Because I know what I’d get in return. It’s not worth it.

Well, if people are “patting themselves on the back” for “what the Union did” then they should be corrected because while the Civil War eventually became a war to end slavery and the South seceded over fears that Lincoln would limit slavery the Union didn’t go to war to end slavery and even those who opposed slavery didn’t so much oppose it for the benefit of black people, but because they thought slavery would hurt non-slave owning whites which is why the original slogan of the Republican party was “Free Soil, Free Labor, Fremont”.

They certainly didn’t believe in black equality which is why many Northern states, including Lincoln’s Illinois were filled with “black codes”. The last part is not meant as an attack on Lincoln or a suggestion that he endorsed them.

Also, it’s worth noting that by the end of the Civil War roughly one out of every eight Union soldiers was black.

I hear you, DSeid. And through your words, I hear my words. My frustration. My anger. My sadness. My desire to turn back the clock and have history play out differently. But it seems like it’s taboo around here for me to relay my sympathy to you because I might risk drawing “too many comparisons” between the black experience and the Jewish experience. And we can’t have that…even though in the 1960s, we didn’t seem to have that problem so much. What changed, I wonder? Why are we now on two opposite sides, rather than standing together?

Well, to be honest, I don’t think you can compare the treatment of Jews in the US to that of blacks. It certainly has always been worse to be Jewish than to be a white gentile, but it’s never been remotely bad as being black.

For starters, the first Jewish person elected to the US Senate was Judah P. Benjamin, who was elected way back in the 1840s and later went to to become the Confederate Secretary of State and later Vice-President. By contrast, were it not for Reconstruction, the first black person wasn’t elected until the 1970s.

Beyond that, I think you’re romanticizing and overemphasizing the alliance between blacks and Jews of the 1960s. That was an alliance of elites, the NAACP, the ADL, Martin Luther King, Abraham Joshua Herschel etc not of the masses.

If anything, I suspect racism on both sides is considerably less. Leon Wieseltier said that when he was growing up in Flatbush of the 1950s and 1960s he regularly heard black people referred to as “Schwartzers”.

Similarly, James Baldwin’s first essay, “The Harlem Ghetto” opens with the sentence, “In all my years in Harlem I can not recall ever meeting a Negro who would really trust a Jew and few who did not talk about them with the blackest of contempt”.

Now, obviously, there are still plenty of Jewish people who don’t like blacks and I’m sure you can find many blacks who don’t like Jews, but I seriously doubt any resident of Harlem, Bed-Stuy, or Roxbury could honestly claim that all, or even most, black people they know are anti-Semitic.

Anyway, once again, sorry for the mistake I made earlier.

[FinnAgain]

@DSeid

The Civil War wasn’t about freeing the slaves. At least not exclusively or even primarily.

The civil war was primarily about slavery, though. And it became about ending slavery. Even the claim that it was about states’ rights is the same thing, since the right that they were trying to protect was the right to own slaves. From the northern perspective it was a war to preserve the union, but it was a war to preserve the union because states seceded in order to protect their ability to hold slaves.

It was part of the Declarations of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession.

South Carolina:
[

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

](Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union)

Mississippi:

[

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

](Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Mississippi Secession)

Texas:
[

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm)

Georgia:
[

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm)

From the “cornerstone” speech by Alexander H. Stephens, the VP of the Confederate States:

[

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76)

The war was about ending slavery because the south went to war over the threat of ending slavery, not because the north declared war so that they might end slavery. But that’s still a different beast than WWII. The Nazis didn’t go to war because they wanted to kill the Jews and other people might stop them.

@Ibn_Warraq

FWIW, I do agree that Israel has a siege mentality and a massive victim complex that doesn’t help matters, but when roughly half of all Israelis are the descendants of Holocaust survivors and the other half are descendants of Middle Eastern Jews who’d faced centuries of discrimination and eventually ethnic cleansing at the hands of Muslims and they’re surrounded by nations who want to kill them and have tried to kill them there’s only so much one can expect.

Israel actually doesn’t have a victim complex. If anything, they have a complex where they refuse to be victims, and will go to great lengths to prevent that. IIRC, Israel society views being a victim like admitting to being a wimp. It’s an important distinction, I’d think. But as you point out, the term “siege mentality” is somewhat accurate, since Israel is actually under siege. There’s a difference, of course, between a Jew in Brooklyn feeling under siege and someone within range of Hezbollah rockets feeling under siege.

[Alessan]

I think one key point that you have to know about the Holocaust, and one that helps explain Israel’s attitude toward it, is this: most of the world holds Holocaust Memorial Day on January 27, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Israel doesn’t. The Israeli Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day is held on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the day the Jews fought back.

[Lakai]

@MrDibble

:rolleyes: Oh sure, Palestinian terrorism is so foreign. Not home-grown at all…Yeah, sure.

I corrected my mistake in post 62. The reason Israel can’t take the same approach as Spain is because Basque country isn’t controlled by terrorists while the Palestinian territories are.

Also the demands of the terrorists are different. Hamas and Hezbollah want the destruction of Israel. The ETA just wants independence.

But that’s a stupid analogy.
Soldiers’ job, crudely put, is to kill. So *more *soldiers is going to lead to *less *killing…how, exactly?

It would lead to less killing of civilians because soldiers can discriminate between terrorists and civilians better than rockets can. Israel currently uses rockets because it won’t risk soldiers going into enemy territories.

Hey, rewrite history in your head all you want, but that wasn’t what happened. Plenty of civilians got killed along with “insurgents”.

You can say that I’m just making up history all you want, but reasonable minds can look at civilian death totals before and after the surge and conclude that the surge did reduce civilian death.

Umm, no. It’s an interpretation based on the methods that other countries have actually shown to work against terrorists.

Not all the time. I’m not saying that everyone who thinks Israel can do more to prevent civilian death is a bigot - only that stereotypes against Jews can lead to that conclusion.

You have yet to show how this belief is mistaken.

That wasn’t my goal here. That’s a big issue that I don’t have the time nor inclination to get into. I was mainly discussing how somewhat positive stereotypes against Jews can hurt them.

[suranyi]

@DSeid

Few American Blacks however look at their history and reasonably conclude that Blacks may be made slaves again. OTOH any Jew who does not look at history and have some fear that his grandchildren’s or great grandchildren may again be labelled as “other” and targeted for mass murder in the future is, IMHO, a fool.

I think it was Primo Levi who made this point very succintly. He said:

“It happened, therefore it can happen again.”

[Chen019]

@Ibn_Warraq

Dude, I’ve read the book and they make it quite clear that they believe that the Israeli Lobby was responsible for the Iraq War.

In fact you quote them specifically claiming that the Lobby was “a factor” in the decision to go to war.

Now, you seem to be saying, “Harumph, harumph, they claim they don’t hate all Jews or blame all Jews so just because they believe in Jewish conspiracy theories they shouldn’t be called anti-Semites”.

By your standards neither David Irving nor Father Coughlin should be labeled anti-Semites because both insisted they didn’t blame all or even most Jews for the evils of some Jewish elites.

Well, are you saying that what they identify as the lobby in that article were not a factor or influence?

Why are you saying they hate jews? They’re not calling it the jewish lobby, they call it the Israel Lobby. And it seems pretty clear in the article that the lobby doesn’t necessarily reflect majority jewish views, and a number of it’s members are non-jewish. Even if they did that doesn’t mean they hate them.

Using such inflammatory rhetoric about hating jews suggests you’re trying to poison the well so no one can discuss the subject.

I’m not sure you’re point here. I said that people like Harvard professor Richard Hernnstein who insist that blacks are less intelligent than whites are bigots and you seem to be conceding that the tests which “prove” this are biased or have I misunderstood you

I don’t think Herrnstein says that though. From memory, he wrote that groups had different distributions of scores. So, there is a statistical difference, just as there is a stastical difference in heights between Dutch and Vietnamese. That’s just an empirical fact - whether that reflects environmental or genetic variation is an open question.

My point is that you can acknowledge that, while also acknowledging that ethnic in-group/out-group bias (discrimination) may exist.

[Ibn_Warraq]

Chen, you clearly have reading comprehension issues.

You accuse me of claiming Walt and Mearsheimer “hate Jews” but I never said that.

Now you’re trying to deny that they claimed the Israeli Lobby pushed George Bush into invading Iraq and you’re making the even dumber claim that the authors of The Bell Curve didn’t argue that blackswere less intelligent than whites.

Two questions

A. Do you think “the Israeli Lobby” was responsible George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? If so, please give me the name of the leader of this “lobby”.

B. Do you believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites?

[Chen019]

@Ibn_Warraq

Chen, you clearly have reading comprehension issues.

You accuse me of claiming Walt and Mearsheimer “hate Jews” but I never said that.

Ok, I was just going on your comment here.

@Ibn_Warraq

Dude, I’ve read the book and they make it quite clear that they believe that the Israeli Lobby was responsible for the Iraq War.

In fact you quote them specifically claiming that the Lobby was “a factor” in the decision to go to war.

Now, you seem to be saying, “Harumph, harumph, they claim they don’t hate all Jews or blame all Jews so just because they believe in Jewish conspiracy theories they shouldn’t be called anti-Semites”.

@Ibn_Warraq

Now you’re trying to deny that they claimed the Israeli Lobby pushed George Bush into invading Iraq and you’re making the even dumber claim that the authors of The Bell Curve didn’t argue that blackswere less intelligent than whites.

Two questions

A. Do you think “the Israeli Lobby” was responsible George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? If so, please give me the name of the leader of this “lobby”.

B. Do you believe that blacks are less intelligent than whites?

I’m not trying to deny that is what they claimed. In fact, that seems pretty clear from the London Book Review article that they believe it was a “critical factor”.

You’re simplifying the argument in the Bell Curve (by avoiding the fact they refer to statistical averages, that differences could be due to environmental & or genetic variation, that distributions overlap etc). Again, in a way to ‘poison the well’.

[monstro]

@DSeid

Your last point first. Please re-read my posts in that thread. In NO WAY did I say you were ranting over nothing or dismiss the problems. I merely stated, clearly I thought, that we should not lump a woman’s perception that someone is watching her in a store together with someone who is the victim of a hate crime. I was unable to express myself in a way that made sense to you, and I regret that, but I was frustrated that you were understanding me to be saying something I had not intended.

That whole thread exemplifies the difficulty I have talking about race and racism. I laid out my thesis carefully, and then got sucked into a nauseating semantic game about what is “racism.” (Notice how no one in this thread has asked what constitutes anti-Semitism…we all seem to be on the same page with what that is.) It infuriated me and it really takes a lot to get me het up. You specifically made me feel like nothing I was saying mattered (you said I was ranting but not debating, which I took to be pretty dismissive). So I threw up my hands…but actually felt validated in the end.

A teen ager imagining that someone is a Nazi is not the same “hate” as the firebombing of a temple.

Whoa. Back up. I never said she was being hateful. Just paranoid. Unless I’m misunderstanding you.

If you read my first post here I specifically note how I think anti-Semitism in America is pretty benign and hidden. The haters are mostly marginalized and underground. For both the cases of anti-Black bigotry and anti-Semitism the overt hater is more marginalized than in times past. For Blacks much more than Jews there is still a residual of institutional racism, not motivated by hate so much as by the effects of years of discrimination. The old school Jew hating is now only explicitly mainstream in the Arab world and imported back into the West from there. What Jews have to deal with is the fact that some are suspicious and resentful of their success as an American sub-cultural group and the unavoidable charges of clannishness and conspiricy.

This, I understand. My father is blatantly jealous of Jewish success. He sees Jews everywhere–even where they are not.

But as I understand it, the “Jew-hating” of the Arab world is a fairly recent phenomena. A reaction to Israel and what is perceived to be the destruction of the Palestinian people. Isn’t this form of anti-Semitism different from the historical forms? Or rather, it’s different than the stereotypical anti-Semitism of the European world. And I guess I would think that the chance of another wholesale slaughter of the Jewish people is not so likely, given that the West is more enlightened? Who would be slaughtering Jews, specifically? Arabs? I don’t think they have the capability, but admittedly I’m more short-sighted than most people.

Regardless, in this country, if some shit went down on black people (I dunno…we could suffer from some crazy post-apocalyptical race war. It’s possible!), I wouldn’t feel too comfortable about being Jewish either. People who hate blacks usually don’t like Jews either.

Why analogize with great caution? Specifically we do NOT want to get into arguing whose oppression was worse.

Perhaps our intentions behind drawing analogies are different. When I say “You know, DSeid, I know what you’re saying. It sucks being a stigmitized minority sometimes. Being black, I understand the type of anger you have about past oppression because my people have been through some shit too”, that’s what I call being empathic through analogy. I’m not equating the Holocaust to slavery or to Jim Crow. I’m simply saying “We both hurt. Sucks don’t it?”

And that was what I was doing before FinnAgain came out guns ablazing. THAT is the attitude a lot of people find frustrating. This…protectiveness about the Holocaust and everything about it. Like people are trying to take something away from Jews when they dare mention it. Along those same lines, I also can’t stand when some black people get riled up when gay people draw parallels to their struggle with the Civil Rights Movement. They ARE similar in some ways. Similar while also being very different. Why must people be possessive about victimization? It’s ludicrous!

The one-upmanship only arises when people talk past one another and don’t listen.

And indeed Jews are often accused of playing the anti-Semitism card … just look in this thread … even when the Jew hating is extremely overt.

I swear I’m not being obtuse on purpose, DSeid. But I’m not seeing the Jew hating. I see some people being smart-asses (myself included) but I don’t anything overtly anti-Semitic. Could you point it out to me? Again, I swear I’m asking in all sincerity.

I for one try very hard to avoid calling a Jew-hater an anti-Semite … it is not worth it - it gives them the chance to accuse me of “playing the card” and I’d rather let them make what they are obvious to others themselves. You don’t see it? Maybe radar, maybe you just are not in those rooms at the time.

To be honest, I find most threads with “Jew” or “Israel” in the title to be too scary to enter. Once I asked a rather innocent question in the midst of a heated argument and it was like I got donkey-punched in the face with “HOW DARE YOU!!!” So I kind of vowed never to enter another Israel thread again.

Perhaps people feel the same way with race threads. I don’t know because I’m always in them.

But like you, I try to avoid calling people “racist” too. For the exact reason you gave.

The Civil War wasn’t about freeing the slaves. At least not exclusively or even primarily. Some cared about that and it was part of the dynamic, but it was not why there was a war. And few in the North cared too much that Blacks were still functionally slaves after the war. Sure, you’ll run into some who ignorantly believe otherwise, and the ignorant do not appreciated being corrected. So?

I agree with you. The War was not about freeing the slaves. Just like WWII was not about freeing the Jews. I was being a jerk by doing to Shmedrick what has been done to others who correct that false premise. In other words, I was drawing an analogy to the imaginary “chip” on Shmedrick’s shoulder to the one that black people are often accused of carrying. But I was doing it in a mean way because I was angry.

Are there Jews who are like Woody Allen’s character in Annie Hall, hearing slurs where none were intended? Of course. And teen agers in Poland may be primed to see it … for good reasons. I know my brother was imagining all kinds of things when we were kids visiting small towns in Germany. Are there Black women who imagine that they are being watched in a store because they are Black when actually someone was admiring a figure? Of course also. Neither informs about how much racism/anti-Semitism there really is and in what forms it is currently manifest. Neither informs about what each group worries about in the future based on their individual histories and with what justification.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes, it does. Thanks.

[FinnAgain]

Got a cite yet for where I claimed “Everything about the Jews is Different and Therefore Special”? Any time now.

@monstro

And that was what I was doing before FinnAgain came out guns ablazing. THAT is the attitude a lot of people find frustrating. This…protectiveness about the Holocaust and everything about it. Like people are trying to take something away from Jews when they dare mention it.

Ah yes, “guns ablazing” by politely pointing out that your analogy didn’t hold and the groups/events you were talking about weren’t fungible. Of course, along with a cite for me ever saying “Everything about the Jews is Different and Therefore Special”, how about a cite for this “protectiveness”?

It seems that you are making some rather wild, false claims simply because someone pointed out that slavery wasn’t comparable with the Holocaust, and the Holocaust isn’t comparable with slavery.

@monstro

But as I understand it, the “Jew-hating” of the Arab world is a fairly recent phenomena. A reaction to Israel and what is perceived to be the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Not true at all. Not only were Jews Dhimmis for centuries under Arab rule, but anti-Semitism of varying strengths, again along a cyclic pattern, was common for centuries in the Arab world. Even in this century, the Arab Riots occurred decades before the formation of the state of Israel. In point of fact, The Nazis’ influence on and their alliance with many in the region was also, obviously, before the establishment of Israel.

@monstro

The War was not about freeing the slaves.

Except, yes it was. It was fought by the Confederacy to prevent the slaves being freed. Cites have already been provided to that effect.

[DSeid]

Finn how about that we leave it at that the North did not go to war out of concern for the rights of Black slaves or to prevent their abuse?

monstro, I certainly agree that many of us have a hard time talking clearly about racism. I think you and I sometimes misunderstand each other’s intended meanings. In that thread we both ended up getting frustrated about that I think. Yes I did say

But even those who use the word “Nigger” are apparently willing to vote for a self-identified Black man, so I gotta think that means something. You want to just rant that there are still some hateful idiots out there? Fine. My humble opinion is that those in power who have those hateful opinions mostly keep them to themselves and are constrained from acting on them mostly and that those who have little power feel more free to express them but act on them little.

I am sorry if that came off more dismissively than it was intended.

There are people who could easily be found who use the word “kike”. And I believe the situation for Jews however is pretty much similar. Those in power with hateful opinions are constrained from acting on them or even expressing them much and those who have no power express their hate but are marginalized. The difference remains however that American Blacks still have institutional racism to deal with and Jews do not. Institutions are open to us now. Jews have more the fear of historic cycles. And because pograms and massacres have occurred with such historic regularity, I am not as sanguine as you are that wholesale slaughter could not occur again. I don’t bank much on the enlightenment of the West. Such enlightenment is often a luxury that goes away when times get bad. I expect that without being vigilant, and to some degree without Israel, such is inevitable. That seems paranoid to you perhaps, but that is my read of the last two thousand years of history.

If your intention in post 28 was empathy I’ve got to tell you it did not read that way. Sorry. And really all Finn did was to say that it wasn’t really like that.

My example of posts in this thread was of Jews being accused of playing the card: see post 56. I have no idea if that poster is a Jew hater or not and don’t care. But that was an out of the blue accusation of playing the card. Happens all the time.

Current Arab Jew-hating is, in form, imported old school European. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion coming back to the West by way of the Arab world. Yes, as Finn points out there were cycles of massacres in the Arab world before that, and many in the days leading up to Israel’s founding, and the dhimmi status was second class … but compared to Europe Jews in the Arab world had it good through most of history. This form is pretty recent.

I am glad that we seem to be understanding each other a bit better this time.

[RedFury]

@DSeid

…My example of posts in this thread was of Jews being accused of playing the card: see post 56. I have no idea if that poster is a Jew hater or not and don’t care. But that was an out of the blue accusation of playing the card. Happens all the time…

:::sigh:::

Hardly doubt it’ll make a difference but I’ll give it a shot. Cited post is hardly “out of the blues” but in context with the film being discussed. Which just so happens to discuss the possible abuse of the term for self-serving purposes, both in the case of Foxman/ADL and the paranoia-inducing trip to Poland.

Not to mention the fact that it also paints all dissenting Jews as ‘self-haters’ or some other dismissive BS as in the case of the Fat Dude at the ADL convention…for daring to bring up the Palestinian situation. Weird “Jew-hater” that I am, I happen to like – and in some cases admire such as Noam Chompsky foibles and all; never mind Carl Sagan a huge influence in my moral code – many of these so-called self-haters.

Unfortunately for me, I can’t say they were some of my best friends…

Carry on.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Chen019

You’re simplifying the argument in the Bell Curve (by avoiding the fact they refer to statistical averages, that differences could be due to environmental & or genetic variation, that distributions overlap etc). Again, in a way to ‘poison the well’.

No I’m not. Charles Murray has specifically claimed that as a result of “genetics” blacks were less intelligent than whites.

That said, it’s mighty white of you to give him and Hernnstein the benefit of the doubt.

Were I white I might enjoy the prospect that blacks are dumber than me, but I’m not so I can’t.

Anyway, please answer my questions.

A. Do you believed that the Israeli lobby pushed George Bush into invading Iraq and if so, who is the leader of this group?

B. Do you think blacks are less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@monstro

That whole thread exemplifies the difficulty I have talking about race and racism. I laid out my thesis carefully, and then got sucked into a nauseating semantic game about what is “racism.” (Notice how no one in this thread has asked what constitutes anti-Semitism…we all seem to be on the same page with what that is.) It infuriated me and it really takes a lot to get me het up. You specifically made me feel like nothing I was saying mattered (you said I was ranting but not debating, which I took to be pretty dismissive). So I threw up my hands…but actually felt validated in the end. e enlightened? Who would be slaughtering Jews, specifically? Arabs? I don’t think they have the capability, but admittedly I’m more short-sighted than most people.

Monstro,

I’m new to this board, but I think you’re being a little too defensive.

You’ll notice that there is a dramatic amount of dispute on this board as to what constitutes “anti-Semitism”.

Chen019 seems to insist there’s nothing anti-semitic about believing in Jewish conspiracy theories.

Admittedly he also seems to insist that there’s nothing racist in believing that blacks are less intelligent than whites due to genetic reasons.

FinnAgain
Not true at all. Not only were Jews Dhimmis for centuries under Arab rule, but anti-Semitism of varying strengths, again along a cyclic pattern, was common for centuries in the Arab world. Even in this century, the Arab Riots occurred decades before the formation of the state of Israel. In point of fact, The Nazis’ influence on and their alliance with many in the region was also, obviously, before the establishment of Israel.

That’s not exactly correct. She’s arguing that “Jew-hating” was a recent addition to the Middle East and, prior to the 20th Century, she’s correct.

Yes, under Muslim rule, Jews were classified as second class citizens and faced discrimination, but they weren’t persecuted, with rare exceptions. Bernard Lewis and others have testified to this.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@RedFury

:::sigh:::

Hardly doubt it’ll make a difference but I’ll give it a shot. Cited post is hardly “out of the blues” but in context with the film being discussed. Which just so happens to discuss the possible abuse of the term for self-serving purposes, both in the case of Foxman/ADL and the paranoia-inducing trip to Poland.

Not to mention the fact that it also paints all dissenting Jews as ‘self-haters’ or some other dismissive BS as in the case of the Fat Dude at the ADL convention…for daring to bring up the Palestinian situation. Weird “Jew-hater” that I am, I happen to like – and in some cases admire such as Noam Chompsky foibles and all; never mind Carl Sagan a huge influence in my moral code – many of these so-called self-haters.

Unfortunately for me, I can’t say they were some of my best friends…

Carry on.

I’m not sure why you’re under the impression that claiming to “admire” Noam Chomsky and Carl Sagan means you’re not anti-Semitic.

Lots of racists admire “good niggers” and members of the KKK loved the show Good Times and The Cosby Show was a huge hit among Afrikaners in Apartheid South Africa.

That said, after reviewing your posts it’s clear that you have a huge hard on for Israel.

In my experience there are two types of non-Muslim, non-Arab gentiles who fit into this category.

The first are people who genuinely care about the Palestinians and their struggle. The second are merely gentiles who love sticking it to the Jews.

A friend of mine is convinced you’re an anti-Semite who either had a Jewish girl laugh at him when she saw how small his penis was or was forced to go to a Jewish dentist by his parents while a boy.

I think this is crap and that you’re motivated by genuine concern for the Palestinian people.

There’s an easy way to solve this.

Please name the second greatest tragedy, after the Naqba, to befall the Palestinian people.

For those confused, it happened in the last thirty years and involves a word beginning with the letter K.

Please answer this question and prove my friend wrong, otherwise I’ll have to assume he’s correct.

[FinnAgain]

@Ibn_Warraq

That’s not exactly correct. She’s arguing that “Jew-hating” was a recent addition to the Middle East and, prior to the 20th Century, she’s correct.

Yes, under Muslim rule, Jews were classified as second class citizens and faced discrimination, but they weren’t persecuted, with rare exceptions.

Having someone as an official second class citizen is persecution, just like Jim Crow would have been racial persecution even if there weren’t lynchings. And it’s hard to argue that the history of massacres and pogroms of Jews in the Muslim world didn’t evince “Jew hatred”, just that it was cyclical as it often is. Violence against Jews in Granada, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Aleppo, etc… all speak to the fact that “Protocols Style” anti-semitism is a fairly new arrival on the scene, but the region had a long history of anti-semitism and anti-Jewish murderous violence.
And that’s the whole point. Yes, sometimes Jews were ‘just’ seen as second class citizens who might be useful and tolerated. But bad times and/or a need for a scapegoat often saw murderous violence directed at the Jews. Monstro is incorrect.

Many of the ideas that we identify with modern, European anti-Semitism began to filter in to the Arab world decades before the establishment of the state of Israel.

@DSeid

Finn how about that we leave it at that the North did not go to war out of concern for the rights of Black slaves or to prevent their abuse?

Absolutely true. The north at the beginning had no unified policy, often sent slaves back to their ‘owners’ and Lincoln had to promise several border states that he wasn’t going to end slavery. But still and all, it was a war, started and fought by the south, over ending slavery.
I think that’s actually one of the greatest ironies of American history. The north wasn’t going to sweepingly end slavery, and certainly wasn’t going to go to war over it. But the south did go to war over the prospect of ending slavery and, along the way, that’s what happened. *So it was a war fought over ending slavery, just not a war fought in order to end slavery. *

Sometimes the universe has a sense of humor, I suppose.

@RedFury

Not to mention the fact that it also paints all dissenting Jews as ‘self-haters’ or some other dismissive BS as in the case of the Fat Dude at the ADL convention

Readers who haven’t seen the movie should take note that this didn’t actually happen.

@RedFury

Weird “Jew-hater” that I am, I happen to like – and in some cases admire such as Noam Chompsky foibles and all; never mind Carl Sagan

Don’t forget George Tenet.
And all the other people in US politics whose names might sound Jewish to you and or whose politics you might not know, exactly, but are Jewish and therefore Traitor Jews due to their Dual Loyalty.

It’s okay though, there are some Good Jews who you like. Naturally we can’t determine whether or not someone is a racist without them being able to deny it, and GD isn’t the place to discuss it, but you sure do say some absurdly racist stuff. Characteristically, with the defense that while what you’re saying is anti-Semitic, some mean nasty folks would only call it such because you’re also critical of Israel. And, go figure, you never did explain exactly how all those names, ‘off the top of your head’ ended up as examples of Jewish Treachery other than that they were in politics, and you thought that they were Jews. Funny, that.

[Marley23]

@Ibn_Warraq

A friend of mine is convinced you’re an anti-Semite who either had a Jewish girl laugh at him when she saw how small his penis was or was forced to go to a Jewish dentist by his parents while a boy.

This is not how debates work around here. You can post this kind of thing in the BBQ Pit if you want to, but in Great Debates you are expected to address a person’s arguments and not insult them personally. I said upthread that calling RedFury “Jew-hater” wasn’t appropriate for this forum, and comments like this (even if they supposedly come from a friend) are even less so. Don’t do this again.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Marley23

This is not how debates work around here. You can post this kind of thing in the BBQ Pit if you want to, but in Great Debates you are expected to address a person’s arguments and not insult them personally. I said upthread that calling RedFury “Jew-hater” wasn’t appropriate for this forum, and comments like this (even if they supposedly come from a friend) are even less so. Don’t do this again.

Huh?

I didn’t accuse him of being an anti-Semite.

I assume that the fact that he’s put forth a number of posts attacking Israel is due not to any animosity he has towards Jews but is due to genuine concern for the Palestinians and their cause.

He can easily prove this by listing what the second greatest tragedy after the Naqba has been in the past sixty years.

I can assure you as someone who’s known many Palestinians that every 12-year-old Palestinian would be able to answer that question as would anyone remotely familiar with the history of the Palestinian people.

It was an important event that the American government was largely responsible for, occurred within the last thirty years and involves a word beginning with the letter “K”.

I merely put this question forward so he can shame those who accuse him of being an anti-Semite.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@FinnAgain

Don’t forget George Tenet.
And all the other people in US politics whose names might sound Jewish to you and or whose politics you might not know, exactly, but are Jewish and therefore Traitor Jews due to their Dual Loyalty..

Huh?

What is George Tenet doing on that list?

He’s no more Jewish than I am. He’s Greek.

Also, what is Michael Chertoff doing on that list of people with “dual-loyalty”?

He’s never even visited Israel.

RedFury, I implore you to explain why you claim that Michael Chertoff is more guilty of “dual-loyalty” than Karl Rove or George Will.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@FinnAgain

Yes, we call them racists.

Come on, FinnAgain, you know that everybody holds at least a few prejudices for or against one group or another. (I use “prejudice” with its literal meaning of “pre-judging” interactions with members of such group.) But not everybody’s a racist. It only becomes a problem if you deny the individuality of those you meet and judge them only through your prejudices. That’s what bigotry is.

@Malthus

You may be amused to know that in Israel itself the political demands of the ultra-orthodox to have social matters adjusted their own way raise great dislike against them … among Jews.

I am actually quite aware of this, thanks to our Israeli Dopers. I suppose that the fact that some ultra-Orthodox Jews are also anti-Zionist might also contribute to this dislike. I don’t know if it’s the case of the ultra-Orthodox Jews actually living in Israel, though.

Point here is that they are an unrepresentative minority.

Oh yes, I know. And I may have overstated my point in this thread. What I was trying to say is that to a random francophone Montrealer, or Quebecer in general, who may not know any Jew personally as most of them are anglophone and therefore part of the “other” national group, talking about “Jews” might bring to his or her mind Hasidic Jews at first, since they are the Jewish subgroup currently most discussed in the media. This is unsurprising and probably uncontroversial. OTOH, while I said that their actions might reflect badly on the whole Jewish community, I have no evidence of this and it’s probably unlikely. It’s more likely that our collective mind stores Hasidic Jews with fundamentalist Muslims and conservative Catholics as “people trying to re-establish the rule of religion over our society”. In any case, if there are differences in the anti-Semitic acts committed in Montreal vs. in Toronto as straight man suggests, this is probably not the reason.

@Alessan

For instance, take this*very *controversial campaign ad that ran before the 2006 elections… once.

Pretty funny, and I understand the sentiment, but yes, like Malthus I’ll say that the imagery makes it look “bad” especially out of context.

@Malthus

Hilarious. I wonder if the Parti Québécois would dare to air that ad with “say no to money and the ethnic vote!” as the slogan. "After all, it ran in Israel … "

Would you say that you subscribe to the stereotype that the PQ is anti-ethnic minorities?