Curious George
Veteran Member
What question? You had not quoted any other post.But that's not what the goal of citing the article is. The question had to do with equating two attitudes. The article helps tie them together.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What question? You had not quoted any other post.But that's not what the goal of citing the article is. The question had to do with equating two attitudes. The article helps tie them together.
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. "What question? You had not quoted any other post.
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.
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.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 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 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 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.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.
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.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 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.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.
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.
Do you really think that?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."
The article consisted of going through different points to smear Dr. Davis character.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.
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.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 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.You can feel free to argue this if you wish. I'm comfortable with this understanding.
What two positions?The content makes a case which is directly responding to the question posed in the original post, the inherent connection between the two positions.
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.Again, you don't have to like the perspective, but it is what drives precisely the response that the OP was asking about.
So you are saying that a single group has direct power. That’s a scary statement that you are willing to make.
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.
So is it that the rhetoric is pejorative or that the Jewish community has power that those groups are controlled by.
That’s not the power of the community forcing you, that is you respecting the influence that they can muster.
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.
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.
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?
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.
When you drive in other neighborhoods do you judge the people by their religion?
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.
Blacks live in their neighborhoods so I can judge them as a group.
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.
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
The depth of your analysis is an inspiration to us all.Your participation in this intellectual discussion is irrelevant. Bye
Sure. Do you really think otherwise?Do you really think that?
The article consisted of going through different points to smear Dr. Davis character.
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.
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 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.
What two positions?
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.
It is because the fact that the outside community has the ability to affect or indirectly influence decisions that affect other people.
Your blindness to this is also troubling.
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.
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.
selective outrage by some Jews of influence makes me understand why people believe being Jewish means you have power and influence.
Communities are generalized or are you ignorant to believe Jews are the only ones?
Every community including Jews do this, cast a net on others based on the membership of the individual.
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.
Well from a religious perspective is it not the duty of the Jews to be the "light of the world?"
But yes as individuals outside our respective faiths we have a duty to dispel ignorant myths.
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.
Again shame. How can I create an example which you'll understand?
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.
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, 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."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.
I happen to think that a lot would be improved if we just left each other alone.But so long as we leave each other alone we humans will always have this problem.
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.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 I said, if that’s a conclusion you draw then I find that scary.
As any lobby does. AARP, the NRA, the Teachers’ Union.
Your blinders are what get to me. Selective viewing and all that.
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.
Since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you say this.
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?
And do you then see a parallel belief about other groups? Selective outrage by Catholics, Republicans or gun owners?
But if you don’t complain about others, aren’t you expressing selective outrage?
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.
A fair question – my answer is I do 2 things – first, I try to inspire by example. Second, I teach others, professionally.
Says who? Are you claiming that I have (and therefore, “Jews have”) made that statement?
Sure, but from within the religion, that phrase means something other than “disabusing people of stereotypes.”
So if the myth is that Jews have money, I should live like I don’t have money instead of spending what I earned.
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.
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?
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.
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.