Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
::::I am sorry if I am asking you difficult questions but your posts are lengthy, gratuitous, opinionated, and inaccurate. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC) |
::::I am sorry if I am asking you difficult questions but your posts are lengthy, gratuitous, opinionated, and inaccurate. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::::I.e. your queries are brief, reasoned, objective and accurate. I dropped this to avoid being baited by a fishing expedition that, ignoring the deep waters, angled for the surface gudgeon: you read past everything to try to get proof I really might be, as you will remained convinced, prejudiced about Israel. Since you appear to find anything beyong a google quick answer link 'lengthy' and 'gratuitous' (ill-reasoned) it is pointless, starting with numerous cases like [[Oswald Rufeisen]], and then running through the literature from the doctrinal ideology re Jewish identity and Israel, to legislative changes, pseudo-science ostensibly finding proof of a 'racial' community of all Jews, particular incidents that show your hasbara snippet repeats an abstract principle that while technically correct is endlessly belied by court judgements: ([https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/12/israel-palestinian-spouses-ban the Israeli law is no guide to Israeli official practice - which denies a category like Palestinians from being naturalized Israelis like their Israeli spouses because '"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide,"] etc.etc.etc.). Principle is one thing - practice another. If a theory says: 'All people are equal', and the practice is, 'but some of us are more equal than others', only someone who does not care for reality will persist in citing the principle to disprove people who find the realities 'profoundly disturbing'. This is thus childish. We are boring Malik (not to speak of myself). Closed.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
:::::I.e. your queries are brief, reasoned, objective and accurate. I dropped this to avoid being baited by a fishing expedition that, ignoring the deep waters, angled for the surface gudgeon: you read past everything to try to get proof I really might be, as you will remained convinced, prejudiced about Israel. Since you appear to find anything beyong a google quick answer link 'lengthy' and 'gratuitous' (ill-reasoned) it is pointless, starting with numerous cases like [[Oswald Rufeisen]], and then running through the literature from the doctrinal ideology re Jewish identity and Israel, to legislative changes, pseudo-science ostensibly finding proof of a 'racial' community of all Jews, particular incidents that show your hasbara snippet repeats an abstract principle that while technically correct is endlessly belied by court judgements: ([https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/12/israel-palestinian-spouses-ban the Israeli law is no guide to Israeli official practice - which denies a category like Palestinians from being naturalized Israelis like their Israeli spouses because '"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide,"] etc.etc.etc.). Principle is one thing - practice another. If a theory says: 'All people are equal', and the practice is, 'but some of us are more equal than others', only someone who does not care for reality will persist in citing the principle to disprove people who find the realities 'profoundly disturbing'. This is thus childish. We are boring Malik (not to speak of myself). Closed.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{u|Nishidani}}—the sentence in the lead of the article reads ''"Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism."'' That sentence already has 2 citations, but a third was added. Malik Shabazz removed the newly added third citation with the edit summary "rv pointless citation -- what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=843734310&oldid=843616071] So...Rodericksilly, who added that third citation, came to this Talk page to protest the removal of that citation. An attempt was made by Rodericksilly, Cullen328, and Shrike, to address the dispute over the third citation. You weighed in with {{tq|"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."}} Do you think your post is on-topic? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== MLK == |
== MLK == |
Revision as of 12:51, 2 June 2018
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Antisemitism
Since you asked a question, "what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?", I'll answer it. The people referred to in the article, if you read it, refer several times to antisemitism as racism, whereas the antisemitism article - for some reason I can't quite understand - describes it as "generally considered" to be racism. Antisemitism has always been a form of racism. I just don't understand the equivocation on this??? I have an encyclopedia from 1932 called "The New Standard Encyclopedia and World Atlas" which described it as an "opposition to the Jewish race". If an opposition to a race isn't racism, what is? Rodericksilly (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- One problem with your 1932 source is that the Jewish people are not a "race" by any reasonable meaning of that word. There are large numbers of Jews living in Israel of African, Asian and European ancestry. For example, there are about 120,000 Black Jews of Ethiopian ancestry in Israel. Does the Jewish "race" include blond Jews from France and Black Jews from Ethiopia, and Arab Jews from Syria? What about the Jews of Iran and Central Asia and India? All one "race"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Most of the Jews(Sephardi and Ashkenazi) have same ethnic(genetic to Ancient Israelis) and cultural background(through religion) so yes antisemitism is form of racism--Shrike (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- If I may butt in. The Holocaust was premised on the 'racist' concept of race. The United Nations (The Race Question) In reaction to the proven genocidal potential of thinking in terms of races, proposed a very restricted sense of this dubious word, and the equally dubious historical (hysterical) concept behind it by allowing that it could only retain a residual sense in reference to rare population isolates who had never commingled with the rest of mankind, which ipso facto excludes the 'Jews'. Racists exist- they live in a hallucinated fantasy world of a private or collective myth concerning the supposed existences of races in the earlier, now rebutted, discourse of 19th century anthropology. So racists exist, but 'races' do not. The Jews, for one, are Jews by attachment to a common cultural or religious tradition. To treat this profound attachment as biological is contrafactual, since genetically Jews have, like the rest of us, mixed descent. To assert that Jews have an 'ethnogenetic' identity none of 'them' can escape from is what Nazis asserted, in notable contradiction to the facts. They chanted
- Most of the Jews(Sephardi and Ashkenazi) have same ethnic(genetic to Ancient Israelis) and cultural background(through religion) so yes antisemitism is form of racism--Shrike (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Was er glaubt ist einterlei
- in der Rasse liegt die Schweinerei.
- (Who gives a fuck for what they think.
- It's their swinish race that makes them stink.)(my rough translation)
- Was er glaubt ist einterlei
- This was not however strictly applied in the Nazi laws - attachment to the religion, if convinced, could be sufficient to have your death warrant signed and sealed. Since anyone with two of four Jewish grandparents could be gassed or mowed down, nonetheless, any person with half of his 'genetic' profile non-Jewish, i.e. anyone who was as much 'Aryan' as 'Jewish'- could also be exterminated. It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish. Editors or thinkers like myself who insist on this are frequently branded as anti-Semitic racists, Nishidani (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Nishidani, for bringing this back down to earth.
I may be mistaken, of course, but I believe something significant happened in the decade and a half after that encyclopedia was published that led many, if not most, European intellectuals to rethink whether Jews constitute a race. Which is a large part of why the question of whether antisemitism is a form of racism is hardly an open-and-shut issue. And, as I wrote in my edit summary, it isn't at all clear how the petty bickering over whom Labour honors, to whom the middle finger is given, and whether a politician feels it necessary to include "and all forms of racism" every time she or he denounces antisemitism bears on whether or not antisemitism is considered a form of racism.
I hope you would agree that a newspaper article reporting a coarse public debate about whether to legalize medical marijuana wouldn't be a reliable or relevant source concerning the medicinal properties of cannabis, or its biological classification. So what makes a newspaper report of a coarse public debate about whether, and how badly, antisemitic Labor is a reliable source about whether antisemitism is considered a form of racism? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 07:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
It was exactly mirrored to Nuremberg laws exactly to save those who would be prosecuted according to those laws--Shrike (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish".
[1] Are you implying that the Law of Return is racist? Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"The Jews, for one, are Jews by attachment to a common cultural or religious tradition."
[2] And what of Jews who are not "attached" to a "common cultural or religious tradition"? Bus stop (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)- This is not, unless invited, a place to discuss the definition of Jews, which, who, like all ethnoidentities have multiple attributions. As to the law of return, like the Nuremburg laws, it has multiple elements, one of which is identity by descent. One thing one must bear in mind is that the rabbinic tradition inflecting it, though fundamentalist in one sense, always left discursive space, unlike generally say Christianity, that allowed margins for manoeuvre, so that an apostate though 'Jewish' lost his Jewishness by defection, meaning that race is not an ultimate factor, even in Israel. But generally, it is an extremely dangerous things to define one's nationality in terms of blood lines: my sister-in-law wanted to undergo aliyah, learnt Hebrew, but couldn't because she was deemed not Jewish because her dad was, her mother not so (though her mother alone ended up in a concentration camp, and only out of sheer luck didn't end up, like my wife she was carrying at the time, a victim of the Ardeatine massacre); a niece considers herself Jewish because her grandfather was; another sister-in-law is of Jewish descent, but couldn't give a fuck either way, since the mother was an Anglican, she became Catholic, and her identity is all of these things, etc.etc. Any state or government law that legislates who you are beyond stating your citizenship, is, to me, repulsive.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Antisemitism has many manifestations one is via racism. What links all forms is a common conspiratorial mindset. You see it when Hebrew terms like Hasbara are used to shame and discredit.Jonney2000 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Racism has nothing intrinsically to do with conspiracies, though it may take that form. As to hasbara, I, for one, use it to discredit official propaganda, ergo I am an anti-Semite? When I studied Russian, my instructors, all exiles, told me that you never take seriously the first two pages or last pages even of a piece of Soviet literary criticism. They will be written to pass a censor's scrutiny and have the usual party line jargon. Since censors are basically stupid with short attention spans, they never read everything, and that awareness allowed the writer to say what he really thought in the meat of the article. The same principle applies to reading any contemporary political news: much will consist of huffing and haaing, self-censorship, or delicate crafting of words to win over or consolidate the readerly audience, but you don't, unlike wiki editors, give the standard bluster weight: you parse on, waiting for a significant verifiable factual datum to emerge. You can see the process at work by taking a few articles by Amos Harel, for instance: he will give the IDF/hasbara line at the beginning and the end, and, as often as not, unwittingly or otherwise, give you just that grain of truth midpage which, properly examined, explodes the line he is defending.
- I don't believe that anything any government or lobby or movement puts out as the official line can be taken at face value, to the contrary, it is, like hasbara, agitprop, or any other spin, prime facie misleading because it is a rhetorical defense of a perceived interest, not a cool assessment of reality, which is always messy and conceptually complex. All of these arguments risk becoming meaningless in contemporary public discourse, because they are omnium gatherum political bludgeons to compel constituencies to think apropos this or that topic exactly as a government or soi-disant representatives of an 'ethnic' group wants everybody to think. This is why Corbyn and the Labour Party are so viciously and relentlessly under attack: they still underwrite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which means that no special taboos must create exceptions that exempt one specific society, nation or people from the ethical and legal principles governing human individuals, peoples and states. This was Orwell's position, was once commonsense, and is now almost washed out by visceral twitter/facebook/istagram chitchattering.Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion most Jews do not have a
"common cultural or religious tradition."
[3] You offer your pontification on this point despite saying that this is not"a place to discuss the definition of Jews"
[4]. You say[a]ny state or government law that legislates who you are beyond stating your citizenship, is, to me, repulsive.
[5] Are you saying that you find the Israeli government repulsive? Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion most Jews do not have a
- Antisemitism has many manifestations one is via racism. What links all forms is a common conspiratorial mindset. You see it when Hebrew terms like Hasbara are used to shame and discredit.Jonney2000 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is not, unless invited, a place to discuss the definition of Jews, which, who, like all ethnoidentities have multiple attributions. As to the law of return, like the Nuremburg laws, it has multiple elements, one of which is identity by descent. One thing one must bear in mind is that the rabbinic tradition inflecting it, though fundamentalist in one sense, always left discursive space, unlike generally say Christianity, that allowed margins for manoeuvre, so that an apostate though 'Jewish' lost his Jewishness by defection, meaning that race is not an ultimate factor, even in Israel. But generally, it is an extremely dangerous things to define one's nationality in terms of blood lines: my sister-in-law wanted to undergo aliyah, learnt Hebrew, but couldn't because she was deemed not Jewish because her dad was, her mother not so (though her mother alone ended up in a concentration camp, and only out of sheer luck didn't end up, like my wife she was carrying at the time, a victim of the Ardeatine massacre); a niece considers herself Jewish because her grandfather was; another sister-in-law is of Jewish descent, but couldn't give a fuck either way, since the mother was an Anglican, she became Catholic, and her identity is all of these things, etc.etc. Any state or government law that legislates who you are beyond stating your citizenship, is, to me, repulsive.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since I pontificate but you have a view, this is pointless. One of the men I most admire only 'became' a Jew in late retirement, with his bar mitzvah taking place in his mid-seventies. Up to that point, the only people who appear to have thought of him as a Jew were anti-Semites. In other words, it's none of my business who a Jew, or Catholic, or Muslim or anyone else, may be confessionally or otherwise: one's identity is a private matter, an act of elective self-definition, not something branded on one from birth as an ineludible fate or tragedy or piece of good fortune as the the madding crowds of opinionizers about who other people are think. When I think of Israel's foundation, I always think of what was happening elsewhere in the world in 1948 in the aftermath of WW2 and civil war, and find only one nation and figure to admire, Costa Rica under José Figueres Ferrer. A poor third-world nation riven by bloodshed that, by the pure good fortune of being led by an extraordinary man, performed a miracle I would wish were the norm for the foundation of states and human identity. But we are abusing this page's hospitality, and I have other things to do. Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You say
"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."
[6] But of course anyone of any religion can convert to Judaism and become an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return. I'm wondering what you find so"disturbing"
. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- You say
- Who controls the conversion process, and what are their definitions of 'Jewish', to be observed by those who convert? Don't ask me, since I am a suspect interlocutor for many. Read the academic literature on the topic of how Zionism inflected what was thought to be a Jewish ethnic identity. Start with Nurit Kirsh's 'Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s The Unconscious Internalization of Ideology,' Isis, Vol. 94, No. 4 (December 2003), pp. 631-655. All of what he says of the pressure of an ideological construct on Israeli science (the scioentists were well aware of the dangerous analogies)repeats itself in the papers emerging from the 1990s onwards on genetics, a topic that will receive book length treatment within a few years.Nishidani (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can convert to Judaism and avail themselves of the Law of return to gain Israeli citizenship.[7] Alternatively anyone can not convert to Judaism and still gain Israeli citizenship by other means.[8] Can you tell me what you find
"profoundly disturbing."
[9]? Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Anyone can convert to Judaism and avail themselves of the Law of return to gain Israeli citizenship.[7] Alternatively anyone can not convert to Judaism and still gain Israeli citizenship by other means.[8] Can you tell me what you find
- It's masochistic to persist in asking someone you dismiss as a pontificator to keep talking to you. I'm not a sadist.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I am asking you difficult questions but your posts are lengthy, gratuitous, opinionated, and inaccurate. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I.e. your queries are brief, reasoned, objective and accurate. I dropped this to avoid being baited by a fishing expedition that, ignoring the deep waters, angled for the surface gudgeon: you read past everything to try to get proof I really might be, as you will remained convinced, prejudiced about Israel. Since you appear to find anything beyong a google quick answer link 'lengthy' and 'gratuitous' (ill-reasoned) it is pointless, starting with numerous cases like Oswald Rufeisen, and then running through the literature from the doctrinal ideology re Jewish identity and Israel, to legislative changes, pseudo-science ostensibly finding proof of a 'racial' community of all Jews, particular incidents that show your hasbara snippet repeats an abstract principle that while technically correct is endlessly belied by court judgements: (the Israeli law is no guide to Israeli official practice - which denies a category like Palestinians from being naturalized Israelis like their Israeli spouses because '"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide," etc.etc.etc.). Principle is one thing - practice another. If a theory says: 'All people are equal', and the practice is, 'but some of us are more equal than others', only someone who does not care for reality will persist in citing the principle to disprove people who find the realities 'profoundly disturbing'. This is thus childish. We are boring Malik (not to speak of myself). Closed.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nishidani—the sentence in the lead of the article reads "Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism." That sentence already has 2 citations, but a third was added. Malik Shabazz removed the newly added third citation with the edit summary "rv pointless citation -- what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?"[10] So...Rodericksilly, who added that third citation, came to this Talk page to protest the removal of that citation. An attempt was made by Rodericksilly, Cullen328, and Shrike, to address the dispute over the third citation. You weighed in with
"It is one of the profoundly disturbing ironies of history that Jews were murdered wholesale because of an unscientific definition of their respective individual identities as racial and, once the notion of race, and Nazi uses of biology, were discredited, this disabused and contrafactual prejudice was refurbished in Israel to determine who was, or was not, Jewish."
Do you think your post is on-topic? Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- Nishidani—the sentence in the lead of the article reads "Antisemitism is generally considered to be a form of racism." That sentence already has 2 citations, but a third was added. Malik Shabazz removed the newly added third citation with the edit summary "rv pointless citation -- what does partisan bickering in the UK have to do with whether antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism?"[10] So...Rodericksilly, who added that third citation, came to this Talk page to protest the removal of that citation. An attempt was made by Rodericksilly, Cullen328, and Shrike, to address the dispute over the third citation. You weighed in with
- I.e. your queries are brief, reasoned, objective and accurate. I dropped this to avoid being baited by a fishing expedition that, ignoring the deep waters, angled for the surface gudgeon: you read past everything to try to get proof I really might be, as you will remained convinced, prejudiced about Israel. Since you appear to find anything beyong a google quick answer link 'lengthy' and 'gratuitous' (ill-reasoned) it is pointless, starting with numerous cases like Oswald Rufeisen, and then running through the literature from the doctrinal ideology re Jewish identity and Israel, to legislative changes, pseudo-science ostensibly finding proof of a 'racial' community of all Jews, particular incidents that show your hasbara snippet repeats an abstract principle that while technically correct is endlessly belied by court judgements: (the Israeli law is no guide to Israeli official practice - which denies a category like Palestinians from being naturalized Israelis like their Israeli spouses because '"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide," etc.etc.etc.). Principle is one thing - practice another. If a theory says: 'All people are equal', and the practice is, 'but some of us are more equal than others', only someone who does not care for reality will persist in citing the principle to disprove people who find the realities 'profoundly disturbing'. This is thus childish. We are boring Malik (not to speak of myself). Closed.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I am asking you difficult questions but your posts are lengthy, gratuitous, opinionated, and inaccurate. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
MLK
Yes it is, footnote 98 in The Papers of MLK says, "Documents from this period indicate that King, Sr.'s name change was achieved gradually rather than through a single legal process…" Esszet (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
- I apologize. I only read the text last night and missed that in the footnote. I've self-reverted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)