Stein wrote a column that points out that at this one point in time the very top positions at several of the majors are Jewish as part of a humorous bit: “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all.”, trying to make the point that Jews should be proud of having a culture that produces such successful people and of living in a country in which such is possible, not fearful of the anti-Semite’s spin and accusations of clannishness or of “control” … he did not do a broad survey of the industry. I believe he made a few calls so he could make his point: Jews be proud and be not fearful. You have a culture that produces people who accomplish in a country that allows you to achieve. I accept that Jews are very successful in the entertainment business. Football not so much so, among the top ranked players of “Go”, not so much, but in entertainment Jews have done well. But that as evidence that Jews are discriminating against non-Jews in the business? Or even that Jews are more represented in the movie business elite levels than in the fields of economics or physics? Nope.
dzero, where did I say you were lying? I said that I doubted that it is possible for anyone to not act on their biases, even if they do not realize it. If you read that as calling you a liar then the wrong people are being called hypersensitive in this thread.
Unfortunately no. Were I a suspicious person I might think the extensive reply was more in the nature of an attempt at obfuscation. But please understand that I am not accusing you of obfuscation.
And while you think it is unlikely I could avoid acting on whatever my unknown biases might be, you are willing to accept that it is possible - correct? Please answer this question directly.
Forgive my simple mindedness but it would be useful for me to capsulize your argument. Would it be fair to say that, to the extent it is true, the head of every major studio is Jewish is combination of pure chance and the admirable and pervasive work ethic of Jewish culture. I understand that this won’t capture all of the nuances, but is it close enough for the purposes of discussion?
The suit claims discrimination against blacks; the top manangement includes both “whites” and Japanese, (with no indication that the “white” management is limited to a single ethnic group such as WASPs or Germans or Irish). Exclusion of one specific group is not the same as a claim that a single group has excluded all others.
While I have yet to meet a human being who is able to completely not act on their biases, it is possible that you are one. Or that you are not human or even a living creature. I do not even know for sure that you are not a program running. So sure I can accept it is possible.
Nope, not even close.
Pure chance has nothing to do with it in my mind and Jews have no greater work ethic than most other cultures, and not as much as quite a few. Neither do we possess any particular culture of achievement that a multitude of other cultures do not also have. Nor do we achieve across the board.
My preferred explanation rests on other cultural factors. And as long winded, sorry, “extensive”, as you may feel my posts that explain my speculations on that matter are, they really are as concise as I can state it:
Diaspora and being forced to move on with no ability to take much in the way of physical assets.
Literacy.
Tradition of arguing over religious interpretations rather than of accepting truth as revealed.
Outsider status, with the fresh look that brings and the insecurity it results in.
Equals a population that values ideas as the most portable assets and that highly prizes the ability to handle them, manage them, and trade in them. Not the best hunters, not the best farmers, the Cossacks were not crazy about Jews with guns and if the farmland was arable they’d let a Jew farm it? But generations of the idea import/export business. That inventory you can always pack up in a hurry.
And Hollywood? An idea import/export business like no other. To the degree that those cultural traditions are still extant (and they become less so as time goes on, and being a knowledge worker with wide exposure to different cultures’ ideas is no longer as unusual), of course Hollywood has more than its share of Jews.
Jews do not control Hollywood. Orthodox Jews certainly do not, or there would not be so many R rated movies.
Jews do have a prominence in Hollywood that is far out of proportion to their numbers. This is also true for the worlds of finance, journalism, and the academy. They have won one out of five Nobel prizes. The reason is because the average IQ for an Ashkenazic Jew is 112. Jews earn their prominence in fields requiring superior intelligence.
BTW, I am not Jewish, or I would not be posting this.
In other words, Honda is even less exclusive than our hypothetical WASP-run company, and it is still subject to a discrimination suit (based on exactly the sort of good-old-boy hiring and promotion practices I’ve been talking about).
I guess I don’t understand your argument. Are you arguing that an all-WASP management team wouldn’t be susceptible to a discrimination lawsuit? Because I assure you it would. Are you arguing that it is legally acceptable to make hiring and promotion decisions based on ethnicity or religion? Because I assure you it is not.
The thread is a discussion about an ethnic group having nearly exclusive control of an industry.
I pointed out that we do not routinely attack ethnic groups (or the specific managers belonging to a particular ethnic group) simply for dominating other industires. I noted that WASPs controlled a number of industries, for years, with no objections raised against them.
You asserted that we did object to ethnic groups who dominated certain industries, then pointed to an example where multiple ethnic groups shared control of a company and the company was sued by a different ethnic group for exclusion.
You have not made a case that our society demonstrates antipathy to ethnic domination of an industry (outside objections to Jews). We certainly do not demonstrate such antipathy on a routine basis.
Embedded in this paragraph is an assumption that exclusionary practices have been employed to keep the WASPs (or Jews) at the top of the industry. So far, not a single incidence of such exclusionary actions have been presented, (while I have provided the counter example that the WASP, Roy Disney, recruited the Jewish Michel Eisner to take over the Disney Corporation–hardly an example of Jews getting to the top by excluding others).
On the other hand, no one has presented an example of any industry in which control by a single ethnic group has been challenged in court.
Making a claim that there just might possibly be some sort of exclusionary activity, (that has never been legally challenged in 90+ years of history in the industry) is nothing but basesless speculation. We have not even established that Jewish prevalence in the entertinment industry reaches the level of control; we have been working off the ramblings of one Op Ed piece that used cherry-picked data to make a point. Where is the list of all the entertainment industry corporations with a list of their CxOs so that we can see whether there is true control or dominance or whether there is simply a high proportion of Jews in the industry–much as there is in Law and academia? Perhaps this whole discussion is based on a smoke and mirrors assertion.
Yes we do. We have anti-discrimination laws designed to prevent discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.
Please clarify: do you think that if, hypothetically, one ethnic group were being hired or promoted to the exclusion of another, it would be legal?
You are being purposely obtuse. Good-old-boy hiring and promotion practices that lead to one ethnic group dominating a company to the exclusion of others subjects that company to US anti-discrimination laws. The Honda case should show you that. The fact that management there is dominated by two ethnic groups rather than one is a distinction without a difference. The point is that another ethnic group is being excluded.
Yes. Unless it could be shown that the reason one was being hired to the exclusion of the other was because of ethnicity. The fact that NBA players are mostly Black is not presumptive evidence of discrimination against Whites. The fact that in 1997 only 1.8% of the Harvard Medical School was Black was not evidence that Harvard discriminated against Blacks, only that their efforts at affirmative action were failing to achieve their goals.
And even the fact that only 3% of Honda’s management was Black was not considered evidence of discrimination against Blacks by Honda. The suit was not only dismissed in a summary judgement but the court awarded “$51,770.48, against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendant”
Not the best “quick example” to choose methinks. All it shows is that going on a fishing expedition on the basis of some isolated statistics is a poor decision to make and one that the courts frown upon. And they at least had some* real numbers* and some plausible systemic process that could lead to discrimination to point at.
FTR, even though the court referred to discrimination against minorities, the law prohibits all discrimination based on ethnicity, whether or not the aggrieved party is a minority.
And again, just to be clear, I am not saying that discrimination is definitely going on. It would take discovery to establish that. I am just saying the facts in the OP are suggestive, and would be very encouraging to a discrimination lawyer with an aggrieved client in his lobby.
Interesting. Those plaintiffs at least had an idea of which positions in the corporate structure were under discussion and who had been considered for them. Spoke has… neither.
Not that, I’m sure, that will be an impediment for Spoke’s quest to Ferret Out The Potential Jewish Cabal That May Potentially Conspire Against Gentiles [sup]tm[/sup].
On preview: gee, who’d a thunk it, shown that his own cite says the exact opposite of what he was claiming and that he has even less evidence that he thought he did, Spoke’s reaction is that, well, those tricky Jews just might be up to something, so suing them is probably the best bet. Surprising and unexpected!
Duly noted. When the statistics are such that no members of an ethnicity are hired for a job that requires little skill despite evidence that 20% of the otherwise qualified applicants are of that ethnicity, the statistics are considered evidence of discrimination. From the Honda case having an overwhelming number (97%) of management positions not be of the minority class will not be considered evidence of discrimination and will result in a summary dismissal and the plaintiff being held responsible for court costs.
That experienced discrimination lawyer who is aware of these cases and precedence has a Christian movie producer in his lobby. He presents the evidence that the majority of the heads of the major movie houses are all Jewish right now and wants to the lawyer to take his case as a discriminated party against … someone … and go fishing for additional evidence on discovery.
The more important question is, if he does, do we immediately begin the hunt for the potential-but-not-necessarily-existing-possible-Jewish-conspiracy-to-dominate-the-legal-community-possibly-but-not-definitely-in-order-to-shield-the-Jews-who-potentially-but-do-not-necessarily-overwhelming-control-Hollywood-and-possibly-but-do-not-necessarily-clan-up-in-order-to-help-Jews-and-hurt-Gentiles?
Or perhaps do we wait a little while before launching that witch hunt?
You are conflating issues and failing to provide evidence that one event has occurred to foster the other.
We have laws that prohibit discriminatory hiring practices. If one ethnic group comes to dominate an industry through actions other than discriminatory hiring and promotion, we do not have laws to prevent it and we have no cultural taboo against it. Until such time as you provide evidence that Jewish dominance in the entertainment industry is absolute, (rather than simply a noticeable prevalence with cherry-picked anecdotes claiming domination), and that such dominance is the result of discriminatory practices, (for which no evidence has been presented), and not simply coincidence, then this whole line of discussion is nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing.
The Honda case shows me that a combination of multiple groups might still operate to exclude one other group. It does nothing to demonstrate that any single ethnic group has worked to obtain or maintain hegemonic control over any industry. (At what point did you decide that Japanese and a hodgepodge of white guys are one or even two ethnic groups?)
I am not being obtuse; I am trying to stay on topic.
We have a claim by an Op Ed writer that there is an overwhelming domination of one industry by one ethnic group, (and even his research “showed” that it was not universal as he found only a 9:5 ratio of Jews to Gentiles among the companies he cherry-picked for review). We have seen no actual numbers of companies and people that support his claim.
Now, you want to use Honda to expand the witch hunt to claim that excluding one group is the same as favoring one (different) group. It is not. If discriminatory practices have occured in hiring and promotion favoring Jews, (such as WASP Roy Disney hiring Jew Michael Eisner), then let’s see some actual evidence rather than simply posting “well, this unsupported claim might just turn out to be true if we spend a bunch of time examining it.” We might find that the WTC was brought down by Mossad if we spend enough energy examining that, but I am not going to expend that energy until I see some actual evidence that it might have happened.
Let’s see the numbers that show that Gentiles have not achieved and and cannot achieve positions of authority in the entertainment industry before we start getting worked up about what might be going on.
The population of the US is what, 12% black? 3% in management runs short of that number, obviously, but not ridiculously so. Management could reasonably argue that it takes some time to develop talent.
Meanwhile 1.2% of Americans identify as Jewish as of 2008. But let’s bump that up to 3% just to account for the non-religious. Yet if Stein is to be believed, he had to scour the trades to come up with 5 non-Jews in high positions at entertainment companies. So the numbers are HUGELY out of proportion to presence in general population.
Yes, those facts would arch the eyebrow of a plaintiffs’ lawyer. The questions that would remain to be explored through discovery would be whether those numbers hold through lower management, and what are the hiring practices that may have led to those numbers?
And again, just to be clear, I am not advocating a “witch hunt” as much as FinnAgain might wish it so. (Or maybe he is just playing at being Lyndon Johnson again.) I am just saying the numbers are such that they would raise a suspicion of exclusionary hiring practices. As I have also said, the most likely explanation for this would not be a “cabal” (FinnAgain, again) but a good-old-boy network of the kind that is common to all humanity.
With that mindset, corporate discrimination would rarely be challenged, because the numbers usually can only be learned through discovery. (Depositions and written discovery.) Until then, you have to look at the circumstantial evidence that is available. (Numbers in upper management for example.)
That is a misrepresentation (accidental, I assume) of what Stein is saying. He didn’t name all of the Jews he found in upper management, only the most prominent. And then he said he had to “scour the trades” (his words) to find 5 non-Jews in upper level positions.
Yes and, surprise surprise, not only are you advocating (yet another) anti-Jewish witch hunt with no evidence at all, you’re using an argument that aims at using cuetsy semantic games to try to avoid what it’s saying by calling it something else. And, naturally, your argument ignores that your own cite says that not only is your ‘logic’ vacuous to the point where you witch hunt, but if you actually brought it further than an internet smear campaign, it would probably result in you having to pay the legal fees of those (dastardly) Jews who you want to sue. Just like somehow you read a claim of limited cultural factors that led to limited overrepresented in limited fields as innate superiority across absolutely all fields (due to Jewish Supremacism, naturally).
Bonus points, naturally, for your continued use of Turnspeak. You don’t have any evidence of a dastardly Jewish cabal, but make those bastards deny it (constantly). What, someone else is pointing out that your argument is so full of holes it wouldn’t hold a thimble full of water?
Accuse them of being paranoid and make them deny it!
Your oh-so-serious disapproval of Johnson’s smear tactics would be more convincing if they weren’t, literally, the only thing that your argument is based on.
Actually, that’d be you again Spoke. I know, it’s horrible, your own words keep misrepresenting what you really meant to say.
Are you, in fact, alleging that there is a group of persons secretly united in a plot to keep Jews out of Hollywood? Yes, unless of course you’re claiming that they don’t make a secret of it and they’ve admitted to it (you’re not claiming that, are you?)
Oh oh oh, is your cutesy-semantic-game that you’re not necessarily alleging a plot, it might just be that those Jews just inherently and without a conscious plot just discriminate against gentiles in order to help Jews and just kind of end up somehow controlling all of the publicly held companies’ boards of directors to get even more Jews into positions of power. Because then you might have a point. Then you wouldn’t be alleging a Jewish cabal, just a Jewish spontaneous-conspiracy-against-gentiles.
Unless, of course, your own words are again acting against you (perhaps-conspiring-but-we-can’t-be-sure).
The fact that there is such “sound and fury” with no evidence at all to back up the innuendo-campaign, and that campaign has not been modified, altered, ameliorated (let alone retracted) by the person advancing it despite it having no supporting evidence at all and quite a bit of opposing evidence does signify something about the argument itself.
For awhile I thought all I was going to get out of this thread was a few bits of comedy gold. But now my eyes have been opened.
I just saw a movie called Get Low with Robert Duvall and Sissy Spacek. On the surface it appears to be a finely crafted and well-acted period piece (1930s) about a man of evil reputation who strives for redemption.* It wasn’t until the credits rolled that I realized something was afoot.
The producer of this movie (one of a whole bunch of producers, but apparently the most important one) is Dean Zanuck. And another Zanuck (his father) is a co-producer! Hmmm…descendants of Darryl Zanuck, famous Jewish movie producer who was blackballed from a Los Angeles club and turned his experience into a movie about anti-Semitism, Gentleman’s Agreement.
Well actually Zanuck wasn’t Jewish, the people who blackballed him only thought he was, and he felt strongly enough about the injustice that it led him to make Gentleman’s Agreement. So you’d have to say he was an honorary Jew, anyway.
And get the name of the co-producer of Get Low - Richard Luke Rothschild. What could be more obvious - he’s a Jew who’s trying ineptly to pass as a Gentile good old boy (one of Spoke’s “good old boys”, no doubt).
So there’s Jewish Influence behind this film, even before we consider the religion of the studio head, other executives, commissary chief, parking lot attendants and so on. What message are they trying to send? It was confusing at first, seeing as there were no identifiable Jews or references to them in the movie, and the only obvious religious figures were two Christian ministers who are sympathetic figures. True, the Palestinian cause was not discussed in the film, but since this was a movie set in 1930s America it might be a bit of a stretch to expect that to come up.
Then it hit me - this was the exception that proves the rule! Just as another poster earlier pointed out that Jewish movie characters are assigned flaws to make them not appear too obviously to be good people, here we have a movie in which Jews are conspicuously not discussed, to cover for the fact that Hollywood in general portrays America as a vast Jewish enclave!
I’ll never again be able to see a Hollywood film** without these subliminal messages being obvious. Thanks everybody!!
*a naked attempt to plug the movie. Ask yourself - who benefits?
**with the possible exception of the next Mel Gibson movie.
