I didn’t overlook your statement I even took it into account. Although you rule out Gandhi himself of being Anti-Jewish you imply his statement was, hence what I said: “What? That wasn’t an Anti-Jewish comment.”.
**
Um… I haven’t heard of that book, please give me the jist of it.
In case I wasn’t clear enough, I think it was an appallingly stupid and heedless statement by a man who clearly is remembered for far more significant things.
**
The book is a non-comprehensive history of WWII that looks at a number of topics dealing with military and political strategy. Gandhi is mentioned only briefly.
A few points to Barsa Loner.
You seem to be arguing that the ideal Jewish place in the world is a place without any sort of power. Obviously, it’s fairly easy to be sympathetic when you are always the underdog. After I wrote the preceding sentence I realized it is wrong. The Jews were the underdog for about 2000 years, and got no sympathy, only hatred, pogroms, official repression, and the Holocaust. OK, so it seems like being powerless is a pretty good recipe for disaster. Zionism tries to rectify this by giving Jews a place where they are in control. Can you still deny them this?
Recently, I’ve begun to feel that Israel is the only way the Jewish people can survive. The pressure to assimilate to other cultures makes places like the US a deadly place - not for Jewish individuals, but for the Jewish religion. Already in America, Judiasm has been fragmented by Reform and Conservative movements. The intermarriage rate is 50% (I’m one of them). Every variant of Christianity out there likes to try and convert us, but we never go out of our way to convert anyone. It seems fairly certain that Judiasm in America is in trouble. In Europe, the recently upsurge in anti-semitism speaks for itself. Israel remains the safest place for the Jewish religion and culture. I ask you again, how can you deny us a homeland?
But you oppose Israel. You claim it is not anti-semitism to oppose them. But there are certainly some people who think Israel can do no right. There are some people who only can point out faults with the Israelis. And while they may be aware of the fact that the surrounding countries are much, much worse, if one mentions this to them, the response is always the same “yes, but we are discussing Israel now, not these other countries”. These people never get around to discussing the other countries, strangely enough.
The root of the problem always seems to be that the Jews are no longer the underdog. Like it or not, we have the power to protect ourselves. Finally.
Alright, but I didn’t think the mahatma meant it, to meant it that way.
What I can’t understand is why Satan was banned but Sweet Willy hasn’t been yet.
Please do not take this as a comment on Israel, but on the second half of your statement: “the only way the Jewish people can survive.”
Are Jewish people really in danger of not-surviving? If so how do you mean? By being persecuted to death/converted/giving up on their religion?
As I understand it - not personally being American or Jewish, but having consumed US media - Jewish people have richly contributed their culture to America. In a free and democratic society, culture mixing should lead to culture sharing, not assimilation.
I am not sure what Reform and Conservative are. Are they other religions or other types of Judaism? I don’t quite understand the “fragmented” thing that you mention.
Other nations (secular and of other religions) are also actively helping Jewish communities observe their faith and culture. Such as the halachic wall in Sydney:
efrem: Alright, but I didn’t think the mahatma meant it, to meant it that way.
I think you’re right, and that the prediction of Germans’ future favorable reactions to Hitler was taken somewhat out of context. After all, in a previous Harijan article (26 November 1938), Gandhi had said:
I really don’t think that the author of those comments seriously considered Hitler a “genius”. (And of course, acknowledging Hitler’s abilities and success is in no way anti-semitic; many Jewish historians have done the same.)
istara: *I am not sure what Reform and Conservative are. Are they other religions or other types of Judaism? I don’t quite understand the “fragmented” thing that you mention. *
Neither do I, and 50% of my own ethnic/religious/cultural heritage is Jewish. Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox are generally considered the three major sects of modern Judaism, and Judaism is “fragmented” by them in more or less the same way that Protestant Christianity is “fragmented” by the Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and other denominations. I’d have to disagree that the more “liberal” sects constitute a threat to the survival of Judaism; in fact, I think overall they increase the chances of its survival, by maintaining Jewish identity and culture for those Jews who find the full halachic rigor of Orthodoxy too restrictive and would otherwise move completely into secularism.
I also don’t feel that worries about assimilation are legitimate arguments in support of a Jewish nation. Genocide and persecution are one thing, but simply being a minority ethnic/religious/cultural group vulnerable to assimilation is quite another. There are plenty of other such groups in the world that have no nation of their own, and they don’t automatically rate an independence movement on that account; statehood shouldn’t be based on some kind of endangered-species list to preserve diminishing cultures. If Jews as free and equal citizens of secular states don’t have the will or the ability to keep their culture and religion alive and distinct, they shouldn’t expect Israel to do it for them. If there were no other reason to support the existence of Israel except that Jews elsewhere were afraid that they ultimately couldn’t avoid voluntary intermarriage and conversion, I wouldn’t consider that good enough.
The point was that Gandhi was singling out Hitler’s “good” qualities at a time when his enemies, the British were being militarily defeated by the Germans. Perhaps you can demonstrate similar praise for Hitler from Jewish historians in the context of 1940.
And I’m still waiting for an explanation from you regarding your comment in POWER_station’s thread on poll support for the Palestinians over Israel:
Kimstu: “…there’s no question that American Jews have a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans, or American Muslims of any kind for that matter.”
As I requested in that thread, your cites for this statement and what you think its implications are would be most appreciated.
Jackmannii: The point was that Gandhi was singling out Hitler’s “good” qualities at a time when his enemies, the British were being militarily defeated by the Germans.
But I think you’re still not quite getting the point that he was doing so in order to emphasize that even though Hitler was currently successful and highly glorified, he would ultimately be rejected by posterity. The fuller version of your brief quote from the 1940 Harijan article is this:
So Gandhi’s point is in fact the opposite of how you seem to be reading it: it’s not that Hitler should be “singled out” for praise for his “good qualities”—but on the contrary, that even at the height of Hitler’s military triumphs and personal victories, when his own people were cheering him to the skies, moral “discrimination” requires us to condemn what he did.
*And I’m still waiting for an explanation from you regarding your comment in POWER_station’s thread on poll support for the Palestinians over Israel:
Kimstu: “…there’s no question that American Jews have a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans, or American Muslims of any kind for that matter.”
As I requested in that thread, your cites for this statement and what you think its implications are would be most appreciated.*
Um, you quoted me kind of selectively there. What I said was in response to a remark originally posted by furt that I found surprising:
furt: *I also submit that the significant arab/muslim populations in Europe carry far more political power that the mutually negating Arab/Jewish populations in the US. *
Me: “Mutually negating”??? Without getting into the thorny question of who’s more biased than whom and in which direction and how you prove it, I think that—although their population sizes may be roughly comparable—there’s no question that American Jews have a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans, or American Muslims of any kind for that matter.
Note the “I think” in my actual post, intended to indicate that what followed was my own impression or opinion, not something I was asserting as fact; usually it’s not expected that impressions or opinions require cites. And I was not attempting to conclude anything about the “implications” of the statement, just questioning furt’s claim—which still strikes me as implausible—that Arab and Jewish populations in the U.S. are “mutually negating” in political power or influence. I know of no Arab-American or American Muslim member of the U.S. legislature, and no Arab-American or American Muslim owner, editor, or chief executive of a major media outlet, while there are several Jews in such positions. While there are a few well-known Arab-American/Muslim members of U.S. intellectual/academic circles and the punditocracy, there are far more Jewish ones.
As I clearly noted in the post I quote, this is not to claim anything definite about who thinks what or how much bias exists in which direction and what the total net effect is. I simply pointed out that given what seems to be the large numerical imbalance between Jewish influential public figures and Arab/Muslim ones in this country, it seems very unlikely to me that the political effects of the two populations are, as furt suggested, “mutually negating.”
I’m just not seeing it the same way. The “fuller” version you’re quoting mainly talks about the costs to Germany of holding on to an empire and the idea that while Germans will not be able to have “unadulterated” pride in their leader, he still will be honored for his “genius”, organizing abilities and “much more”. I’d love to know what Gandhi meant by"much more".**
True for IMHO, not for Great Debates.**
It’s a very large leap from that statement to the conclusion that American Jews have “a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans or American Muslims of any kind” regarding the Middle East. Are you suggesting that the presence of some Jews in these positions automatically means advocacy for pro-Israeli positions in U.S. media, or that fewer Arab-Americans in these positions means that pro-Arab positions are stifled in favor of pro-Israeli ones? I await your evidence.
I may not have been very clear. I meant Judiasm the religion, as opposed to individuals. If Judiasm the religion dies, there will be no more Jewish people. This can happen even if no Jews were ever killed, or harmed in any way.
A discussion on assimilation pressures is beyond the scope of this discussion, but, IMHO, include everything from media to city planning.
Just want to say that I agree with efrem and Kimstu’s interpretation of the Gandhi quote.
That clarifies things considerably.
Perhaps you can explain the meaning of “much more” that Gandhi felt Germans would revere Hitler for.
Sure. Since Gandhi was speaking of the general tendency of a people to glorify past heads of state, the “much more” refers, to me, to any of a myriad of stupid little things that could be perceived as positive qualities about any leader, no matter how insignificant the quality or vile the leader. It’s the “hey, but at least he made the trains run on time” phenomenon. Substitute “and whatever else they can find” for “and much more,” if it makes you feel better.
Now maybe you can explain the meaning of:
Thanks in advance.
Well, “much more” could mean that Hitler would be worshiped by future Germans in any way, from “he had nice hair” to “he was the greatest human being in the world”. He just meant that “success” and “misplaced national pride” can over-ride common sense, not that Hitler had correct beliefs and methods.
Ghandi is human and capable of making mistakes just like every other person, but I find it hard to believe that the Mahatma (who openly and publicly condemed Hitler on many occasions) had accepted (in some way) Hitlers ideology. It goes against every-single-thing Gandhi had believed in and fought for in South Africa and India (which were equality and non-violence).
You’re most welcome.
It is clear to me that Gandhi, in the most “complete” version of the quoted text, is saying that Germans, while gaining a lot from Hitler’s regime, will have to deal with some of the consequences of that regime’s successes, including the difficulty of holding on to conquered lands and the fact that they will not have “unadulterated pride” in those successes due to the accompanying bloodshed. This to me falls far short of the thundering condemnation of tyranny that I would have expected from a leader of Gandhi’s stature. Rather than sighing about Hitler not adding to the world’s morals, he’d have been better off citing the Nazis’ intensely immoral behavior.
And again, I don’t believe his article indicates acceptance of Nazi ideology, but rather more of an accomodation to the Nazis’ military success, especially in that it was weakening his major enemy, the British.
Still waiting for Kimstu’s evidence re alleged relative media dominance by American Jews.
Jackmannii: *Rather than sighing about Hitler not adding to the world’s morals, he’d have been better off citing the Nazis’ intensely immoral behavior.
And again, I don’t believe his article indicates acceptance of Nazi ideology, but rather more of an accomodation to the Nazis’ military success, especially in that it was weakening his major enemy, the British. *
I think that this interpretation flies in the face of everything Gandhi wrote about WWII, especially his constant declarations of sympathy and support for the Allied cause and his condemnations of Hitler’s motives and actions, even while he continued to demand independence for India from the British Empire. Here are some more quotes from his various writings in Harijan:
Are you suggesting that the presence of some Jews in these positions automatically means advocacy for pro-Israeli positions in U.S. media, or that fewer Arab-Americans in these positions means that pro-Arab positions are stifled in favor of pro-Israeli ones?
Jack, I am baffled as to how I can answer this question more clearly than I have already done. Once again, “as I clearly noted in the post I quote, this is not to claim anything definite about who thinks what or how much bias exists in which direction and what the total net effect is.” I’m well aware that there are many Jews who support Palestinian independence and many Arabs/Muslims who support Israeli independence, so it is not possible to make simplistic equations like “Jewish=anti-Palestinian” or “Muslim=anti-Israeli.” So I was not in fact “suggesting” either of the positions you are asking about; all I did was to disagree with furt’s claim that the Jewish and Arab/Muslim populations in the US are “mutually negating” in terms of their political and media influence. I thought that that would be almost as uncontroversial a statement as “I think Christians have a much stronger voice in US media than atheists”, but apparently I was wrong. Perhaps, if you will tell me what it is you disagree with in my remarks, I will be able to explain my intended meaning to you more clearly.
Kimstu - might it be that this statement by Gandhi: " Let there be no mistake on the part of Englishmen, Congressmen, or others whom my voice reaches, as to where my sympathy lies. " represents a bit of backpedaling after noting the reaction to his statements about Hitler’s “genius”?
For a start, you could actually answer these questions. You claimed that American Jews have “a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans or American Muslims of any kind” regarding the Middle East. You link that statement to a perception that there are more Jews in executive or commentary positions in U.S. media than Arabs, so I ask you for evidence that that translates to a “much stronger voice” for Jews than Arabs. You have not provided any.
As you well know, there are many non-Jewish as well as Jewish voices that speak up loudly for the Palestinian cause. If you’re going to argue that pro-Israeli Jewish voices in the media drown out the pro-Arab voices, provide evidence.
**
Unfortunately, this is not the first time you have made assumptions about media bias based on perceptions which you think are obvious, but which in fact are controversial and need to be backed with convincing evidence before they can be accepted.
This is GD and facts are required.
Jackmannii: *might it be that this statement by Gandhi: " Let there be no mistake on the part of Englishmen, Congressmen, or others whom my voice reaches, as to where my sympathy lies. " represents a bit of backpedaling after noting the reaction to his statements about Hitler’s “genius”? *
? What reaction? Did those statements provoke protests from people who believed that Gandhi intended them to express admiration or sympathy for Hitler? I’m not aware of any.
As you well know, there are many non-Jewish as well as Jewish voices that speak up loudly for the Palestinian cause. If you’re going to argue that pro-Israeli Jewish voices in the media drown out the pro-Arab voices…
Ah, I see. No, that is not what I’m arguing (though I personally believe it’s largely true, but I have not made and am not making a GD-quality assertion to that effect). I think you are mixing up, or believe that I’m mixing up, the simple designations “Jewish” and “Arab/Muslim” with the ideological ones “pro-Israeli” and “pro-Arab”. I explicitly disclaimed that identification in my previous post. What I was actually saying was far simpler and less significant: namely, that because there are many more Jews than Muslims or Arabs in influential positions in US politics and media, I think it’s inaccurate for furt to describe the American “Arab/Jewish populations” as “mutually negating.”
Let’s look at your statement once again, which you made to **furt **in the midst of a discussion on whether European media fairly presented Middle East issues, or favored the Palestinian cause over the Israeli one. furt was trying to argue that there was a balance in political influence in the U.S. between American Jews and Arab-Americans, a claim which you attempted to refute, saying “…there’s no question that American Jews have a much stronger voice in US media than do Arab-Americans, or American Muslims of any kind for that matter.”
I see no mixup, except that you are unwilling to acknowledge the inaccuracy of your statement or present facts to support it. Nice attempt at spin, though.
For clarity’s sake, when you post here, perhaps you could indicate which of your statements constitute “GD-quality assertions”, and which are wild-assed guesses that are not fair game for others to question.
Interpreting Gandhi’s statements and motives does go into the realm of conjecture at this point, but why do you think he felt the need to take such pains to assure his audience that he sympathized with the British? Read his language, and wonder.