• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does the critique of Israeli policy lead to the labeling of being antisemitic?

rosends

Well-Known Member
What question? You had not quoted any other post.
no, but I had said that the reading was about the topic at hand. That is the topic of the thread, "Why does the critique of Israeli policy lead to the labeling of being antisemitic?" and that's what the article addresses. Its central argument is that BDS (an aspect of criticism of Israeli policy) "is a movement dedicated to the eradication of Israel and to the denial of rights, including a people’s self-determination and ability to live in peace and security in their own homeland, that BDS advocates seek to deny no one else: It is an act of bias against Jews. "
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
First Marc Lamont Hill, now Angela Davis a civil rights activist who criticized Israel was not selected in these past weeks to receive a Birmingham civil rights award due to "complaints from the Jewish community." Like I said in another thread that actions made by Jewish organizations who have the knee jerk reaction of academics who critique the Israeli government, only furthers the white nationalist stereotype concerning "Jews controlling the media and the greater portion of society." In some articles and subsequent comments from black students from campus I'm already reading some of the sentiments. I should remind others (as I do now outside the internet) that the criticism of a country's government and their policies does not by default mean the critique of the people themselves.

As some academics have already pointed out that even with the country of Israel itself, there are people who are against Israeli policies concerning the treatment of Palestinians. Case in point, it is already noted in some articles that the government of Israel is creating a segregated highway (dubbed apartheid road) for Israelis and Palestinians (see: Israel's System of Segregated Roads in the Occupied Palestinian Territories — Visualizing Palestine). If we are talking about optics here then we as observers can begin to do a healthy critique of the situation where you have one group creating disadvantages for another group and that these disadvantages and divisions are the result of the creation of an apartheid system. But I fail to see how these criticisms amount to antisemitism and warrant a reaction from some American Jewish groups to label such criticisms as antisemitic when in fact it is the government not the people nor their faith are creating such divisions.

I'm sure some of you have a better handle on the why's and hows better than me but it is getting quite ridiculous.

Jews began emigrating back to their original homeland back in 1880. Many of whom did so because of the oppression they faced living in Arab-majority lands.

...The Arab people living in the Palestinian territory rejected them from the moment they began returning.

So any segregated policies drafted by the Israeli government are intended to protect this people, and I support that. Those against the Israeli government's attempts to protect their Jewish citizens, are essentially helping people who are haters.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
no, but I had said that the reading was about the topic at hand. That is the topic of the thread, "Why does the critique of Israeli policy lead to the labeling of being antisemitic?" and that's what the article addresses. Its central argument is that BDS (an aspect of criticism of Israeli policy) "is a movement dedicated to the eradication of Israel and to the denial of rights, including a people’s self-determination and ability to live in peace and security in their own homeland, that BDS advocates seek to deny no one else: It is an act of bias against Jews. "
That was not a central argument but a mere blurb among the attacks agaimst Dr. Davis. Ypu need tp reread your own article with a more critical eye. You posted a hit piece that was heavy in bias and light on facts.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
That was not a central argument but a mere blurb among the attacks agaimst Dr. Davis. Ypu need tp reread your own article with a more critical eye. You posted a hit piece that was heavy in bias and light on facts.
That was actually the crux of the piece supported by evidence afterwards. That you accuse it of a bias is immaterial to its purpose. How it got there was the purpose of the citation. I cited an explanation for the question originally posed, provided by the article. If you don't like the content, write a letter to the author in response, laden with your counter evidence. The underlying connection will not be affected.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
That was actually the crux of the piece supported by evidence afterwards. That you accuse it of a bias is immaterial to its purpose. How it got there was the purpose of the citation. I cited an explanation for the question originally posed, provided by the article. If you don't like the content, write a letter to the author in response, laden with your counter evidence. The underlying connection will not be affected.
That was not the "crux" of the paper. Are you serious? The crux of the paper was why Dr. Davis does not deserve the award. The reasoning was 1) Associated with black panthers and communists. 2) supports BDS 3) Selectively advocates for civil rights.

I don't like or dislike the content. The content is just biased and irrelevant here. It is not the article to which I object. Rather, i object to its meaning within the context here. Consequently, I did write to the author of the OP who posted the article here.
 

TheresOnlyNow

The Mind Is Everything. U R What U Think
It's a pretty good weapon isn't it? "Antisemitic".
One can do all sorts of outrageous things being in power in Israel. Or, being Israeli in Israel.
It comes to public attention, there's outrage, and rather than being held accountable for the outrageous all one has to do is charge the observer(s) of wrong doing within or by Israel/Israeli(s) with being antisemitic.
Then the wrong doing is shifted. The perpetrator of error, wrong, racism, bigotry, is now shifting the goal posts to become the victim by crying, "Antisemiticism". So that the one that was outraged,the whistle blower, becomes the wrong doer. The Antisemite.

While their concern falls by the wayside. Because no one wants to join that list.

israeli kids violence - YouTube
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
That was not the "crux" of the paper. Are you serious? The crux of the paper was why Dr. Davis does not deserve the award. The reasoning was 1) Associated with black panthers and communists. 2) supports BDS 3) Selectively advocates for civil rights.
The central argument hinged on the drawing together of two types of sentiment to explain why she does not deserve the award. The linchpin was the statement quoted -- taking a difficulty and resolving it by uniting the examples in the earlier and later sections of the article to justify its conclusion. This is why, in the second half, the article aims to equate two apparently disparate philosophies through the use of the word "similarly." If the point was simply to point out why she doesn't deserve the award, it needn't busy itself with anything beyond the first half. Its point was that this sentiment echoes substantial earlier statements which all paint a complete picture only when they are drawn together as identical. You can feel free to argue this if you wish. I'm comfortable with this understanding.
I don't like or dislike the content. The content is just biased and irrelevant here. It is not the article to which I object. Rather, i object to its meaning within the context here. Consequently, I did write to the author of the OP who posted the article here.
The content makes a case which is directly responding to the question posed in the original post, the inherent connection between the two positions. Again, you don't have to like the perspective, but it is what drives precisely the response that the OP was asking about.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Jews began emigrating back to their original homeland back in 1880. Many of whom did so because of the oppression they faced living in Arab-majority lands.

...The Arab people living in the Palestinian territory rejected them from the moment they began returning.

So any segregated policies drafted by the Israeli government are intended to protect this people, and I support that. Those against the Israeli government's attempts to protect their Jewish citizens, are essentially helping people who are haters.

Ok.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Possibly for the same reason that criticizing black people and the Afro-American culture gets me labeled racist.

Might that that be it?
Of course, you don't think so.
Tom
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
The central argument hinged on the drawing together of two types of sentiment to explain why she does not deserve the award. The linchpin was the statement quoted -- taking a difficulty and resolving it by uniting the examples in the earlier and later sections of the article to justify its conclusion. This is why, in the second half, the article aims to equate two apparently disparate philosophies through the use of the word "similarly."
Do you really think that?
If the point was simply to point out why she doesn't deserve the award, it needn't busy itself with anything beyond the first half.
The article consisted of going through different points to smear Dr. Davis character.

After that we get this:

Davis and her defenders have sought to depict her critics as racists. But the idea that a person with a record of support for totalitarianism and consistent anti-Semitism deserves to be honored as a human rights-advocate is an insult not so much to the Jewish community but to genuine civil-rights heroes who fought for justice — and not, like Davis, to defend injustice.​

One needn’t re-litigate the history of Communism or her personal role in Black Panther violence to understand that neither Davis nor the liberals who fawned over those who committed violence did nothing to make the United States a better place or to destroy the edifice of institutionalized racism that once prevailed in this country. Similarly, her support for efforts to destroy the one Jewish state on the planet and her cheers for those who shed Jewish blood to advance that despicable cause is antithetical to advocacy for human rights.

Harvard may consider Davis a figure of historical importance, but whatever one may think of that dubious designation, she supported violence and hate as well as anti-Semitism. To treat that fact as an insignificant or irrelevant detail in an otherwise blameless life is as absurd as it is morally obtuse. For Birmingham, academia, or civil-rights groups to continue to ignore or falsify her past does no service to the cause of justice.​

Opposing honors for Angela Davis isn’t so much an indication of support for Israel or remembering the moral imperative of anti-Communism as it is as matter of public decency.​

This is a conclusion. This is the "so what" of the article. This is not equating disparate philosophies through the use of the word "similar." The "disparate philosophies" you are discussing are anti-Semitism and totalitarianism. The point is not to equate them through the use of the word similarly it is to drive home that she should not get the award.
Its point was that this sentiment echoes substantial earlier statements which all paint a complete picture only when they are drawn together as identical.
No, it is propaganda. It offers vague facts, without support, to create a false link and uses negative language in an effort to paint Davis in a bad light. Your article is a joke.
You can feel free to argue this if you wish. I'm comfortable with this understanding.
You are comfortable with it because it fits nicely inside your worldview. I am asking you to think critically, not use critical thinking and analysis to attempt to justify the article. It is a wonderful academic exercise but I am not grading your paper. While your analysis is greatly entertaining it is not real.

The content makes a case which is directly responding to the question posed in the original post, the inherent connection between the two positions.
What two positions?
Again, you don't have to like the perspective, but it is what drives precisely the response that the OP was asking about.
It is not just about liking or disliking the perspective. Although it is true that had I liked the perspective I would have likely ignored it regardless of its irrelevance.

But in part because I disliked the perspective, I pointed to the irrelevance and bias of that perspective. If you want to contend with that, do so. My like or dislike however has become irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
So you are saying that a single group has direct power. That’s a scary statement that you are willing to make.

I say considering the effect in the case of Dr. Hill and Dr. Davis it is a pretty strong case. The video I supplied to you of the Roland Martin show substantiates that.


So the fact that an outside group feels influenced or, better yet, because an outside group has a sensitivity to a particular concern means that the Jewish community has power? This gets more and more troubling.

No. It is because the fact that the outside community has the ability to affect or indirectly influence decisions that affect other people. The African-American community who have had a history of being the protagonists of civil rights, rights which Jews and other migrants directly benefit from don't even have this power. The Black Caucus I believe do not have this kind of power considering the many racist vitriol that has been express by members in the white house who still remain in the white house. Your blindness to this is also troubling.

So is it that the rhetoric is pejorative or that the Jewish community has power that those groups are controlled by.

You perhaps may have misunderstood my post because I have no idea what you meant here. Labels such as being called a racist or an Anti-Semite has an ugly attachment to it and to be associated with that (if one can prove such a person deservingly is such a label) makes the individual an outcast. Labels such as these have power. so when I say groups don't want to be attached to individuals who have said labels means nobody wants to be associated with someone with such a label if such is true about said person.

That’s not the power of the community forcing you, that is you respecting the influence that they can muster.

But there was nothing "respectful" the Jewish community did in the case of Hill and Davis period point blank. What these elite members of the Jewish community did was disregard the body of work Hill and Davis did and casted a wide net on their work that they chose to focus on and quite frankly I consider the ADL a hypocritical organization.

If this is the case, then you can accept that it isn’t actually the Jewish community, but individuals that people identify and define by their Jewishness. Buying into it and assigning power to that group identity just perpetuates the belief.

Hence is why I said earlier that in the case of Hill and Davis this only perpetuates the stereotype. Although I personally do not believe the white nationalist model of such a stereotype the movement of goal post and selective outrage by some Jews of influence makes me understand why people believe being Jewish means you have power and influence.

There are specific individuals. Defining them by their membership makes one ask why one membership defines them and not another. How many of those “elite” Jews is right handed or likes chocolate ice cream? Somehow, religion is generalized.

Communities are generalized or are you ignorant to believe Jews are the only ones? Every time someone African-American does something I have to answer for it and hell, I may not know the individual from a can of paint. Every community including Jews do this, cast a net on others based on the membership of the individual. This is the nature of bigotry and prejudice between members of society. My question to you is by being a member of the Jewish community what do you do within your own demographic to make progressive changes to such prejudices? I mean, if I articulate myself correctly using correct English verbiage to convey my ideas or what not, I'm somehow "talking white" as if whiteness is associated with the correct use of the English language. As you say "defining them by their membership makes one membership define them and not another."

The fact that you see each as a Jew and not just a person is part of the problem. Do you judge everyone by his religion? Do you go through all the supreme court decisions and consider the religion of each justice when looking at how he voted?

When I said "I do not see a simple Jewish family who works at a 9-5 just as I do, the same as Donald Sterling who comes from an Ashkenazi background but used to own an NBA ball club," means that I see one family that does not come from privilege like the other one. Donald Sterling who has his racial prejudices and vices is not the same as the family who simply works a 9-5 and lives life as I do. Although I see both as persons I do not see the fruits of their labor equally. Sterling comes from a culture of privilege (by culture I mean a culture of money) and vice which is staunchly different than a Jewish man or woman who simply works to provide for their family. This is something that we can draw comparison and distinctions with any culture.

It is on me as a random Jew to dispel the ignorant stereotypes by not living whatever life I have the right to live? I had no idea I was supposed to live differently from how any other American is allowed to.

Well from a religious perspective is it not the duty of the Jews to be the "light of the world?" The bearers of God's law? This is where I find the hypocrisy and in the critique of those who view religion as they can use the phrases of one group to chastise them but not the other, case in point the critique of Islam being the religion of peace, yet when it comes to the idea that a said religious community can proclaim to have a duty to uphold the laws of the Creator and be a beacon to the world have yet to demonstrate that to some poor kid in Compton I am therefore as an observer bound to call a spade a spade. To answer your question I do not look at the religion of every supreme court justice or individual. But yes as individuals outside our respective faiths we have a duty to dispel ignorant myths and sometimes we can only control what affects us in and around our circle and whatever happens on the other side of the world we cannot control. but I think you missed the point (or maybe you didn't) in my presentation and examples. My position is this....If the religious community of any culture wants to throw stones at glass houses I'm gonna call them out. I do the same with the so-called "black Israelites" or the so-called "pro-blacks" just as I do with any other culture.

When you drive in other neighborhoods do you judge the people by their religion?

You know, I had hope for you because you come across as a lot more open-minded than your counterpart Flankerl. You totally cut everything else out I said just to highlight that. I assumed incorrectly that you'd at least read my post with any open mind, now I see you're doing as she does which is cherry pick. Shame.

So it is the Jews’ fault that people judge them as a group, and Jews cannot be upset that they are judged as a group.

Again shame. How can I create an example which you'll understand? Ok. Let us use me for example a real life example. I'm 6'0 235. I'm chiseled and athletic. I've always grown up with this frown on my face as if I'm going to beat the living "s***t" out of you. Let's just say that is just how I grew up living in the rough streets of LA. I've had beautiful women tell me that I appear unapproachable because I was so quiet and my disposition seemed aggressive until I opened my mouth. My girlfriend calls me a "teddy bear" because she even told me I look intimidating but I'm a sweet guy. I like to think I am and hell @rosends if you and I met I'd invite you out for dinner and just pick your brain on the things I don't know about you or your family or your culture. If you needed a shirt I'd give you mine. That is just how my parents raised me. You see, you all know me from here so you'll judge me on who I am here and not who I am outside this internet and perhaps you'll never know the real me.

My point in this is, if I do not give people a chance to go beyond my external position nobody will ever get to know the real me and will only judge me based on the surface. So if I took a kid from the projects of the inner city and we drove to Encino where Jews are and this kid only knows about Jews through some stereotype and this kid experiences nice buildings malls and shops and clean streets that kid will associate this group with what they see. If this kid experiences seeing clean streets jewelry shops, nice cars in the street, people in suits and ties. That kid will associate money with said culture. That is just the nature of things because they will not get to experience what is beyond what they see unless this kid interacts with them or vice versa. My point is like my girlfriend says, if we do not go beyond the exterior all we will see and judge by is what we see on the exterior. Jews have never came into Compton to have an interfaith session with the local Baptist church. What I knew of Jews was hat the Nation of Islam said about Jews when my mother used to get the final call and buy bean pies off them. It took me to go to college to actually learn what Judaism was. Prior to that there was no Jew to come in to tell me "hey dude, we are more than this. We are just like you."

So yes, at present if the Jewish community keeps to themselves and not educate people more and more people will just rely on present stereotypes. This goes for any culture. So no I do no hold the Jews accountable, but I also don't hold the people who have never met a Jew accountable for believing the white nationalist narrative that Jews come from money either. No kid from Compton is going to wait on an individual Jew to school them on culture because that kid from Compton may never get that opportunity. So no, you're no more responsible for the Jewish stereotypes than the person that believes them.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
@rosends (Cont)

Blacks live in their neighborhoods so I can judge them as a group.

Jews do this ten times over. Again The Jewish community is not immune to bigotry and I've experienced plenty from the Jewish community. I believed I've already stated some time ago it was a Jewish woman who influenced my uncle to sell my grandmother's house and to persuade my uncle to convert to Judaism and disown his black side of the family. My uncle never even came to his sister's funeral, my mother and this is the same man who converted to a faith that is supposedly to uphold and observe God's laws? I don't blame Judaism for this, I blame him and him alone. His soul is in his control and whatever grievances he has is between him and the Creator. But as a black man and Dr. Davis and Hill can testify to this, we African-Americans in academia have to work twice as hard than anyone else due to stereotypes. This is just the nature of the American society we live in.

As a black man I will always have to answer why blacks riot and destroy property or why blacks talk loud or why this or that or why blacks sag their pants. I have lived my entire adult life having to answer for these stereotypes unfortunately, and have lived my adult life living in the shadow of negative stereotypes. So while you being Jew hate to live with the stereotype of being financially well off I have lived with the stereotype of the opposite. Of being poor, stupid, ignorant, low IQ, someone that resembles a monkey, chimp, ape. So whether you judge all blacks or not doesn't matter because blacks collectively and globally live with negative stereotypes pressed n us everyday of our lives.

The only way to truly rid our society of stereotypes is if we even as individuals actively engage people to show that we are much more beyond the surface. But so long as we leave each other alone we humans will always have this problem.

But that’s the Jewish behavior that you are seeing as the expression of Judaism instead of seeing Judaism as a complex and rich tapestry with a variety of approaches and elements.

Whose fault is that? Whether you like it or not we are both representatives of ourselves and our collective demographic. Unfortunately we do not live in a world in which MLK dreamed of, yet. We do not live in a world where we see each other as members of the same species because we live in a world where we are divided. As members who exist on this planet we have to continuously educate people either directly and indirectly on the attitudes and principles we as individuals stand by and even as collective members of our respective demographic. If we don't educate each other we will live in the darkest corner of ignorance and that is just basic sociology.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Do you really think that?
Sure. Do you really think otherwise?


The article consisted of going through different points to smear Dr. Davis character.

That is, of course, your assessment. It could just as easily be said that the article goes through historical statements which depict her opinion and position on certain topics. Unless you think they are misquotes, your value judgment of their presentation as a “smear” is your bias talking. Since I have no particular position on Davis, what this says about her matters very little to me.

This is a conclusion. This is the "so what" of the article. This is not equating disparate philosophies through the use of the word "similar." The "disparate philosophies" you are discussing are anti-Semitism and totalitarianism. The point is not to equate them through the use of the word similarly it is to drive home that she should not get the award.

If that’s what you think then you are completely lost. The article is explicit in equating two seemingly separate ideas, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Attributing “totalitarianism” to my position of discussion is to misrepresent what I said. That’s your choice, I guess.


No, it is propaganda. It offers vague facts, without support, to create a false link and uses negative language in an effort to paint Davis in a bad light. Your article is a joke.

That certainly is your opinion. People tend to label things as propaganda when the facts presented don’t comport with what they want to accept. Claiming that the article presents “vague facts” is equally confusing. The article presents some quotes and some historical events. It creates a link which you might think of as tenuous and that’s fine, but irrelevant. I cited the article because it answers the question originally posed.


You are comfortable with it because it fits nicely inside your worldview. I am asking you to think critically, not use critical thinking and analysis to attempt to justify the article. It is a wonderful academic exercise but I am not grading your paper. While your analysis is greatly entertaining it is not real.


I’m glad you aren’t grading my paper, because you have no idea what question I am answering. You clearly have missed the entire reason that I cited the article and want to attack the substance of the article and not how its argument answers a completely different line of discussion from which you have chosen to absent yourself.


What two positions?

A position against Zionism and one against Judaism. The OP was curious about how those two apparently separate positions often get connected. This article gives a perspective on the reason for that. You keep thinking that I care one bit about what the article says regarding, specifically, Davis. You are wrong. I care that the author explains the position that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are strongly connected and the article about Davis gives explanation as to how and why that can be shown to be true.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I say considering the effect in the case of Dr. Hill and Dr. Davis it is a pretty strong case. The video I supplied to you of the Roland Martin show substantiates that.

As I said, if that’s a conclusion you draw then I find that scary.


It is because the fact that the outside community has the ability to affect or indirectly influence decisions that affect other people.

As any lobby does. AARP, the NRA, the Teachers’ Union.


Your blindness to this is also troubling.

Your blinders are what get to me. Selective viewing and all that.


Labels such as being called a racist or an Anti-Semite has an ugly attachment to it and to be associated with that (if one can prove such a person deservingly is such a label) makes the individual an outcast.

So does actually being a racist. Hiding behind the “it is a label that X applied” doesn’t mitigate having done what it takes to earn that label. Maybe, as you said, people are afraid of the label, not the group assigning it.


But there was nothing "respectful" the Jewish community did in the case of Hill and Davis period point blank.

Since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you say this.


What these elite members of the Jewish community did was disregard the body of work Hill and Davis did and casted a wide net on their work that they chose to focus on and quite frankly I consider the ADL a hypocritical organization.

What they did was find, among the body of work, parts that are, to them, problematic. Are you planning to continue to ignore those parts completely and, instead, focus on the ADL?


selective outrage by some Jews of influence makes me understand why people believe being Jewish means you have power and influence.

And do you then see a parallel belief about other groups? Selective outrage by Catholics, Republicans or gun owners?


Communities are generalized or are you ignorant to believe Jews are the only ones?

But if you don’t complain about others, aren’t you expressing selective outrage?


Every community including Jews do this, cast a net on others based on the membership of the individual.


But don’t you see what you just wrote? You attributed behavior to entire communities. You have now claimed that I have done something because I’m a member of a group. Instead of solving the problem, you are perpetuating it.


My question to you is by being a member of the Jewish community what do you do within your own demographic to make progressive changes to such prejudices?

A fair question – my answer is I do 2 things – first, I try to inspire by example. Second, I teach others, professionally.


I mean, if I articulate myself correctly using correct English verbiage to convey my ideas or what not, I'm somehow "talking white" as if whiteness is associated with the correct use of the English language.


Says who? Are you claiming that I have (and therefore, “Jews have”) made that statement?


Well from a religious perspective is it not the duty of the Jews to be the "light of the world?"

Sure, but from within the religion, that phrase means something other than “disabusing people of stereotypes.”


But yes as individuals outside our respective faiths we have a duty to dispel ignorant myths.


So if the myth is that Jews have money, I should live like I don’t have money instead of spending what I earned.


You totally cut everything else out I said just to highlight that. I assumed incorrectly that you'd at least read my post with any open mind, now I see you're doing as she does which is cherry pick. Shame.


And I had hope that you would say things that were more level headed and not make statements that were hateful. Unless you want to explain what you said, or how my presentation of it was in error, the statement is left on the table as representing your sincere position. Shame.


Again shame. How can I create an example which you'll understand?


An example of what? Did you not say what I quoted? Your self description is very nice, but unrelated to what you just said. Your claim was “If Jews truly keep to themselves collectively then yes these kinds of stereotypes will persist and you cannot get mad or upset about that.”
My response was "So it is the Jews’ fault that people judge them as a group, and Jews cannot be upset that they are judged as a group". Did I cherry pick something here?


Prior to that there was no Jew to come in to tell me "hey dude, we are more than this. We are just like you."

Well, then writing them off because they aren’t pro-actively trying to re-educate you is sad. Maybe the responsibility lies with you within your community so that people stop buying into group descriptions of any sort.

So yes, at present if the Jewish community keeps to themselves and not educate people more and more people will just rely on present stereotypes.

You do that. I’m going to try not to, and not wait to be told I don’t have to.

I also don't hold the people who have never met a Jew accountable for believing the white nationalist narrative that Jews come from money either.

And I do. Believing a group narrative is a bad thing.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Jews do this ten times over. Again The Jewish community is not immune to bigotry and I've experienced plenty from the Jewish community. I believed I've already stated some time ago it was a Jewish woman who influenced my uncle to sell my grandmother's house and to persuade my uncle to convert to Judaism and disown his black side of the family. My uncle never even came to his sister's funeral, my mother and this is the same man who converted to a faith that is supposedly to uphold and observe God's laws? I don't blame Judaism for this, I blame him and him alone.
No, as you said, this comes from the "Jewish community." And as you said "Jews do this." Not "I have seen a Jewish person do this."
But so long as we leave each other alone we humans will always have this problem.
I happen to think that a lot would be improved if we just left each other alone.


We do not live in a world where we see each other as members of the same species because we live in a world where we are divided.
We live in the world we make. We can't wait for some dream world to come into being spontaneously. We start by seeing people as people, one at a time.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
As I said, if that’s a conclusion you draw then I find that scary.

Ok.

As any lobby does. AARP, the NRA, the Teachers’ Union.

Ok.

Your blinders are what get to me. Selective viewing and all that.

I say the same of the Jews that complained on Mr. Hill and Ms. Davis....Selective outrage

So does actually being a racist. Hiding behind the “it is a label that X applied” doesn’t mitigate having done what it takes to earn that label. Maybe, as you said, people are afraid of the label, not the group assigning it.

Ok.

Since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you say this.

Never said you personally. Let's stay on topic...When I reference the Jewish community it is about those that responded in relation to the subject not the entire collective.

What they did was find, among the body of work, parts that are, to them, problematic. Are you planning to continue to ignore those parts completely and, instead, focus on the ADL?

Right. I wonder if they found parts in the message of Danny Glover and other people who won the same award and who, spoke out in support of the Palestinian cause. Ah, I guess considering Dr. Davis is a figurehead of the civil rights movement in her time, and considering she is renown I guess this makes her a prime target for cherry picking. I also focus on the ADL because they are also part of the problem with selective outrage and cherry picking. This really isn't about fair criticism this is about what these groups don't like and what others are going to do about it.

And do you then see a parallel belief about other groups? Selective outrage by Catholics, Republicans or gun owners?

I see selective outrage in my own community so yes I see the parallel in other groups. Each group fighting for the acknowledgement of their own suffering and wanting the world to also acknowledge it, and to have something done about it. We are humans we act in our own self-interests majority of the time so its not weird that even disenfranchised groups push the line from time to time but at some point it goes from logical to ridiculous. Gun owners don't want the government to take their guns so they resort to fear mongering tactics (this was something that was heavily promoted during the Obama administration which was as ridiculous as it gets).

But if you don’t complain about others, aren’t you expressing selective outrage?

My friend I do all the time. We are on the internet talking about one subject. I can easily talk about what bothers me about the Muslim community, or the gay community or handicap community. there are a lot of pros and cons in virtually all communities that exist planet. The point is to not sit and complain and beat a dead horse, but to discuss a concern regarding something in the world that deserves to be discussed. But for me especially what I observed on RF is people choose to not discuss subjects that aren't redundant like the subject of Anti-Semitism or racism because people with unpopular opinions do not want to appear as an negatively attached label as I've mentioned to you before. Some don't care because it's something they worry about. This websites members talk about things that are repeated over and over "what is heaven?" "where is hell?" "Why Islam is bad?" "Why Christianity is better?"

In retrospect nobody discuss things that have real importance outside redundancy. Sure, I can discuss problems I see in my own community but why should I discuss subjects like this with a bunch of people that don't even live with people that look like me nor understand what it means to be a person like me? So, I leave those subjects alone. I don't like discussing subjects that beat dead horses. I see continuously more subjects criticizing and bashing Islam than anything else so me adding to it only furthermore perpetuates the belief many members here have regarding that subject. Why don't we talk about problems we see in the Jewish community? Know why? Because it goes back to what I said before, nobody likes expressing unpopular opinion that may lead them to be categorized as Anti-Semitic so people leave those subjects alone. I have no problem talking about how backwards a religion like Judaism is, its a matter of how I come across is what may draw the line. Difference between me and a lot of people is I don't fear you disagreeing with me cause I know I'm not Anti-Semitic or anti-Arab or Anti this or that. I can discuss something without making pejorative remarks about it but if I think something is stupid I'm going to call it stupid. So no, no selective outrage on my part I just pick subjects that people may take an interest in that doesn't repeat what the next man is writing.

But don’t you see what you just wrote? You attributed behavior to entire communities. You have now claimed that I have done something because I’m a member of a group. Instead of solving the problem, you are perpetuating it.

But this is true. This is not to say every single individual categorizes the other but as a general principle this is true. I read this in the reports to how Israeli Africans are being treated, and I hear the anecdotal experiences of people I know here in the states of how they're being treated. But what problem do I have to solve when I've already indicated it in my previous post? I know I wrote a lengthy response to you but it helps to read. I said in my last response to you that the reasons these prejudices continue is because people do not come into contact with one another to learn. Due to the increase in the human population the world is getting smaller and people are eventually going to be boxed in. you ask what do I do to change this? My job is to serve the public every single day. I serve the sick and the dying every single day. I counsel people every single day. Every day I try to be a better human being than I was yesterday but that doesn't change the fact that me as a person is looked at negatively by others both domestically and globally. But alas every culture does this again we are going back to general principles here.

A fair question – my answer is I do 2 things – first, I try to inspire by example. Second, I teach others, professionally.

Then you and I have something in common.

Says who? Are you claiming that I have (and therefore, “Jews have”) made that statement?

Sigh...Ok, let me break this down. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "talking white" no? yes? Ok well growing up it is common knowledge in the inner city that all things that are Eurocentric are positive qualities so for example having good credit means you are responsible like a white person or if you speak so called correct English you're talking white. Now, when I said this it would have been nice if you read it in context that it was a reference to cultural categorizations that have been attributed to people in society. These are default characteristics that are attributed to members in our society. As Sociology academics would called positive and negative stereotypes. when I mentioned this, this was an attempt on my part to help you understand prejudices that are in place towards people of a particular demographic.

Sure, but from within the religion, that phrase means something other than “disabusing people of stereotypes.”

Ok. Fair enough.

So if the myth is that Jews have money, I should live like I don’t have money instead of spending what I earned.

By this response I see that I'm failing because with each response you're giving me here you're totally miss what I'm saying. There is a thing on the huddle board I write to my staff members:

People often listen to respond instead of listening to understand.

This is one of those times because you're taking what I'm saying and it appears to me you're really not understanding it and for me to continue to break it down further, I feel would disrespect your ability to comprehend so I'll say this one last time. When I made that comment, it was in conjunction to attributed stereotypes (again going back to the sociology principle of positive and negative stereotypes placed on cultures). Now, I don't care how you live your life. Hell, live your best life. What I'm saying is there are people that are just simply ignorant of worldly cultures and therefore some people simply remain comfortable in believing social stereotypes without actually getting to know people of a given culture. Regarding with the idea of "Jews having money" I'm not saying spend all your money go broke and live in the projects. All I'm saying that the duty pressed upon us wherever we are in the world is to educate people and dispel stereotypes and myths. I doubt some kid from the hood is going to ask you "do all Jews have money like you?" Or to that effect and if they do they have some guts about them, but all I'm saying is we need to simply educate people wherever we are in the world.

And I had hope that you would say things that were more level headed and not make statements that were hateful. Unless you want to explain what you said, or how my presentation of it was in error, the statement is left on the table as representing your sincere position. Shame.

Hateful? Ah, alas the knee jerk labels but nothing different than Dr. Hill and Dr. Davis. I'm not going to explain anything further. I think someone with some common sense who would read my post would understand where I'm coming from. I believe I broke my position down clearly enough to demonstrate my position here. I'm done explaining and re-explaining and re-explaining some more.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
@rosends (Cont)

An example of what? Did you not say what I quoted? Your self description is very nice, but unrelated to what you just said. Your claim was “If Jews truly keep to themselves collectively then yes these kinds of stereotypes will persist and you cannot get mad or upset about that.”
My response was "So it is the Jews’ fault that people judge them as a group, and Jews cannot be upset that they are judged as a group". Did I cherry pick something here?

You cherry picked yes, but you are not using your damn sense. Speaking to you, I truly understand what my professors feel like when they have to repeat something. For this I'm going to leave Jews out of the equation and use African-Americans. In going back to what I was saying before. When it comes to breaking negative stereotypes if people do not surround themselves with new people in a new frontier but are continuously immersed in people of a certain behavior, then the observer will always think people of said demographic are like this until they are exposed to people who are unlike the pre-conceived stereotype. So, for example if Latinos from central America migrate over here to the inner cities with negative pre-conceived notions of African-Americans and if the negative behaviors portrayed by some African-Americans validate these feelings then a wider net will be cast towards all African-Americans. Until these Latinos families change their environment they will continue to have such feelings. I will even go further and say even if they move out of the inner city to a more positive environment it takes a tremendous amount of effort to break such stereotypes. Because, if these Latino families with these pre-conceived notions that are negative towards African-Americans not to mention let us assume they have had bad experiences most certainly they would isolate themselves from African-Americans. It will continue until a change has been made where a member of the African-American demographic portrays a positive figure to combat these generalizations. Furthermore, education must take place to combat ignorant assertions of this kind to show there is no monolith in the African-American community.

Well, then writing them off because they aren’t pro-actively trying to re-educate you is sad. Maybe the responsibility lies with you within your community so that people stop buying into group descriptions of any sort.


Again, what I wrote was an example and not something that I believe in, I don't understand why you don't get that when I trying to make a point I tend to try and use examples to help you understand my point. You see, these are conversations we need to have in person because now I'm beginning to see there are comprehension issues on your end. Perhaps if we had this in person and you see my inflection then it would better serve you to understand my position.

You do that. I’m going to try not to, and not wait to be told I don’t have to.



And I do. Believing a group narrative is a bad thing.

Again it was meant as a general principle, an example of sorts. There are people ignorant of cultures and if we do not teach people ignorance will persist. Now that I feel like I've wasted my time re-explaining something I thought you would have gotten the first time I need a drink.
 
Top