Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3830 of them)
That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

yes, I agree.

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

By 'opinion' here I mean 'what some people' think is right.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:11 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

From dictionary.com

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

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

So for example, the law that says "kill someone, go to jail", implies that killing is wrong.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".


(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I believe killing is wrong, but I'll admit that it's just a belief.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

law is not an opinion except in an abstract sense. Even if an opinion is converted into law through the established procedure it is not an opinion. At least it's not an opinion anymore.

That's all I'm saying.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?

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

Our rabbi would curtail his sermon whenever Spurs played home, which was a great act of altruism and tolerance.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:24 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

About 40.5% said Jews in their country had “a particular relationship with money”

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:25 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Why did people stop writing books of the bible, anyway? There should totally be one tracing the decline of Spurs that culminates in them being cast of the garden of 'big clubs'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.


That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:30 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry for crossposting with a serious post.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"mentality and lifestyle" different from, and this is the important part, "OTHER CITIZENS." Reminds me of that Bojeffries Saga story where the cops burst in to see a slavering werewolf standing on the table in a restaurant, say "well, it's obvious what our job is here," grab the one black guy in the restaurant, beat him up and drag him away, as one of the other patrons says to his companion "I'm not racism, but they ent the same as us, are they?"

Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

No, but I've heard it said in a neutral light, by Enrique four posts up.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:46 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This thread made it past 60 posts without anyone mentioning the link to the article doesn't work?

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Another thing is Jews are what.. like 3% of the population? That makes an 18% anti-semitism rate scary enough.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

bnw - I completely agree with that (though I don't understand what the 3% has to do with it)

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I found it too just now. I didn't realize you'd posted the whole piece. I'm looking for the original survey but not having much luck so far.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

More at good ol' Al Jazeera - including the delightful headline: Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:09 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This stuff scares me a lot. Because, unless I just had my eyes closed as a young man, it seems that anti-Semitism has really grown just in the last five years. Since 9/11, really.

paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:31 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Front page of the London Review Of Books: article about Israel buying super expensive missiles from the US (haven't finished it yet, but didn't see anything objectionable in it so far - it's online at https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n07/daniel-soar/the-most-expensive-weapon-ever-built).

HOWEVER, on the bottom of the page, ads for two books from one publisher - one about the Hebrew language, the other about resistance and compliance within Jewish communities during the holocaust (looks interesting).

Is this probably just a coincidence of who bought the advertising space, or am I right in detecting a sort of hyper-defensive "don't you even try call us anti-semitic for this" stance in the placement?

Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 25 March 2017 18:34 (seven months ago) Permalink

Princeton university press always have that advertising slot under the first page of the first article, so I think it's probably a coincidence. (though looking back over past issues there does sometimes - not always - seem to be a thematic link between the subject of the article and the two books being promoted?)

soref, Saturday, 25 March 2017 19:30 (seven months ago) Permalink

i think it's reasonable to assume ppl reading about israel might also be interested in a book about hebrew + jews - i wouldn't read any nefariousness into it esp since LRB has run far more questionable articles before so it's not like they're afraid of controversy.

Mordy, Saturday, 25 March 2017 20:49 (seven months ago) Permalink

Having read the whole article now it's barely about Israel anyway so I certainly jumped the gun, sry.

Daniel_Rf, Saturday, 25 March 2017 23:28 (seven months ago) Permalink

kinda tendentious if you ask me

softie (silby), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 20:57 (seven months ago) Permalink

Makes no mention of the swastikas/grave desecration, anything that wasn't done remotely.

JoeStork, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:00 (seven months ago) Permalink

seems reasonable to me and no less tendentious than multitude of articles that initially blamed it on Trump. Politically inconvenient for sure but probably otm. xp

Mordy, Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:01 (seven months ago) Permalink

author tips her hand early on with the line about "media’s hysterical reaction to" antisemitic threats. if one could make the case that there was literally no increased incidence of antisemitic speech/activity in the run up to & immediate wake of trump's election, then one might reasonably characterize the response by jewish organizations and news media as excessive. but i very strongly doubt that such a case could be made. there was every good reason to be focused on the issue. that a couple of disgruntled attention-seekers took the opportunity to cause havoc doesn't negate criticisms of the trump camp's flirtations with the alt-right.

i'm also a little dubious about the author's attempt to spin this as evidence of trump as a potus of action. one might just as well say that the the suspect's recent flurry of activity - and, in turn, the news media's reaction to it - attracted the attention of the intelligence community. and, not coincidentally, put quite a bit of pressure on the trump administration.

Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 21:29 (seven months ago) Permalink

wapo article says that it's hard to a) definitively tie this or that antisemitic incident to trump's election, and b) say for certain that american anti-semitism is on the rise. i don't disagree. but nor do those points suggest that jewish political organizations and news media in general should have been less worried about the possible consequences of trump's association with the alt-right.

Balðy Daudrs (contenderizer), Tuesday, 28 March 2017 22:28 (seven months ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...

What do people think of The Alien Corn, by Maugham? I'll admit that I love Maugham, and know very little about anti-semitism, so after re-reading it this morning I was wondering if it was thought of as anti-semitic at all.

He does seem to present British Jews as being 'apart' from 'Englishness', but I'm not sure if he's describing something he perceives or whether there is a normative/essentialist position behind it.

It did make me realise (why it hadn't occurred to me before I don't know) that Jewish people in the First World War faced a double-prejudice because of their 'German' names. Anyway, just an idle question.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Wednesday, 26 April 2017 07:32 (six months ago) Permalink

I read the story today just to do justice to your question and imo it was a very sensitive treatment of English Jewry and spoke directly to issues of acculturation and alienation. I certainly found nothing in it objectionable or offensive. Even were he to present something normative/essentialist in it (which I don't think is necessary to read and it certainly feels more observational to me) I don't think that would inherently be problematic. I mean I think what you're noticing is this idea that "Jewishness" is baked in, even generations removed. But here it had never completely gone away and the family's Jewishness continued to play a role in their lives - both in terms of neuroticism (as they try to escape it), glib superficiality (telling Jewish stories), and ultimately this kind of direct grappling w/ it (in the case of George). But to that last point it is also a story about being caught between worlds as George observes the Jews in Germany and feels utterly alienated from them as well - linguistically, culturally - he's afraid he'll be thrown out of synagogue for doing something wrong. I quite liked it and I like these twin themes of repression/denial + explosion between this ethnic/religious heritage that they willingly repress but continues to come back, and this artistic urge that literally explodes by the end of the story. Certainly in comparison to some of my favorite writers (like Gogol) this is a world's apart in its treatment of Jewish characters and even Jewish themes.

OT Tablet published this today - http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/231133/gorka-forward-vitezi-rend-trump . nb that I know nothing about Vitezi Rend and have no authority to contest or confirm Leibovitz's conclusions here. nbx2 I went to Yeshiva with a student whose grandfather, a Hungarian poet, was one of the 1,600 Jews that Kastner saved in exchange for condemning the rest of Hungarian Jewry to death. At the time he was studying Hungarian to try and translate his grandfather's poetry. We were fairly close being as how we were the only two (maybe there was a third) students in the school with any interest in literature of any kind. I saw him a few year's later - he was the counselor at a Jewish summer camp my brother was attending. We haven't been in touch since.

Mordy, Wednesday, 26 April 2017 18:18 (six months ago) Permalink

Cool, thanks for reading it.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Wednesday, 26 April 2017 18:49 (six months ago) Permalink

so now i know how to get mordy to read something

Bobson Dugnutt (ulysses), Wednesday, 26 April 2017 19:39 (six months ago) Permalink

Terry Teachout says of it: "Some find “The Alien Corn” anti-Semitic, and I can see why, but my old friend Samuel Lipman, who wrote of it with great eloquence in Music and More, thought it by way of being a minor masterpiece." But he gives no details.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Wednesday, 26 April 2017 20:00 (six months ago) Permalink

The story definitely deals with antisemitism (and self-hate) but to read the story itself as antisemitic imo creates a standard impossible to meet. I'd be curious to hear from the "some" who find it antisemitic and hear their precise criticisms. ime ppl can find ways to be offended by anything.

Mordy, Wednesday, 26 April 2017 20:02 (six months ago) Permalink

Probably just people trying to dissuade him from writing an opera based on it.

Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Wednesday, 26 April 2017 20:09 (six months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

jews for bannon are an interesting crew

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/state-department-anti-semitism-office-unstaffed-article-1.3273439

reggie (qualmsley), Saturday, 24 June 2017 16:01 (four months ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...
two weeks pass...

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-islamic-preacher-calls-on-allah-to-annihilate-the-jews/

disgusting story obv but from strictly an anthropological perspective his linked sermon is fascinating.

Mordy, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 21:07 (three months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

new book that is relevant to my interests:
https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Semitism-Left-David-Hirsh/dp/1138235318

Mordy, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 14:43 (two months ago) Permalink

Today’s antisemitism is difficult to recognize because it does not come dressed in a Nazi uniform and it does not openly proclaim its hatred or fear of Jews.

really

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 15:52 (two months ago) Permalink

i wouldn't pay too much attention to the copy. i've read his work elsewhere (like in Engage) and he's v good he has a strong grasp of the history of the left + its intersections w/ antisemitism.

Mordy, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 15:53 (two months ago) Permalink

most anti semitism these days actually comes from Yair Netanyahu

I Love You, Fancybear (symsymsym), Tuesday, 12 September 2017 17:53 (two months ago) Permalink

This is the most interesting nugget in that story about Facebook selling ads against the "jew hater" category https://t.co/L8xE0iWdJh pic.twitter.com/d9Jd5CyY3Z

— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) September 14, 2017

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 14 September 2017 21:17 (two months ago) Permalink

Today’s antisemitism is difficult to recognize because it does not come dressed in a Nazi uniform and it does not openly proclaim its hatred or fear of Jews.

lol, that's a pretty untimely blurb

the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Friday, 15 September 2017 02:13 (two months ago) Permalink

so, so difficult to recognize

I Love You, Fancybear (symsymsym), Friday, 15 September 2017 16:46 (two months ago) Permalink


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