Jonney2000 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
::::{{tq|"The Jews, for one, are Jews by attachment to a common cultural or religious tradition."}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik_Shabazz&diff=843755672&oldid=843750067] And what of Jews who are not "attached" to a "common cultural or religious tradition"? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 08:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC) |
::::{{tq|"The Jews, for one, are Jews by attachment to a common cultural or religious tradition."}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Malik_Shabazz&diff=843755672&oldid=843750067] And what of Jews who are not "attached" to a "common cultural or religious tradition"? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk: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 ''ethno''identities 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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC) |
:::::This is not, unless invited, a place to discuss the definition of Jews, which, who, like all ''ethno''identities 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.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Jonney2000|Jonney2000]] ([[User talk:Jonney2000|talk]]) 09:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:01, 31 May 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. |
WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have brought your TBAN up here. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Howdy. Ya may wanna 'delete' the "Good German" comment. Nazism is a topic on Wikipedia, that can get a fella into blockable territory. Don't put knives in other folks hands. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- If the shoe fits... — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Malik. I know you don't want to discuss this anymore, but I hope you consider an appeal in the future. Editors, minus the usual suspects, believed the t-ban was too harsh; you do not have to kiss Sandstein's boots to make an appeal. The fact is he escalated what was a very minor situation eight days after the fact simply to make the point that he could. Best of luck, regardless of what you do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, TheGracefulSlick, and I truly appreciate your initial inquiry. I have plenty of time to consider my options. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is worthwhile keeping tabs on comparable usage, which (and justly so) goes under the radar, i.e. John's 'utterly stupid' in reaction to an I/P area edit. You might also gloss the fact by noting that 'disingenuous' ('slightly dishonest and insincere in what they say') is completely acceptable on talk pages and wiki administrative forums, but you cannot employ its synonym 'hypocritical', and I, for one, could get away with underlining that editors were using 'double standards', which is a shameful case of hypocrisy. It is not that Sandstein was technically wrong. It is that technically, one can be a mild-mannered ethnonationalist blatantly adopting hypocritical double standards around I/P pages, while closely watching your p's and q's, but if you upbraid the culprits of this cynical gaming, what everyone can see is hypocritical by calling a spade a spade, it becomes a wiki felony with 6 months in porridge, and arbiter's judgement becomes, not in its intent, but in its context, a case of the arbitrary application of a law observed mostly in the breach. I don't quite know why, but I feel I owe you an apology. Best regards. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, TheGracefulSlick, and I truly appreciate your initial inquiry. I have plenty of time to consider my options. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Malik. I know you don't want to discuss this anymore, but I hope you consider an appeal in the future. Editors, minus the usual suspects, believed the t-ban was too harsh; you do not have to kiss Sandstein's boots to make an appeal. The fact is he escalated what was a very minor situation eight days after the fact simply to make the point that he could. Best of luck, regardless of what you do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for stopping by, Nishidani. No need to apologize. I'm afraid I can't say much more because it might violate my topic ban or be construed as a personal attack. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Slavery
1. While there is abundant evidence for sexual abuse or rape of black slave women by whites in the South, I have yet to see a single reference to this happening in the North. Do you have any?
2. The article History of slavery in New York says “All remaining slaves were finally freed on July 4, 1827.” What is the evidence for your date of 1860? deisenbe (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- First, I didn't write 1860. Second, the lead section of the article about slavery in New York is wrong, and it's inconsistent with the text of the article (which in turn is poorly sourced). See what I wrote, and the source I cited, at Talk:Slavery in the United States#Slavery was not "abolished" in the North.
- Finally, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Please provide a source that says that sexual abuse of female slaves was confined to the South. Any reasonable person can conclude that if it took place in Georgia and South Carolina, it also took place in Virginia and North Carolina. And Delaware and Pennsylvania and New York and Massachusetts. It was a feature of the system, not a fluke. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
- 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)