On the other hand there was that “harden Pharaoh’s heart” thingy.
CMC fnord!
Even if true, this would be unknowable. But if you read more about the origins of Zionism, you’ll discover that it isn’t true.
I think you are right about the decades later part. Holocaust prevention considerations motivated many in France to help Israel’s nuclear weapons program.
However, recall that the US, while giving lip service to the founding of Israel (perhaps out of domestic political concerns) embargoed arms shipments. Israel received no significant US aid until during and after the 1973 war, when the US was trying to preserve a threatened status quo.
The most important outsidesupport for Israel, in its war of independence, came from the Soviet Union and it’s Czechoslovak satellite. And Stalin surely didn’t do this because of the Holocaust. Rather, he was hoping to be able to make Israel a client state.
As for “Resolved: antisemitism is not directly comparable to anti-black racism”, antisemitism is most certainly comparable to anti-black racism. When you compare them, you find similarities and differences.
You didn’t read the cite, then.
“Allegedly, undocumented, and controversial.”
One can call her statement into question, and ask for a citation, and so far, none has been provided. None.
I hope it doesn’t sound as though I’m saying that everyone was falling over themselves to help Israel out, post-Nazis. That’s not my point.
My point is that, post-Holocaust, there WAS a sustained international effort (not omninational, not unanimous, but definitely international) to help European Jews recover from the Holocaust, through, among other means, relocation to a new homeland. Post-slavery, and post-Jim-Crow, there was no such effort–or, rather, Reconstruction was defeated pretty soundly. Terr’s suggestion that Jews are more self-motivated than black people is really stupid.
Not in the section we’re talking about–unless you claim that the 1859 documents I cite are undocumented. Have you revisited your own cite to reread it? Because you’re objectively incorrect in this case and need to take a second look.
What’s undocumented is his claim that he was a teenager in 1859. That he was alive and enslaved in 1859 is documented.
That’s not my reading of history. The Zionists had a terribly difficult time getting the Europeans to let the Jews out of the displaced persons camps.
Both staunch Zionists, and those unfriendly to the Jewish state, tend to greatly exaggerate the role of the Holocaust in the founding and maintenance of Israel.
Jews have, as far as I can tell, continuously lived in what is now Israel for thousands of years, and certainly have continuously live there since the late Middle Ages. Often they faced massacres passively, preferring appeals to Muslim rulers over self-defense.
Palestine’s towns always had a substantial Jewish minority (or, in Jerusalem, plurality), augmented by the Zionists who started moving in around 1880. When the British mandate pulled out, the created political vacuum meant there was bound to be a war between the Arabs and the Jews.
If not for the Holocaust, there would have been a lot more Jews supporting Israel’s founding, making it more secure. Note that 90 percent of Poland’s three million Jews died in World War II, and Poland’s Jewish community was more strongly Zionist than any other outside Palestine. These Zionists would have been a lot more valuable to Israel than supporters being able to invoke the Holocaust. The effect of the Holocaust. on the Israeli War of Independence. was to make the outcome less certain. No Holocaust, and we would have more secure Israel with a higher ratio of Jews to Arabs. Demographics is more determinative than Holocaust rhetoric.
The last documented slave died in 1948, at age 105. A far cry from the '70s.
Two more things.
If the longest-living man ever lived to 116, how likely is that Sylvester lived to 130? The chances are somewhere between slim and none.
Since monstro made the claim, he or she needs to back it up. Will that happen?
Really? US embargoed Israel and Great Britain intercepted and interned Jews who were traveling to that homeland. What countries do you include in that “sustained international effort”?
Interesting, and I’ll bow to your knowledge on the subject.
Your cite calls her " one of the last proven African-American slaves living in the United States," not “the last.”
Irrelevant: the documentation suggests he was at least 112, not 130, when he died. His claims about being older are both unproven and irrelevant to the point.
You’re harping on a side point, and you’re harping on it incorrectly, and I think she’s wiser than I am in refusing to engage you on this triviality that you’re attacking badly.
Monstro’s claim hasn’t been proven, at all. Unless you have new evidence?
With all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about?
You mean the British and American militaries which tried to prevent Jewish refugees from reaching “Palestine”?
Do you mean the British foreign minister who justified his breaking of promises to Zionists by declaring “the kingdom of heaven is run on what is good but the kingdoms of Earth are run on oil”?
Do you mean the governments of the US and the UK which under Churchill and Roosevelt were fervently anti-Zionist?
Do you mean Truman who would have happily said “fuck off” to the Zionists but for the personal intervention of a friend?
In all seriousness how many if any books have you read on this subject?
Please name them.
Thanks in advance.
I think in the LHoD’s post we see the result of the relentless decades of anti-Zionist propaganda paying off.
Yes it does. Your approach is to belittle and besmirch the historic experience of Jews by way of comparison to the Black American experience. It is fundamentally a divisive approach.
They are not the same experiences any more than red and blue are the same color but you are trying to argue that blue is not as colorful as red and that is why it cannot be compared to it. The game of “who has suffered more?” is an idiotic exercise and in no way informs. Their respective Diasporas were different in many many ways - not one worse.
Black Americans had their historic cultures ripped from them and as a culture were placed in a circumstance which made educational achievement more difficult (to understate a bit); the persecution of Jews within a variety of cultures across the world OTOH paradoxically facilitated the preservation of a cultural heritage and pushed the culture into the business of importing and exporting the most portable of assets: ideas. Jews in America could, like my father did, taken on one or more non-Jewish identity in their business dealings if they needed to; Blacks could less easily “pass” … so on. The differences in the historic experiences are manifold and your simplistic competitive proposition that Blacks just had it so much “more” is a harmful tactic that needlessly demeans the validity of one set of experiences with ignorant statements and places those who would correct that ignorance in perceived opposition to the validity of the suffering of the other’s and impedes the ability of each to recognize their commonalities. In short you are attempting to place Jews as an “other” to Blacks just as much as Terr and his ilk does.
That’s not remotely what I’m trying to do, and I apologize for saying anything that came across that way. I have more to say on the subject, but fear coming across further like I’m belittling the historic experience of Jews, and so I won’t say it.
In contrast to DSeid, I figure neither of you has said anything worth responding to.
LOHD early on you had these two responses:
And your response to them was to try to illuminate how it is helpful positing a “which would be worse” thought experiment looking at several decades in one specific region of the world. Which only shed light on why those two comments were on target.
Sorry for beating the dead horse.
First and least important, the claim that Sylvester Magee was a slave and was alive until 1971 is supported to the degree that one can believe a Wikipedia article quoting a Jet article stating what they say they saw in the records office. His age is a somewhat more questionable bit to be sure.
Secondly though is this: who the heck cares? monstro’s relevant point was that American slavery of Blacks was, in historic terms, a fairly recent event. Switch in Eliza Moore’s life and the point changes naught. The legacy of those historically not at all ancient institutions are extant and of real impact in current American society, culture and subcultures. Can you seriously believe otherwise?
To add in my own two blows, however, I learned something new: I’d assumed that the lack of genocide against black people in Nazi Germany was due primarily to the lack of black people to mass-murder. On the contrary, I got a cite that they weren’t as interested in active genocide against black people, at least not at the time.
I’m not trying to award a trophy to whoever had it worse, you understand; rather, I’m trying to learn more about what’s going on. In the same way, I’m trying in my imperfect way to understand more about the differences in world responses to the Holocaust and chattel slavery and Jim Crow. No trophies, but it can be interesting to look at what historical dynamics worked differently in the different cases.
BZZT. Fail. Thanks for playing. Lynn. Fucking Lynn. If this were the Pit I’d have more to say for someone who uses Lynn for anything other than wiping their arse.
Yep. IIRC, Lynn estimated the IQs of entire countries from one study of a handful of school kids from a neighboring country.
I think it is more correct to say that Elizabethan folks would not have made any distinction between a relatively light skinned north African “Moor” and a black skinned person. Indeed, the term “Moor”, which is now pegged to a specific place, was used quite elastically in that period - could refer to a north African, a sub-saharan African, or even someone from India or beyond.
However, there are plenty of clues in the play itself that Othello having sub-Saharan identity was a plot point.
For example, Rodrego calls Othello “the thick-lips” at one point, and at another Othello denounces Desdemona’s supposed sin as being “black as mine own face.” Taken together, this appears to indicate a sub-Saharan - it’s the easiest explaination: a Black man with, to Europeans, relatively thick lips (which Rodrego mocks, but which does not prevent Othello from being handsome - as Desdemona falls in love with him).
In any event, it doesn’t really matter - the point is that Elizabethans did not care much. Blacks simply got lumped in with “moors” of various sorts, and having Black skin wasn’t the important thing about them - it was perfectly possible to cast a “moor” as a tragic hero.
I would argue it was only with the advent of chattel slavery (and with the various attempts to justify it) that skin color became really significant as anything other than an aspect of foreign-ness and exotic-ness to the English.