Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3531 of them)
It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:39 (12 years ago) Permalink

I've often thought the biggest problem with the often nebulous and knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism is that there is an extri special word for it (ie it ain't called Anti-Judaism). Islamophobic is incleasingly being brought in to mean a similar kind of thing for Islam - though certainly not as loaded. But there is no real offical word for hating Christians.

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

It's not vile to be desperately upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians is it, given the circumstances of the founding of Israel from a political standpoint? Admittedly, the founding of Israel on the ground kinda started to whole treatment of Palestinaians thing thing, but...

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:48 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, the Holocaust one I'm not entirely convinced about, Enrique. Some Jewish people argue, not that it is time to forget, but time to get out of a victim-casting obsession with past persecution. Not because they are self-haters, but because they think it helps Jewish culture move on, and because in certain hands, the Holocaust issue is almost used as a trump card in all arguments, which is obviously irritating.

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:50 (12 years ago) Permalink

It's a bit vile to say that Israel only exists because the Jews 'used' the Holocaust as leverage, which is what a lot of revisionist leftists do in their attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a nation. In its less nuanced uses, this is what the Finkelstein book does. Obviousy it shouldn't be used to justify current hostilities against the Palestinians, but I can understand why it was used back in the 1940s, when the area was a British mandate-colony.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:52 (12 years ago) Permalink

What we learned from the Holocaust is that it is a very wrong idea to separate people out according to religion/sexuality (remember Catholics and homosexuals also suffered there), place them in internment camps and then kill them. What we learned from apartheid is that it is wrong to separate people out by skin colour and deny them access to cities and areas and basic civil rights as if on a whim. I would suggest to Israelis of a 'pioneer' bent to learn from the Holocaust and apartheid the lesson about onetime victims relishing their turn on bully duty, and to find a way to resist.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

i thought it said 'jews should stop "playing the violin" for the holocaust'... i wish they had worded it that way because i don't think nearly as many people would be in favour of stopping violins!

jeremy jordan (cruisy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

Is it racist to say that a religion is intolerant? It would certianly be racist to say that Jews were intolerant.

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (12 years ago) Permalink

How much of the fear and mistrust of Judaism comes from it being a non-evangelical religion (menkos Jews 4 Jebus notwithstanding).

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:05 (12 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.


Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:10 (12 years ago) Permalink

You're right, Enrique, about no-one calling you racist for taking issue with Christianity's dogma on sexuality. But what about the statement that Judaism might be about love and charity in principle but is is not interpreted like that? Do you mean actual Jews don't act out of love and charity? Or do you mean gentiles don't regard Judaism as about love and charity?

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:14 (12 years ago) Permalink

Pete, that's not at the heart of it at all. The Romans/Greeks didn't really 'get' monotheism, but it's the crapness of Christianity and its prostletysing that created a great deal of anti-Semitic sentiment, what with chasing the money-lenders out of the temple yada yada and people judging ALL Jews as usurers/cash-obsessed/cleverer than. I'm pretty bloody thankful I went to school with thousands of Jews, because they had in their favour a belief in the power of learning and education being a pathway to aspirations. Their parents were the best agitators for getting stuff done for everyone in my town that I've ever experienced.

Again: all bigotry is a manifestation of the bigot's insecurity, usually unsubstantiated.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:18 (12 years ago) Permalink

So, has anybody got any idea why someone would say that Judaism is intolerant? (I'm not asking if any of you are racist, I'm just wondering if anyone has any examples or good guesses about purported Judaic intolerance... And I mean the religion, not the state or Isreal or somesuch)

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:21 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I was thinking that the idea of not wanting to spread "the good news", being a closed community pretty much marks you out as The Other, but certainly the other factors you point out seem a fair bit more convincing.

How has Christianity dealt with the Jesus as king of Jews thing?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (12 years ago) Permalink

Dave, you've already said it's intolerant of several things (like allowing you to use the car on a Friday). You also explained why this doesn't mean the same as 'intolerant' to you. I understand that, but 'intolerant' means different things to different people.

Perhaps the main point of this thread was that I hate ambiguously worded questionnaires, esp. if they're deliberately so.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:26 (12 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (12 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (12 years ago) Permalink

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.

If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (12 years ago) Permalink

good point, what about forcible removal of non-jews and 'pioneer' settling though?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:35 (12 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (12 years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (12 years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (12 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.


because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (12 years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (12 years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (12 years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (12 years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.



Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (12 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (12 years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (12 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (12 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (12 years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (12 years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (12 years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (12 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (12 years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (12 years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (12 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (12 years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (12 years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (12 years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (12 years ago) Permalink

and there is something that I have trouble resolving for myself about the way, once a denigrated minority group gets that power, "progressive" people resent them for it

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 16:29 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

paradox of always taking the underdog, I guess -- once they start winning they're not the underdog

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 16:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i think it goes in quite complicated ways, often as a result of how the indigenous/host culture treats them at point of arrival.

old migrant groups view the new/other ones how they were viewed (or its also combined with views from their own culture).

groups that have acquired some power hold on to a collective sense of being an underdog, without accepting how things might have changed for them, broadly speaking as a group. the previous exp of being oppressed becomes a shared part of their identity and becomes internalised. host cultures' 'othering' targets go through fashions, and one group previously hated, ends up being 'tolerated', when a new group arrives to take their place.

"and there is something that I have trouble resolving for myself about the way, once a denigrated minority group gets that power, "progressive" people resent them for it"

liberal types just project all their own shit onto who they see as victims. they live their own sense of victimhood through others. they dont like or dont know quite how to compute when they no longer subscribe to the image they had of them. i remember going to a 'minority' recruitment event at a certain well known organisation once and various people there were a bit pissed off how it seemed that main things the recruiters were interested in were things to do with victimhood (ie the other, but in a way that more or less just reinforces how the majority group are still powerful).

StillAdvance, Monday, 13 June 2016 16:40 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah, and I think really two things have simultaneously happened - many Jews have failed to recognize how things have shifted for them (mostly for the better) *and* a lot of liberals have started to take anti-Semitism less seriously when it actually occurs, because of that perceived shift.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 16:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

true. good post.

StillAdvance, Monday, 13 June 2016 16:52 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

The way I read it, he wasn't saying "you would care more if this was Jews," he was saying "if this happened in a Jewish house of worship, it would be obvious that it was targeting Jews, yet this happened in a gay club and you're not recognizing that gays were being targeted."

Exactly, unfortunately he got emotional and didn't put his argument across very coherently, I think he couldn't believe what he was hearing tbh.

I don't really want to talk about Livingstone, fed up with that, but there really wasn't a lot of pro-Ken stuff in the UK media at the time - I would struggle to recall any mainstream support for him and his efforts at interpreting 20th century history. Online and social media I'm sure there were plenty of idiots weighing in on his side.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Monday, 13 June 2016 16:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah IIRC i dont remember anyone in mainstream media defending him.

StillAdvance, Monday, 13 June 2016 16:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

many Jews have failed to recognize how things have shifted for them (mostly for the better)

I agree, but that's a weird way of couching it, especially the "failed" bit - it implies that Jews should be more grateful that they're no longer treated like subhumans.

(Of course, all Jewish holidays except Yom Kippur are basically about the same thing: "Can you believe we're not dead yet?")

Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 13 June 2016 17:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah fair. I just mean that I do run into people with a certain kind of Jewish victimhood tunnel-vision -- often individuals who themselves haven't experienced any severe anti-Semitism but nonetheless perceive a threat lurking around every corner and have a sort of attitude that anti-Semitism is somehow far worse than any other kind of bigotry in the world today. It's hard to walk the line between taking it seriously and not overdramatizing it. Because every individual incidence of bigotry or bigoted violence is as bad and as serious as any other, yet the total threat facing Jews in most places in the world today is relatively small.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 17:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Hmmmm, expect Mordy will have something to say about that.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Monday, 13 June 2016 17:44 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Don't forget you're describing a certain type of Jew - a conservative Jew. Don't get me wrong - they exist - some of them are my family! But you're falling into the generalisation trap again. It's a straw Jew, to some extent.

Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 13 June 2016 17:51 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I don't really think it's a straw Jew. It's a subset of Jews. I think a lot of Jews certainly don't fit that description, especially younger Jews, but it is a phenomenon that exists. I see a decent amount of it in my facebook feed.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 17:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

And yes it does seem to correlate with more right-wing views, which, in turn, do not represent the majority of Jews in the US.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 17:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I too dislike the "Jewish victimhood tunnel-vision" you talk about. But it is honestly earned!

Would very much dispute "often individuals who themselves haven't experienced any severe anti-Semitism" and "relatively small" - though I'll leave that to Mordy, I guess.

Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 13 June 2016 17:57 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

paradox of always taking the underdog, I guess -- once they start winning they're not the underdog

― socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, June 13, 2016 4:30 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Lately I get exposed a lot to ppl from previously marginalized groups who want to both keep their sense of grievance & oppression AND ALSO justify their right to discriminate against others who are currently marginalized, in TONS of ways. I think with people just being human this is on some level unavoidable unless there's really specific teachings and practices/praxes against it. If your liberation from oppression isn't intersectional, it can't help but become exclusionary & wicked itself.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Monday, 13 June 2016 18:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah but I meant that quote to cut the other way too -- once your group is seen as having made it, you're fair game for the progressive masses, but you're still a minority.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 18:19 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I mean idk what "progressive masses" is supposed to mean apart from discussions of anti-semitism wrt BDS/anti-BDS views.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Monday, 13 June 2016 18:23 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It means that I have definitely seen plenty of looking the other way/giving a pass/justifying of blatant anti-Semitism on the left in order to make sure to side with the perceived underdog.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 18:31 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

maybe this is obvious and needn't be said but i should point out that one reason anti-semitism is kind of the "model" form of bigotry to which people make reference to clarify other forms is that it led to the largest genocide in world history, one that is still (barely) in living memory.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 13 June 2016 19:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Hmmmm, expect Mordy will have something to say about that.

Would very much dispute "often individuals who themselves haven't experienced any severe anti-Semitism" and "relatively small" - though I'll leave that to Mordy, I guess.

Not entirely sure what I'm being asked to weigh in on here -- I guess do I think that world antisemitism today is, like places like Mosaic or Commentary or Tablet might argue, on the rise and dangerous? It's clearly more dangerous to be a Jew in Mumbai or Toulouse or Brussels than in NY. Though even in the US there's a history of anti-Jewish violence. But generally speaking outside the artifacts of an extremely vigilant community (v tight security in day schools & shuls, armed guards) almost all my personal exposure to antisemitism over the years has been things like hate speech (generally shouted from moving cars, or one time having pennies thrown at me from a moving car), or what seems like careless / non-malicious use of language (someone I'm conducting business with saying 'I'm not trying to Jew you'), or online where antisemitism has penetrated social media, comment threads and seems ubiquitous. It definitely better to be a Jew today anywhere in the world (well maybe not like Yemen) than most of the world less than a century ago. There's an older man in my synagogue who is very close w/ my family who spent his childhood in Bergen-Belson - first in the concentration and then in the DP camp they turned it into after the war. He's one of the most gung ho right-wing vigilant about antisemitism people I know - and obv I think he is justified based on his life experiences to feel that way.

So I guess tl;dr version: I think it's better to be a Jew in the US today than pretty much anywhere else in any other time in history. It's not always 100% of the time pleasant or 100% of the time totally safe but life isn't either of those things for anyone really so I try not to let it impact me too much. In terms of how I rank the insecurities and anxieties of my life, fear of antisemitism falls below money problems, climate change, and whether I'm doing a good job raising my children. But I am too educated about history and the world to think that this life I have is anything but ahistorical: a lull in history, or a pause between diasporas. So stay woke vigilant, mitigate the risk you can, keep your passports up-to-date, and try to ignore the assholes on twitter posting death camp memes. I'm not sure what else there is to do except feel gratitude that things are as good as they are knowing how bad they can always still become.

Mordy, Monday, 13 June 2016 21:59 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

the Jewish perspective on life in a nutshell

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:32 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

yeah the anti-Semitism in my life has primarily come in the form of "microaggressions" -- people asking me a lot of suspicious questions in school, mockery of "funny hats" or holiday traditions, being cornered to answer questions about Bernie Madoff or the Netanyahu administration or something, etc. And that was mostly in my pre-NYC-area life, whereas here there are so many Jews that I think that behavior is less prevalent.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

FWIW I only experienced very minor anti-semitism in the USA; when i went to france there were a few jaw-dropping incidents where people confided to me what I felt were obviously anti-semitic views which they (I guess) thought i would accept or excuse because I was "on the left" or "one of the good ones" or something.

to be fair the vast majority of French folks I met would hold such views abhorrent. but i hadn't really heard them out in the open until i went there.

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

(and FWIW i worked for two jews in paris so it's not like i was surrounded by this stuff. just a few people i met at parties.)

wizzz! (amateurist), Monday, 13 June 2016 22:43 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i have to be careful about extrapolating too much from my personal anecdotal experiences tho bc for a number of reasons (my academic + post-academic interest in hate communities, extensive critical reading + thinking about anti-semitism, reading a lot of the jewish press, walking around w/ a kippah on my head) it seems more looming than it may for someone else. my impression is that in the US overt hate or holocaust denial is pretty taboo or at least pretty non-mainstream - online it's almost exclusively anonymous and even in these weird "is it anti-israel or is it anti-jewish" left-wing circuits i think ppl would generally be horrified to be seen as antisemites (whereas the term initially was a pt of pride for its practitioners) judging by how fervently they defend their actions + words on a basis of not hating all jews qua jews. i still think that prof karega ranting about the rothschild family controlling our government is classic enough antisemitism that i don't have a problem citing it as an example of a regressive antisemitic left but even she is trying to square a circle that doesn't close w/ her being a jew-hater -- plus she's pretty fringe. my impression is that in europe it is worse, and that in the middle east it's just over-the-top psychosis. i guess my feeling about antisemitism on the left is that it's more disappointing because i expect more vigilance/care from ppl who cite tolerance/anti-hate as the basis of their politics, but also that they do ascribe to that ideology means that there are more safe guards in place to keep it from ever devolving into what it could on the right.

lol i feel deja vu and i think i must've had this exact same conversation on this exact same thread at some other pt in time.

Mordy, Monday, 13 June 2016 22:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

some interesting thoughts on the antisemitism + marxism nexus:
https://cominsitu.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/reflections-antisemitism-anti-imperialism-and-liberal-communitarianism/

Mordy, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 20:17 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i grew up in a southern town at least an hour's drive from the nearest yeshiva. we were not in any way religious; my folks were raised jewish, sorta and i'm bloodline but that's about it. we were cultural jews and such an anomaly that no one in my small town knew what the hell a jew was. the only time i remember getting into anything with anyone even vaguely anti semitic was when the guy who sold me my first car promised my dad he wouldn't "jew down the price". We sorta winced and paid him.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 22:16 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

(xp) Interesting but I do kinda wish he'd spelled Ken Livingstone's name right, if he had to mention him at all, which I wish he hadn't.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 22:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Do you think "Jew down" has become kind of like gyp/gypsy where people don't even think about what they're referring to?

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:02 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

maybe similar but the presence of jews in american life far outstrips the role of gypsys so it's hard to believe that they haven't considered where the expression comes from

Mordy, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

This doesn't seem to be an expression that's used in the UK, I've never heard it anyway.

Larry 'Leg' Smith (Tom D.), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:07 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I walked up to someone on the phone a few weeks ago and overheard him calling someone a "shylock;" that was weird. After he hung up, I said, "Excuse me, did I hear you correctly? Did you really just call someone a Shylock?" and he said with surprise that it just meant a loan shark. I think he had no idea it was antti-semitic? Otoh that may just speak to how embedded discriminatory thinking is in some circles.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:07 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i totally believe dude wasn't saying anything offensive. i grew up playing a less-than-well-thought-out version of pseudo rugby (ball is thrown at a scrum of kids, kid who catches the ball must get to a goalpoint, everyone tries to knock the ball out of kid's hands and run to the opposite goal point) as a grammar school kid in 1981 that the teachers informed us was called "Smear The Queer." Different times.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Tuesday, 14 June 2016 23:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah we were subjected to smear the queer in grade school gym (1970s). By somewhere in the early 80s it became tackle the bum.

scarcity festival (Jon not Jon), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 00:38 (1 week ago) Permalink

we played smear the queer in the 80s and I did not have the slightest idea what a queer was

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 02:52 (1 week ago) Permalink

was this an everybody thing? thought it was just me.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:31 (1 week ago) Permalink

also had smear the queer

riverine (map), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:46 (1 week ago) Permalink

i never played it though, it was sort of taboo, 'unsafe', for older boys, etc. and i also didn't know what queer was even though i was one.

riverine (map), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 03:49 (1 week ago) Permalink

Smear the queer was banned in my school, but there was a brief period where my friends and I played it after school. I was always the queer! I didn't even know it was supposed to be offensive until one day I went home and told my mom what we had been playing. We came from a good progressive neighborhood, so it was obvious we'd have to change it. From there on out, we played Stymie the Hymie.

how's life, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 09:55 (1 week ago) Permalink

I didn't learn that name for the game until I moved to Georgia as a teen, by which time I knew that it was a slur. in FLA it was Kill the Carrier.

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:24 (1 week ago) Permalink

Does anyone remember how the game worked, i.e. how the "queer" was chosen? My memories of the game are very vague, except feeling like there was something menacing about it and not really wanting to play.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:42 (1 week ago) Permalink

i remember it very clearly and enjoyed it heartily as a rambunctious 7 year old. the teacher had all the kids mob up and they threw the ball in the middle and whoever got it took off running in one direction.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:57 (1 week ago) Permalink

^ that's how i remember the rules, such as they were. a nerf football is thrown or kicked & whoever catches it gets mobbed by everyone else. you could throw the ball away to avoid getting pigpiled, but having it was both goal & curse, so everyone was trying to grab it. fun, brutal game. and, yeah, we always called it smear the queer. this in the DC suburbs, mid-to-late 70s.

oculus lump (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:14 (1 week ago) Permalink

v familiar with this game, def played it, also known as Kill the Pill etc.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:22 (1 week ago) Permalink

We called it Smear the Queer too but we were elementary students in a glorified farm town before the invention of the internet. This guy I overheard was a 50-something lifetime New Yorker.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:24 (1 week ago) Permalink

really thought this was a "just me" thing

http://ask.metafilter.com/284756/Do-kids-still-play-a-game-they-call-smear-the-queer
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40545754?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://ittakesateam.blogspot.com/2010/12/smear-queer-when-tradition-needs-to-be.html

in even more pernicious childhood memories, i also recall a grammar school varietal of freeze tag in our recently segregated school called "run nigger run" where whoever was 'it' had to keep running until they tagged someone else or couldn't run any more and if they stopped they were out. then the teacher (or was it the oldest or strongest boy? i only remember it was someone in a position of primacy) would tag another kid, yell "run nigger run" and then that kid is it and we all kept playing until no one could run anymore, last man standing wins. i liked to run a lot and i was pretty good at it. Came home one day after i won to proudly tell my parents and that's when i found out that was a word we weren't supposed to say. after that i didn't play that game anymore. at some point our school followed suit; i don't remember when it stopped but it was after fourth grade.

i'd check to see if this was a 'just me' thing as well, but damned if i'm gonna google that. i have a sad roster of grammar school bigotry stashed in my memory; i imagine that's common for all gen-xers and peripheral 80's babies.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:28 (1 week ago) Permalink

this is maybe a different thread

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:29 (1 week ago) Permalink

it's super obvious in retrospect but "smear the queer" was essentially a tool to teach gut response mob reactions to seven year olds

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:34 (1 week ago) Permalink

i've told myself i won't watch holocaust movies any more but this one looks interesting:

Mordy, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 23:08 (1 week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.