The targets of discrimination generally have a keener sense of what stereotypes have been used to bludgeon them.
In case there is still any confusion out there as to why charges of excessive clannishness/insularity are offensive, consider what they lead to. If the perception can be fed that a group is avoiding contact with the rest of society, we see reactions like “They’re arrogant. They think they’re too good for everyone else.” The other major consequence is the allied stereotype of secretiveness. "What are they planning? They’re up to something (world domination, ritual killings, attempts to force gefilte fish on the general populace etc.).
Polls of anti-Semitic attitudes find that one of the commonest residual predjudices include the perception that “Jews don’t care about anyone but themselves” (held by 1 in 5 Europeans according to a recent survey that appears on the ADL website).
Oh and as to French secularism … true enough France was the first European country to give Jews equal rights - in 1791 - conditionally: “To the Jews as individuals, all rights. To the Jews as a people, no rights.” The French concept is no different today, even if Islamic identity is felt to be the greater concern than some Jewish community centers and Hebrew writing in stores. Being French is mutually exclusive with having any other concurrent cultural identity.
And as to Abe’s comment that he only meant Jews being isolated by others, not by preference, as a proximate cause, not justification of antisemitism… well it is a bit of a paradox, since they were being isolated because they were feared or despised already.
Well, I do have some problem with cohesive as well, but to the request.
If what you meant was that Jews were the visibly different “others” in Christian Europe and Islamic lands, with a distinct identity, that the seperation and isolation from full participation in society that was to various degrees imposed upon them exacerbated antisemitic beliefs, then so much has already been said without the need fror insulting stereotypes by both Tom and myself. See, for example, my post #82
But the origins are institutional. Constantine began it in 313 by aggresively derogating the Jews and followed it up in 315 with a series of edicts oppressive to Jews. His son Constanius, furthered the anti-Jewish legislation in 337 and labelled Jews “a pernicious sect”. Soon bishops were commanding synagogues to be burnt down. Forced conversions became more commonplace. The tone was set. And the rest is, well, history.
Okay, so I’m double, triple, maybe even quadruple posting, sue me. But I reread some of the recent posts and Oh Gawd.
Uh, no.
Jews had been expelled from England some 350 years before Shakespeare’s birth and not allowed back until 40 years after he dies. the odds are grea that Shakespeare never met a Jew in his life. There is no record of any Jewish moneylender asking for payment in flesh. He was merely repeating stereotypes … you know, like how insular Jews are.
You certainly are establishing yourself as an expert in deliberately inaccurate paraphrases, Jack – I rather wonder how you think that helps battered perceptions of your honesty. I certainly do think that not kowtowing to a stereotype does require a certain honesty as well as the readiness to face the ire and cheap techniques of certain posters. Let me repeat again : I am not especially interested in how a claim has been used when it comes time discuss it.
By that I mean that this is Great Debates, not a forum for strenuous adherence only to politically correct topics as defined by you and one other offended poster. Do you have a problem with that? I’m specifically not out to pursue an anti-semitic agenda or whatever other crap you have been desperately trying to portray me as since the start of this controversy.
More arguments by extremely stretched analogy accompanied by copious hand-waving, sarcastic dismissals, and Rove-like attempts to define an opponent instead of allowing him to define himself. Is this kind of thing what you consider good mileage for your honesty?
I ask you again to cease your cheap slanderous technique of claiming I connect “tribalism” and “jews” in any specific manner, or at the very least explain why you keep trying to convince yourself of that. I already explained that I consider tribalistic factors such as fear of otherness to account in part for the occurrence of discrimination (and we’re talking about discrimination against Jews here, so you tell me how that argument can be misconstrued by any but the most wilfully moronic as an assertion that Jews are more tribalistic than is the human norm). Tribal is almost exactly the same meaning as clannish, but I haven’t used the former in any specific manner (i.e., I applied it to the entire human race when I did use it) and I certainly never brought up the latter. As for “insularity”, not only have I explained myself repeatedly with arguments you have systematically avoided in preference for quick bites and hand-waves, but I even asked if you had any better substitutes. I’m giving you the opportunity to exit this mode of behaviour so we can all move on.
Regarding usurious materialism being consistent with historical reality: will you actually deal with it, or will you indeed limit yourself to the convenient but ultimately futile technique of deriding something en passant without addressing it?
I have already explained that I don’t particularly care for the opinion of those who display excessive sensitivity and aggression. Others, perhaps not saddled by a predisposition to seek slurs everywhere, seem to have better understood my discussion. You’ve just been throwing your arms up in the air and making loud noises since your first objection. When your gesticulations are addressed, you shift on to something else, such as silly analogies, in order to avoid the meat of the matter.
This might once have been amusing before everyone started using a variation of it. Let me point out again that your facile derision is not a substitute for valid argument. If you think I’ve been avoiding something, do bring it up. A read through this thread will confirm that I’ve tried to tackle the majority if not all of the objections raised in my direction – and rather more honestly and openly than might be said of my chief detractors, who have instead focused on bitching about the use of one word and on portraying me as a purveyor of stereotypes and anti-semitism.
Another example of selective reading. Previously, the selectivity you displayed in reading my posts might have been explained by a cultural sensitivity to this topic, but when you cherry-pick definitions (out of several) to show that I must necessarily mean what I in fact do not mean (narrow-minded??), well, you are just making my point for me. My thanks.
Oh, and you used the thesaurus function, not the dictionary. I trust I do not need to explain the limitations of a thesaurus when it comes to word definitions – try the actual dictionary entry. Or, to save you the effort, just look at the definition I already provided a few posts above.
No, that is an interpretation that is deliberately dumbed down AND misinterpreted for your purposes. So anti-Jewish efforts have cited Jewish clannishness as a reason to oppress Jews. We know that. But am I unique among the non anti-Jewish in applying the term “insular”? I don’t think so. Read on.
I spent a considerable number of words discussing the phenomenon and some of its sources, all to no avail. Now here are examples, all from Jewish sources --which I think we might agree are not anti-Jewish-- discussing the matter in manners to varying degrees similar to mine.
There are plenty more. Would you increasingly angry fellows like to renew your paltry accusations and misrepresentations of my rhetoric? Would you like to insist again how I must be perpetuating an evil slur by simply daring to discuss potential factors and perceptions in anti-jewish sentiment? Or is it somehow acceptable only for Jewish sources to discuss these issues and use the “i” word, but not for well-meaning posters on this board? Who, I might add, are anonymous – I could be Jewish for all you know, and Abe is indeed a contraction of a Hebrew name…
I understand the argument, I don’t even disagree with it to great lengths, I simply note that your treatise is selective (it tends to ignore historical instances of explicit insularity, whether voluntary, of necessity, or enforced). But I never disputed the various Jewish attempts and intents to increase assimilation with a number of host cultures throughout the ages – certainly the Jews have taken intellectual and strategic approaches to trying to overcome discrimination by integration (now try accuse me of perpetuating the stereotype that Jews are manipulative…). The last cite I provided has an interesting discussion on that topic, and the friction that desire to assimilate produced in some Jewish communities.
I do mean that, in part, though distinct identity and imposed separation is not the entire story (the cites above would seem to agree). And I was discussing exactly that before your post #82. Jack jumped on me starting with post #38, casting analogies about “niggers”, misrepresenting my arguments, generating either-or fallacies, and so forth. You entered later, with post #82. I conclude you and Jack haven’t been reading as clearly as you might have on account of the rising spleen. In fact, I strongly suspect that while Jack was raging, you were baiting me on the insularity issue, waiting until the right opportunity to pounce on a very narrow selection of my argument and discarding everything else I said (i.e., “short version” and the charming “in fancier wrods perhaps, but the charge translates to clanishness. No more or less”).
I didn’t ask whether Shakespeare ever met a Jew – but how about Dickens, since you bring that up? (Btw, there were some Jews left in England after the expulsion during the Bard’s lifetime, and it is possible he did meet some in person). I asked for comments on the historical reality of depictions of Jews such as those of Shakespeare and Dickens, specifically regarding usurious materialism. Not whether Jews demanded flesh in exchange for payment. Not whether they were evil characters. Not whether they use the blood of children in food. Usurious materialism: it’s an ugly stereotype. Historically consistent with reality?
Leaving aside insularity, which is addressed above, can a stereotype be at all true to any degree? Jack, the question was elicited by you a few posts ago. You are free to accuse me of anti-semitism --yet again-- if you deem it appropriate.
Don’t be so premature. You know no one likes that.
Abe, let me assume for a minute that you are well intended.
You have in the course of this thread accused Jews of:
-being more insular (a word that has distinct negative connotations) than nearly any other ethnicity
-of routinely crying antisemitism against any criticism against Israel
-and now are repeating the Shylock myth and stating that it is “consistent with historic reality”
What next? Claiming that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were real and that Jews killed Christian babies?
Step back from yourself for a second. When you repeat all the old antisemitic canards can you really be surprised if people start to wonder about your motivations?
No I won’t waste my time proving to you that the character that Shakespeare created out of thin air was a fiction. You claim Shylock was consistent with historical reality, just like for your “relatively more insular” claim, put up or shut up.
BTW, your cites of others using the word insular are all well and good, but please note, I never claimed that there is no degree of insularity to Jews, just less than most other ethnicities. Insularity to some degree is characteristic of every ethnicity, especially those new to a society and insecure as to their status, my claim is that Jews are significantly less insular than most other ethnicities in history - the distinct contrapositive to your claim.
(And I think the assessments are wrong anyway: Orthodox are not per se insular just because some Reform Jews says so … look for example at our board’s Orthoox members - they are definitely interacting with the world at large. And the others refer to a political world view - using insular as a synonym for isolationism in political world events - not the same thing as the context in this thread.)
You’re big on claiming misrepresentation (which you apparently define as quoting you and asking you to back up wild claims).
Now here’s a good example of misrepresentation.
Oh really? Here’s what I said in the post in question:
This would be funny if it weren’t pitiful. Either you jumped to read a word that wasn’t there, or are getting some kind of cheap thrill out of repeating the n-word. Based on your performance in this thread, I suspect the latter.
Yeah, we know you’re above all that PC-respect-the-feelings-of-others-sensitivity crap. The New Age Abe. I see and hear plenty of uncannily similar characters writing letters to the editor and popping up on right-wing talk radio, to complain about all those touchy, oversensitive minorities who can’t handle a dose of the truth, a.k.a. bigoted rants. Fine company you’ve assigned yourself.
Incidentally, if you had actually read the links you supplied (instead of frantically Google searching for anything that mentioned Jewish and insular in the same breath), you might realize that the authors are largely talking about things like becoming more politically active (would you argue that Jews are so “insular” that they’ve hardly ever spoken out publicly about the subject of Israel?) or trying to expand the appeal of the religion so that it is more attractive to potential converts. They do not support the claim that Jews avoid society, do not interact with others etc., which is the thrust of the classic stereotype that you’re clinging to. And the links certainly do not back the assertion that Jews are more clannish/tribal/insular/cohesive than any other group.
For someone who likes to talk about his critics being “angry”, “raging”, “baiting” etc., you’ve done most of that yourself. As DSeid pointed out, you’ve now dragged into this thread a large laundry list of typical and hateful anti-Semitic slurs, apparently delighting in the idea of getting a reaction. I don’t know the source of your venom, but it’s depressing to see an otherwise intelligent poster behaving like Hong Kong’s answer to Archie Bunker.
I have accused nothing, I sought to discuss contributors, causes, triggers, to anti-semitism. Go back to the first posts in this thread and have a closer read. This entire matter was exploded by Jack first (with such goodies as the whole tribalism nonsense, hand-waving denials of the Israel-anti-semitism link, and cheap analogies to blacks that were thinly veiled accusations of racism – pretty much the only accusations present in this thread were directed at me) and then by you a little bit later.
Regarding the relative insularity of Jewish cultures, it certainly seems to be a recognized issue even in Jewish communities, and I’m not here (for the nth time) making any accusations that you have repeatedly implied (“Jews stick together” etc.). Probably the two most insular cultures, at least traditionally or historically speaking, that I can think of are Roma and China (I mentioned this too). China in particular made an entire virtue of being the Middle Kingdom between heaven and earth, distinct from the rest of the world, and some historians have argued that the country suffered periodic crashes and violent contractions as a result of cycles of insularity.
I’m not aware of an index ranking the insularity of cultures. But extrapolating from long histories of segregation (voluntary and non) and overriding concerns within Jewish discourse itself, it seems safe (if perhaps somewhat amateurish) to rank Jews in general as fairly high, though clearly a trend is descriptive and not prescriptive, and allows for broad variation. This is not a value judgement. It is not an accusation. It is not a conduit for anti-semitism. It is a simple observation emerging from an examination of the factors that have contributed to discrimination against Jews for at least two and a half millennia. On that topic:
So you see, even a Jewish Rabbi and historian does not see historical insularity as being incompatible with your earlier point about being actively involved in the cultural life of a number of host societies and adopting various local customs.
What??? After I linked a cite (pro-Jewish too) that supported a specific link between Israeli policy and anti-semitism, you replied “My take is that the Mideast conflict allows the antisemite a thin veneer … hiding his hate speech amidst those who honestly (correctly or not) believe that Israel is more at fault in the current conflict than not. And trying use the conflict to incite others to a more general distrust of Jews overall.”
I already responded to your take. Effectively, if I may simplify (albeit without the deliberate dumbing down that’s been used against me) you stated that it is not Israeli policy that is to blame, rather it is merely existing hatred. In this case you were the one saying that criticisms of Israeli policy were anti-semitic, something I had criticized in earlier posts and that does not fit well with the assesment of the ADL.
I certainly repeated no Shylock or Fagin myth, I asked a precise question that really should not subject to the misinterpretation. See below.
Nothing of the sort. And I find this approach quite offensive. I might as well ask of you: what next, uniforms and badges for the Jewish SDMB Patrol? That’s an illustrative rhetorical parallel, not a point.
By “people” it appears you mean all of two posters who have consistently mischaracterized or ignored my arguments, who after lengthy explanations on my part still feel the need to preface a response with “let me assume for a minute that you are well intended”, who have resorted to derision and hand-waving in substitution of arguments, etc., etc.
I appreciate the admonition to step back, but I am already hanging pretty far back. I might pass the same advice on to you two, since (as I argued a number of times) there have been dogged attacks based on mischaracterizations of my words. Not the other way round.
I’m not asking you to waste your time proving that Shylock was a fiction. Again you do not appear to have understood the question, or you may be avoiding it. Should I repeat or rephrase it, or do I assume from your response that you deny the consistency of the depiction of these literary characters with historical reality when it comes to usurious materialism? Note that that is not to say Jews were/are money-grubbing.
Think about this: what was the (or a big) leading contributing fact to the unpleasant stereotype that Jews engage in deceptive behavior towards those not of their own?
Do you see where I am going yet? The question about usurious materialism is not an idle one, and is directly related to the current fracas.
Those cites do suggest quite a high degree of insularity, certainly enough to cause the writers and/or subjects considerable concern (apart from those advocating greater insularity of course). Do we have similar materials from other ethnic groups? And I think I mentioned somewhere on this thread, and I think you have too, that it is difficult to treat a religion as monolithic, but see the trends and issues discussed in the cites provided. I have a load of other interesting cites to post if my point needs to be boosted further, there is no shortage of such material.
I find it difficult to understand why you reject the notion that, for example, ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) are more insular than others. This is to my knowledge fairly well established.
Why do you assume that isolationalism is not part of insularity? It is both by definition and etymology, and that certainly is the context I have been using. Insular does not necessarily equal not interacting with the world at large (though, of course, it may). Now I have to pay some attention to Jack, or he may become jealous.
No Jack, I was simply referring to your ridiculous interpretation of my prose, in particular the way you distilled from my earlier discussion the dumbed-down “Only weaklings and sniveling cowards try to comprehend ethnic sensibilities and avoid offensive stereotyping on the basis of nothing more than personal predjudice.” Stuff like that is silly. The question is, did you not understand my point of view, or did you again twist my meaning for the sake of your convenience?
That was an honest mistake, I owe you an apology for the nigger comment (flashing through to the extract I remembered, I misread “triggers” as “niggers”). You did however try to equate my arguments with racism against blacks, which in terms of civilized rhetoric seems just as bad. I do not retract my other complaints, in fact if you really want I might take the time to go through all the mischaracterizations you have posted.
I really don’t care what you hear on the radio or read in letters to the editor. I repeat that, just because you appear overly sensitive to certain terms – not even arguments, since you have yet to demonstrate or admit understanding the ones I have presented – there is no onus on me to pander to your unreasonable and combative sensitivity. Particularly when said sensitivity is expressed with questionable techniques.
As I said earlier, if it was a question of you asking for clarification for any ambiguity in my posts, I could understand and comply readily enough. But your eagerness for denial and confrontation – such as your sustained response to the innocuous use of the word “tribal” or your automatic and fallacious derision of my claim that “policies of Israel in recent history have provided more than enough animus to fuel anti-jewish sentiments” – simply indicate bad faith.
I am not clinging to a classic stereotype at all. I do not support the claim that “Jews avoid society, do not interact with others etc.” You appear to harbour a deep desire for me to be doing so, but I repeat yet again that my arguments have nothing to do with the “clannish” and ultra-isolationist slurs that you keep emphasizing. Also see my responses to Dseid on this matter (since it is a discussion I am having with him). I’m hoping it would not be too much for you to finally understand where I’m coming from after four pages.
Really? I’ve said the above at specific junctions simply because it was rather in evidence. Have I twisted your words on more than one occasion? Have I implied or accused you of such unpleasantries as racism and ethnic hatred? Have I ignored your arguments, even when I was incorrect or unable to find support? Have I conveniently abandoned any trains of discussion I did not see any personal fulfilment in? Have I accused you of being venomous? You’ve done all that and more, yet you seem to think that my responses are the issue.
Feel free to continue in this vein, it strenghtens the claim that you are overly sensitive on this topic when faced with reasoned discourse, particularly since I go to considerable lengths to distance myself from the traits you keep accusing me of. The issue here is that you are unable to perceive a greater argument beyond my (frequently misconstrued) use of words like “insular” and “tribal”. Call that an accusation if you will, it is harmless enough and well supported by your readiness to seek out non-existent slurs. And I must note that I don’t use this as a way to dismiss your points, which I have addressed quite systematically (you have denied as much, and I asked you to explain).
Nonsense, unless by that you mean examining the historical bases for the longevity of stereotypes such as usurious materialism. Answer the questions instead of jumping past the entire debate process to your preferred conclusions.
Your response is unwarranted, and again seeks to define unfairly the opposition so that you can posture victoriously. This is, in my experience, quite unlike the usual standards of behaviour of learned Jewry, but perhaps the environment I grew up in was markedly different.
“Think about this: what was the (or a big) leading contributing fact to the unpleasant stereotype that Jews engage in deceptive behavior towards those not of their own?”
That should read:
“Think about this: what was the (or a big) leading contributing fact to the unpleasant stereotype that Jews engage in deceptive economic behavior towards those not of their own?”
The thesaurus function lists almost exclusively perjorative synonyms and lists it as a synonym for “clannish.”
I do not think you mean the island defintion or the anatomic one.
I’d ask you to consider that this was, especially conjoined with with “cohesive”, a poor word choice. Especially when attached to the broad unsupported statement of “more than other ethnincities.” I do not think that you would say that American Blacks were insular for most of the 20th century because they were kept out of White schools and White neighborhoods. The Rabbi’s context makes his intent clear.
Perhaps I can offer up a statement that we can agree on. I will restrict the discussion to Christian European antisemitism, although to a lesser degree similar factors were at play in the Arab world.
To the degree that Jews were isolated from full participation in societal and community life, antisemitism was exacerbated. The causes of the varying degrees of seperation from society were several.
The ultimate cause was institutional beginning with anti-Jewish edicts by Constantine and by his son. Their reasons can only be speculated but one suspects that it was the simple fact that Jews denied the divinity of Christ. Jews were not second class citizens, they were much less - in Spain they were the property of the treasury. These oppressive edicts created a society in which Jews were often only allowed jobs that Christians did not desire to, or were not allowed to have. Among them moneylending - often as front men for nobles. Jews were often required by law to lend money to Christians. These edicts isolated Jews from community participation in any meaningful way.
As a secondary result Christian members of societies did not interact with Jews as equals in the community but as others performing distasteful services. Or not at all other than by stories promulgated by the Church and others. Easy to believe them. No one likes someone who they owe money to. It is always easier to blame your debt on the lender than on your poor financial management. Often Christians just would deny debt and blame a cheating Jew who must have forged his name. Since a Jew couldn’t take a Christian to court this worked quite well. At times nobles would just incite a riot against Jews and confiscate the assets as a very effective means to erase debt. Yep, justify it by blaming the cheating Jews. Who killed Christ by the way. And kill Christian babies for blood rituals. All easy to believe when you don’t know many face to face and those you do know you resent.
Some isolation was unavoidable as a consequence of having a different religion in a non-secular world. The Church and government were intertwined. The local church and community life were intertwined. A Jewish minority would be somewhat isolated in a non-secular world merely by the fact that it did not meet at the equivilent of the church pot-lucks. And of course there were dietery restrictions and other commandments that made them stand out some too. The need to be near a kosher butcher and to be able to walk to Shabbat services, required Jewish communities within a larger whole for any observant Jew.
Different though than being commanded to live in a ghetto.
Jews were in this position throughout the European world, intermittently banished from parts of it, and escaping from other parts when the massacres occured too often. Nevertheless they participated in culture when they could and, as Rabbi Wein says
Unfortunately such a cultural tradition had its downside - when allowed fuller participation this precocious cultural modernity helped Jews occassionally to achieve, and every achieving Jew stood out, was falsely believed to be the norm - and was resented by no few. They must be achieving because of conspiricy, because of clannishness, because they cheat. They really control things behind the scenes. The fault can’t lie with me or with my culture.
No, Abe. Not just two posters.
Non-Jewish person here, Abe [I’m a born and bred atheïst] Living in a town with a Jewish mayor. How do I know he’s Jewish, Abe? Because he said so.
Remember my story about my neighbor, Abe? There are thousands of stories like that. We don’t know if someone is Jewish unless he says so. If there’s one people who is completely integrated in every society, it’s the Jewish people.
I hope your claim of Jewish people being insular is mere ignorance.
DSeid, we can indeed agree! Just a few notes that I don’t think we differ significantly on. It’s very late here so please excuse any errors.
The applicable definition of insular according to dictionary.com is the one I provided in response to another poster on the previous page. Of course, “of an island” is to be taken metaphorically, and there are degrees of insularity. I certainly would not suggest that Jews wanted to avoid all contact with host cultures – that would be one extreme of the spectrum (rather xenophobic) occupied perhaps at select times by particular Chinese dynasties reluctant to interact with the world, but not by Jews (nor would it make a whole lot of sense, being a “people without a nation”).
Speculation to account for very early anti-jewish sentiment and the wholesale discrimination against Jews for their entire history in almost every locale may, I think, include the standard “otherness” but I suspect there is more. Even before there was Christianity there was discrimination against Jews, though Jewish-Christian friction certainly would have played a significant role after the advent of Christianity.
I’m not suggesting there is something innately Jewish that automatically attracts discrimination, but as I said earlier I don’t see how acausality may be a factor. Even if the reasons are ridiculous to us, such as having a different skin colour, being from a different tribe (or super-tribe), or even eating different food, there must be some sort of basis. With blacks and whites, it is easier to suspect the sources of discrimination: a rather different appearance and one group in a position of greater power and bellicosity at certain moments in history – add human nature and you have a crisis of discrimination. Baked religious arguments were used to justify racism (the beastly descendents of Ham and all that), but to my knowledge they did not initiate it. So I don’t see that an accurate parallel may be drawn between the situations of blacks and Jews, also because, as Rabbi historian Wein says, Jews managed (through… dare I say the word in question for lack of a better one… insular efforts) to simultaneously draw in culturally and religiously while still actively participating in local culture and assimilating local customs. Undeniably, Jews were frequently forced to live apart and/or occupy low status in a number of host cultures, obviously a significant factor we both cite.
That Jews lacked their own nation but had a well-established identity, culture, and religion but and persevered to preserve the core seems likely to have put them at odds with various civilizations. This is one of the possible causes I was thrusting at, and would also account for pre-Christian strife. I think the remainder has all been covered. Thank you.
Gum, make that three people if you want, but the discussion has been primarily with two and that was the background of my answer. I would ask you to avoid facile suggestions of ignorance on my part unless you have arguments to back up your claim and have actually understood the material (and especially contexts) in question, neither of which seems established by your post and an anecdote from the present.
This provides some background on why the charges of insularity/clannishness are considered offensive.* But we have heard no acknowledgement of this from you; apart
from sneering remarks about “oversensitivity” and the declaration that you don’t care about sharing use of sleazy stereotypes with hate groups.
Surely there would have to be some sociologic research or demographic evidence to support your argument that Jews possess a uniquely strong sense of clannishness (or whatever code word du jour you’re using), but we have yet to see you provide it.
If you would like to contemplate a line of debate that you’ve unceremoniously dropped, there’s your claim that people “bandy about” on the SDMB the argument that criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism. Of course, you were obliged to admit the link you supplied as “evidence” showed no such thing, leaving you mumbling about how you’d seen it around here somewhere. We’re still waiting for you to demonstrate any instance of this, much less that it is typical board behavior.
I have not called you a racist. Certainly it was odd that you unnecessarily dropped the n-word into this thread - and when called on it, you felt it necessary to use the word twice more in a followup post. Are you completely ignorant of the general standards of propriety that preclude use of this word in debate except in rare, specific circumstances or do you get some sort of perverse delight out of repeatedly typing it into your posts? If you are simply hoping to get a rise out of someone, be aware that this sort of behavior is not considered (pardon the word) kosher on this board.
*I can hear the probable response now. “So what? Three people and the American Jewish Committee.” Blah, blah…
The Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment, was an intellectual movement in Europe that lasted from approximately the 1770s to the 1880s. The Haskalah was inspired by the European Enlightenment but had a Jewish character. Literally, Haskalah comes from the Hebrew word sekhel, meaning “reason” or intellect" and the movement was based on rationality. It encouraged Jews to study secular subjects, to learn both the European and Hebrew languages, and to enter fields such as agriculture, crafts, the arts and science. The maskilim (followers of the Haskalah) tried to assimilate into European society in dress, language, manners and loyalty to the ruling power. The Haskalah eventually influenced the creation of both the Reform and Zionist movements
One of the biggest changes of the Haskalah was in education. The maskilim tried to remove Talmud from its central position in Jewish education. They included Jewish studies in their curricula but emphasized secular knowledge, modern languages and practical training in labor, in order to help the Jews become integrated into society
The first Haskalah school was founded in Berlin in 1778 and called both the Freischule (“Free School”) and Hinnukh Ne’arim (“Youth Education”). It was a free education designed for poor children and the curriculum included German, French, arithmetic, geography, history, art, some Bible studies and Hebrew. The school was successful and began with 70 students. Other Haskalah style schools developed in Dessau and Frankfort on the Main, among other places. In all of these schools, Talmud was almost completely abandoned and both Hebrew and general studies were taught. Educators began to write textbooks to guide the new curricula.
In the Netherlands, Jews gave up Yiddish in favor of Dutch. A Jewish weekly published in Dutch began in 1806. In 1808, a Jewish society in Amsterdam translated the Bible and prayer book into Dutch and printed textbooks in both Dutch and Hebrew. In 1809, King Louis Bonaparte of the Netherlands issued a decree prohibiting the use of Yiddish in documents. Sermons were to be given in Dutch and Dutch became the language of instruction for youth. In France, French had been spoken even before the Haskalah. In Hungary, maskilim substituted Hungarian for Yiddish in Jewish schools and synagogue sermons.
In most of Western Europe, the Haskalah ended with large numbers of Jews assimilating. Many Jews stopped adhering to halakha (Jewish law). The struggle for emancipation in Germany awakened some doubts about the future of Jews in Europe and eventually led to both immigration to America and Zionism. In Russia, anti-Semitism ended the Haskalah. Some Jews responded to this anti-Semitism by campaigning for emancipation, others joined revolutionary movements and assimilated, and some turned to Jewish nationalism in the form of the Zionist Hibbat Zion movement.
From:
Jewish Life in Holland
–As in other European countries they were fully integrated into society
In the last several decades, the process of integration of Jews into the general society in which they live has accelerated. Jews live in non-Jewish neighborhoods, belong to non-Jewish clubs, and have close non-Jewish personal friends. Millions of Jews who retain their Jewish identification are unaffiliated with any Jewish institutions of any kind. The rate of intermarriage has dramatically increased.
Or just google for Jewish people integrated in society.
*I can hear the probable response now. “So what? Three people, all of the Dutch and the American Jewish Committee.” Blah, blah…
You could have fooled me, Jack, if you think that is a bit much to “let go”. Let go where? You have let go the majority of the arguments I have provided or defended! Let’s look again at your previous extract.
You might have missed it when you were keeping your eyes closed, but the above has been part and parcel of the discussion. The survey you mention is something that I introduced to this thread. I have already addressed the inadmissibility of the argument that you find “insular” to necessarily be a slur. I have also rejected your alleged synonymy of “insular” and “clannish”. Then I cited several Jewish resources that have no similar problems to yours in openly discussing insularity, including at least one that cited “relative insularity” (the exact language I myself used). Your only item approaching an applicable argument is the slippery slope of encouraging the perception that a group is “avoiding contact with the rest of society”, which I have stated several times is not what I am talking about: not antisocial, not ultra-isolationist, not culturally/socially hermitic or hermetic. It is high time to consider that you were wrong in jumping the gun and trying repeatedly to force such meaning on my arguments.
So, you, who we have seen flit from argument to argument based on momentary convenience, who have neglected to address quite a few points and questions, somehow allege on the basis of this that I have ignored your arguments? That is simply false.
The closest thing to a discussion on the clannish stereotype in your cite is this:
Leaving aside the controversy over whether suicide bombers are freedom fighters, how is the above: 1) a discussion (as opposed to a passing reference) of the current subject, 2) support for your claim of equivalence for “insularity” and “clannishness”, or 3) actually pertinent to my arguments?
My emphasis. Well. Yet again you attempt to force a stereotype on me. Yet again (with your parenthetical comment) you imply that no matter what I say on the subject, it must necessarily be anti-semitic. And yet again you have ignored existing responses on this matter, for example:
Of course, if you didn’t mean “possess a uniquely strong sense of clannishness” to be substantially the same as “more prone than any other group to band together for protection when subjected to discrimination”, then we can discuss further. But since this has been your thrust in this discussion, I consider it a safe assumption that you were engaged in more of your attempts at suggesting equivalence of one neutral by default term with one established slur.
Reminds me of the episode I saw of The Apprentice, when Omorosa, the black girl with a seriously bad attitude, chose to interpret the common saying, “that’s like the pot calling the kettle black” as a racial slur. Right away she thundered self-righteous accusations. Did you think that was warranted too?
Let me correct your blatant revisionism. I mentioned items that occasionally get bandied about. I trust you know what “occasionally” means? You challenged me to find instances of someone claiming that criticisms of Israel are anti-Semitic “on these boards… or for that matter in the national media or in any influential forums”. And I did, for the last two. I couldn’t find a direct reference on these boards and I openly admitted as much, but I pointed out that my cite indicates that finding such accusations in national media or influential forums (per your request) is hardly exotic. Then, after that, you unceremoniously dropped the matter until you attempted to revise it just now. Let us go back to exactly what I posted for some additional fun:
Read that again. Notice the word “get” (not “gets”) and you will see that my sentence is phrased to apply not to one specific claim, but to a set of “silliest items”, which also includes the example that criticism of the US government policy is unpatriotic and so forth. Criticism of Israeli policy is anti-semitic. Criticism of [insert topic] is [insert convenient label]. Do you not see the close differences of both items in this set? This is an established tactic of dismissive demonization. I seem to remember, for example, Ann Coulter resorting to claims such as “liberals hate America” to counter criticisms aimed at conservative movements or leaders (including IIRC, Dubya). A demagogue named Jonah Goldberg issued “Goldberg’s General Rule on Patriotism: The more negative your view of America, the more positive your view of the United Nations”.
I just noticed that the tendency to explain criticisms of Israel in anti-semitic terms (as opposed to dynamics resulting at least in part from objectionable policy) seems the kind of cite you asked for. It sends the message “it’s not honest criticism based on the status quo, it is just anti-semitism and may be safely dismissed”.
Oh please. With your very first post you mocked and compared my arguments to verifiably racist attitudes in an attempt to generate outrage. Check post #38, and subsequent ones. Fallacious and dishonest, and they didn’t so much as scratch the argument that you were attacking.
I explained that the reason I brought up the word “nigger” was an honest mistake, and I even apologized to you. I said, and I repeat, because you have yet to exhibit understanding of something presented only once or twice: “That was an honest mistake, I owe you an apology for the nigger comment (flashing through to the extract I remembered, I misread “triggers” as “niggers”)”. The original use of the word was not unnecessary because 1) I thought (wrongly) that it had been used against me and was saying as much, and 2) it was not being used in an offensive context. The second and third uses were not unnecessary either, since they simply served to identfy what I apologized for and why I made the mistake in the first place (similarity of two words at a quick glance).
Is that a real rule or something you are making up? Anyone can discuss any derogatory terms without (of course) the need to degenerate into slurs. Shall we, for example, discuss the origins of the word “wop”? OMG! That’s so rude!! But in fact this forum does not appear to need fanatic policing efforts. It is telling that you think the mere usage of a word is so offensive outside of any context. And I note your euphemism (“the n-word”) is essentially the same as spelling out “nigger”, and in addition indicative of hypocrisy (“I stridently object to the word under any circumstance but look, now I’m saying without really saying it!”).
Now, do you have a response to my question about usurious materialism, or will you settle for more unfounded one-sided conclusions?
Too bad that the American Jewish Committee did not disagree with me, nor did it jump on my head for daring to discuss terms that a few find objectionable but that I clearly explained as being distinct from the slurs you repeatedly tried to assign to me (to invalidate an argument that right from the start irritated you). No, I would expect the AJC to be rather more honest, and even to exercise an intellectual rather than a censoring approach. After all, Dseid (whose arguments were from the beginning rather more solid than yours) and I seem to have reached common ground in spite of your persisting accusations and allegations. As Beware of Doug put it, “one thing that can safely be said about Jews and Jewish culture is that nothing about them is, ultimately, out of bounds for debate, argument, or contradiction”. A highly admirable trait.
The reason you “bother” is that your previous post was not even close to an argument. It was simple posturing, particularly the comment about you hoping I was merely ignorant.
You will notice that before you coughed up your cites, DSeid and I both provided evidence of similar points. I suggest you read the thread again and notice how I do not claim that Jews were/are not integrated in societies, that they were/are clannish, and so forth. The assertions in your cites are not incompatible with my arguments and do not invalidate them. I would think after three pages of back and forth posts, you might have noticed this. I recommend another look at the extract I posted from Rabbi Wein a few messages back
Also, notice (as I have said before) that the fairly high intermarriage rate is a recent phenomenon and one documented primarily in the US; previous to this development, the intermarriage rate would have been lower, so these recent statistics can’t be extended throughout history unless you can show that the trend to intermarry has always been so high.
There is little or nothing in your cites that fundamentally disagrees with my arguments, just as there wasn’t in the AJC paper, so your Jack-footnote was unnecessary.
means