7 ms·

I'm trying to understand what he did that was so wrong? He (correctly imo) called out Israel for its violent tendencies. The only mistake he made that I can see

I'm trying to understand what he did that was so wrong? He (correctly imo) called out Israel for its violent tendencies. The only mistake he made that I can see is he conflated Israel with the Jewish people generally. But Israel has a massive propaganda campaign leading people to do exactly that (an attack on Israel the country is an attack on Jewish people in general). If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today? I really don't know much about the Jewish faith or how it interplays with Israel, so I'm just trying to understand where all the anger is coming from. I feel like Israel is acting in bad faith on public forums too, which makes everything more complicated for somebody unfamiliar with it all. EDIT: Reading more comments I think I get the gist of the controversy, he insinuated all Jewish people should feel guilt for the actions of Israel? I agree that's wrong, but I understand how somebody could come by that belief. Israel themselves have fostered the narrative that Israel represents the Jewish people by constantly conflating an attack on Israel as an attack on the Jewish people.

adamrezich 5y ago
in a culture where all white people are guilty for slavery, this mindset makes sense to me
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > in a culture where all white people are guilty for slavery, this mindset makes sense to me Not all white people are guilty of slavery, and virtually no one thinks that they are. Essentially all American white people continue to materially benefit from a long history of systematic racism in America [0], including slavery, state-mandated and state-tolerated post-slavery subjugation and segregation. Heck, many living white Americans are direct beneficiaries of overt discrimination in public programs, not to mention systematic, coordinated private discrimination. People who oppose acknowledging the latter point like to set up the former as a convenient strawman. [0] which is not to say all are in a good absolute position, or even not structurally disadvantaged on balance; systematic racial discrimination isn’t the only structural bias in American society.
  - noofen 5y ago
    > Essentially all American white people continue to materially benefit from a long history of systematic racism in America [0], including slavery, state-mandated and state-tolerated post-slavery subjugation and segregation. Heck, many living white Americans are direct beneficiaries of overt discrimination in public programs, not to mention systematic, coordinated private discrimination. I come from a family of poor farmers in the South. I've done some genealogical digging, and thus far I've found three 16-24 year old members of my family who died in the Confederate war. We never owned slaves; service was mandatory back then, either through law or social pressure. Approximately ~600-700,000 people died in the Civil War. This country has made sacrifices for African Americans and racial equality, more than any other country on Earth. It will never be enough. No matter how much they give, apologize, change the rules, white Americans will never shed their "original sin." Because of my white skin, I "continue to materially benefit" from "systemic racism," and yet, where are these benefits? I come from a place riddled with opiate addicts and alcoholism. Most of the younger people don't make it out, they have to score much higher than African Americans applying to the same colleges (as do Asians). Everyone was on board with MLK's dream of equal opportunity for all. Racial discrimination was clearly a bad idea. But, in the last 10 years or so, some people have realized that "racism" is perhaps the most powerful bludgeoning tool in the US. Now, MLK is outdated, the new movement is about racial revenge.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Like a lot of poor farmers rent or share farm equipment today, poor farmers overwhelmingly rented slaves at critical points in the growing cycle in antebellum rural South. Slaves were expensive, about $100k each in today's money, so poor farmers rented them just like any farm equipment today can be rented by those that don't have the capital to buy outright. Use of slaves was ubiquitous, even among those who didn't outright own the slaves. And I would dig into MLK's thoughts on economic justice a bit more. The white washed view ignores his belief that equality couldn't be achieved even within the bounds of capitalism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/21/economic-equality-martin-luther-king-jrs-other-dream/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/21/economic-e... And I say this all as another poor white boy from the deep south.
- munificent 5y ago
  I get where you're coming from and it took me (a white person from the US) a long time to wrap my head around what most progressives talking about responsibility and the US's history of slavery were really trying to say. Let me try to explain with an analogy. Your grandfather dies. In his will, he leaves you his house, which has been in your family several generation. It's a nice place, better than the crappy apartment you live in, and it's yours now by all rights, so you move in. When you do, you discover to your delight that you water bill is zero dollars every month. What a nice bonus! Free water from the tap! One day, when poking around the basement, you discover the secret to this mystery. Apparently one of your ancestors many years ago dug a secret tunnel over to the neighbor's house put a T on their water main, and ran a pipe back to your house. Your water isn't free. Your neighbors have been paying for it the whole time. In fact, they have even known this and been trying to tell you. But, you know, you were so busy getting settled in and dealing with all the stuff in your own life that their discussion about "water equality" never really registered for you. It's not that you didn't care (you love equality), you just didn't think it had anything to do with you. So what is your moral position today? It is not one of guilt. You didn't put that sneaky pipe in. And while, yes, you certainly took some showers with free water, at the time you honestly didn't realize that anyone was paying for it. There was no malice on your part. You could argue that since it's your neighbors who are suffering from the jacked up water bill, they should be the ones to pay to cut that pipe and remove it. After all, you didn't cause the problem, and you don't have any personal incentive to fix it. You aren't trying to steal their water, it's just the way your plumbing happens to be set up. At the same time, your neighbors are actually poorer than you, in large part because they have been paying your water bill the whole time. It feels pretty selfish to expect them to foot the plumbing bill to get it fixed. So I think that you bear a responsibility to fix the plumbing because you now own the house. And you have some moral obligation in the sense that those who are most able to do a thing bear some obligation to their community to do that thing. If we're all in this together, then we give back to society in the ways we best can. Since you can more easily afford to the fix the plumbing (all those months of free water let you save up some cash), you should be the one to do so. Now, granted, there are certainly some progressives (of all races) who take the history of slavery in a guilt/shame direction. If you're white, you're just supposed to feel bad. We should all be walking around in hairshirts as a penance for the sins of our fathers. There is a real weird Catholic guilt vibe in some progressive circles today. But I think for most, it's not that. And the most charitable interpretation of people saying that whites today bear responsibility for slavery is just what my example here says: we have some ownership over the institutions that benefited from slavery, and we have a greater capacity to amend that problem, thus responsibility to do that falls on our shoulders. The most compassionate way to look at this is as an opportunity. What a great thing it is to be in a position to help address one of the most grievious injustices in the United States.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Israel themselves have fostered the narrative that Israel represents the Jewish people by constantly conflating an attack on Israel as an attack on the Jewish people. Israel’s attempts to equate itself and its current policies with the Jewish race and identity are definitely a reason (an additional reason, on top of many others) to be disgusted at the governing regime of the State of Israel and its government, but they aren't an excuse, even a little bit, for the bigotry against Jews qua Jews for Israeli policy (indeed, that is rewarding the violent bigotry of the Israeli regime, which actively seeks the protection of whataboutism that being able to paint opposition to its apartheid and lebensraum policies as anti-Semitic provides.) The Israeli government, Israeli Jews, Israelis, and Jews are different groups, and the actions of the first don’t justify hatred of any of the latter groups, all of which include fierce opponents of pretty much any action you might blame thw first for.
- theossuary 5y ago
  I think you and I are on the same wavelength, and I appreciate your take on this issue. It's tricky looking from the outside in with all of the misinformation though (hence my mention of the Israeli propaganda). And I definitely agree, nothing justifies antisemitism (to be honest, I really don't understand it either). I hate to be critical in these situations because I don't want to lend credence to those who'll jump in and pretend I'm on their Jewish hate train.
TMWNN 5y ago
>EDIT: Reading more comments I think I get the gist of the controversy, he insinuated all Jewish people should feel guilt for the actions of Israel? As always in these sorts of things (and life in general, really), judge for yourself https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamaubobb.com/hidden-blogs/2007/12/if-i-were-a-jew https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamau... . The final paragraph begins >If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself.
yyyk 5y ago
>called out Israel for its violent tendencies. Compare Israel to its close neighbourhood, the US or even France and the UK. Israel exists in the ME, what's the West's excuse for fighting in different continents? And his text goes much further than that. >If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today? It would be grossly inaccurate, but saying dumb stuff wouldn't be enough to get people to call for his removal. >Israel themselves have fostered the narrative that Israel represents the Jewish people by constantly conflating an attack on Israel as an attack on the Jewish people. It's not a particular surprise that people who are drawn to attack Jews attack Israel too. Maybe if critics of Israel took pains to separate themselves from the antisemites rather than excusing them, more people would see a difference between critics and actual antisemites. If instead their only resort would be to argue bad faith, well, people would see that too.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
>If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today? The whole problem with the blog post is that he did was stereotyping millions of people (the majority of whom don't even live in Israel) as being bloodthirsty killers based on the actions of the Israeli government. Imagine how wrong it would be to write a blog post about Idi Amin and coming to the conclusion that African-Americans are inherently violent.

adamrezich 5y ago

in a culture where all white people are guilty for slavery, this mindset makes sense to me

dragonwriter 5y ago
> in a culture where all white people are guilty for slavery, this mindset makes sense to me Not all white people are guilty of slavery, and virtually no one thinks that they are. Essentially all American white people continue to materially benefit from a long history of systematic racism in America [0], including slavery, state-mandated and state-tolerated post-slavery subjugation and segregation. Heck, many living white Americans are direct beneficiaries of overt discrimination in public programs, not to mention systematic, coordinated private discrimination. People who oppose acknowledging the latter point like to set up the former as a convenient strawman. [0] which is not to say all are in a good absolute position, or even not structurally disadvantaged on balance; systematic racial discrimination isn’t the only structural bias in American society.
- noofen 5y ago
  > Essentially all American white people continue to materially benefit from a long history of systematic racism in America [0], including slavery, state-mandated and state-tolerated post-slavery subjugation and segregation. Heck, many living white Americans are direct beneficiaries of overt discrimination in public programs, not to mention systematic, coordinated private discrimination. I come from a family of poor farmers in the South. I've done some genealogical digging, and thus far I've found three 16-24 year old members of my family who died in the Confederate war. We never owned slaves; service was mandatory back then, either through law or social pressure. Approximately ~600-700,000 people died in the Civil War. This country has made sacrifices for African Americans and racial equality, more than any other country on Earth. It will never be enough. No matter how much they give, apologize, change the rules, white Americans will never shed their "original sin." Because of my white skin, I "continue to materially benefit" from "systemic racism," and yet, where are these benefits? I come from a place riddled with opiate addicts and alcoholism. Most of the younger people don't make it out, they have to score much higher than African Americans applying to the same colleges (as do Asians). Everyone was on board with MLK's dream of equal opportunity for all. Racial discrimination was clearly a bad idea. But, in the last 10 years or so, some people have realized that "racism" is perhaps the most powerful bludgeoning tool in the US. Now, MLK is outdated, the new movement is about racial revenge.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Like a lot of poor farmers rent or share farm equipment today, poor farmers overwhelmingly rented slaves at critical points in the growing cycle in antebellum rural South. Slaves were expensive, about $100k each in today's money, so poor farmers rented them just like any farm equipment today can be rented by those that don't have the capital to buy outright. Use of slaves was ubiquitous, even among those who didn't outright own the slaves. And I would dig into MLK's thoughts on economic justice a bit more. The white washed view ignores his belief that equality couldn't be achieved even within the bounds of capitalism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/21/economic-equality-martin-luther-king-jrs-other-dream/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/21/economic-e... And I say this all as another poor white boy from the deep south.
munificent 5y ago
I get where you're coming from and it took me (a white person from the US) a long time to wrap my head around what most progressives talking about responsibility and the US's history of slavery were really trying to say. Let me try to explain with an analogy. Your grandfather dies. In his will, he leaves you his house, which has been in your family several generation. It's a nice place, better than the crappy apartment you live in, and it's yours now by all rights, so you move in. When you do, you discover to your delight that you water bill is zero dollars every month. What a nice bonus! Free water from the tap! One day, when poking around the basement, you discover the secret to this mystery. Apparently one of your ancestors many years ago dug a secret tunnel over to the neighbor's house put a T on their water main, and ran a pipe back to your house. Your water isn't free. Your neighbors have been paying for it the whole time. In fact, they have even known this and been trying to tell you. But, you know, you were so busy getting settled in and dealing with all the stuff in your own life that their discussion about "water equality" never really registered for you. It's not that you didn't care (you love equality), you just didn't think it had anything to do with you. So what is your moral position today? It is not one of guilt. You didn't put that sneaky pipe in. And while, yes, you certainly took some showers with free water, at the time you honestly didn't realize that anyone was paying for it. There was no malice on your part. You could argue that since it's your neighbors who are suffering from the jacked up water bill, they should be the ones to pay to cut that pipe and remove it. After all, you didn't cause the problem, and you don't have any personal incentive to fix it. You aren't trying to steal their water, it's just the way your plumbing happens to be set up. At the same time, your neighbors are actually poorer than you, in large part because they have been paying your water bill the whole time. It feels pretty selfish to expect them to foot the plumbing bill to get it fixed. So I think that you bear a responsibility to fix the plumbing because you now own the house. And you have some moral obligation in the sense that those who are most able to do a thing bear some obligation to their community to do that thing. If we're all in this together, then we give back to society in the ways we best can. Since you can more easily afford to the fix the plumbing (all those months of free water let you save up some cash), you should be the one to do so. Now, granted, there are certainly some progressives (of all races) who take the history of slavery in a guilt/shame direction. If you're white, you're just supposed to feel bad. We should all be walking around in hairshirts as a penance for the sins of our fathers. There is a real weird Catholic guilt vibe in some progressive circles today. But I think for most, it's not that. And the most charitable interpretation of people saying that whites today bear responsibility for slavery is just what my example here says: we have some ownership over the institutions that benefited from slavery, and we have a greater capacity to amend that problem, thus responsibility to do that falls on our shoulders. The most compassionate way to look at this is as an opportunity. What a great thing it is to be in a position to help address one of the most grievious injustices in the United States.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Israel themselves have fostered the narrative that Israel represents the Jewish people by constantly conflating an attack on Israel as an attack on the Jewish people. Israel’s attempts to equate itself and its current policies with the Jewish race and identity are definitely a reason (an additional reason, on top of many others) to be disgusted at the governing regime of the State of Israel and its government, but they aren't an excuse, even a little bit, for the bigotry against Jews qua Jews for Israeli policy (indeed, that is rewarding the violent bigotry of the Israeli regime, which actively seeks the protection of whataboutism that being able to paint opposition to its apartheid and lebensraum policies as anti-Semitic provides.) The Israeli government, Israeli Jews, Israelis, and Jews are different groups, and the actions of the first don’t justify hatred of any of the latter groups, all of which include fierce opponents of pretty much any action you might blame thw first for.

theossuary 5y ago
I think you and I are on the same wavelength, and I appreciate your take on this issue. It's tricky looking from the outside in with all of the misinformation though (hence my mention of the Israeli propaganda). And I definitely agree, nothing justifies antisemitism (to be honest, I really don't understand it either). I hate to be critical in these situations because I don't want to lend credence to those who'll jump in and pretend I'm on their Jewish hate train.

TMWNN 5y ago

>EDIT: Reading more comments I think I get the gist of the controversy, he insinuated all Jewish people should feel guilt for the actions of Israel? As always in these sorts of things (and life in general, really), judge for yourself https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamaubobb.com/hidden-blogs/2007/12/if-i-were-a-jew https://web.archive.org/web/20210602000424/https://www.kamau... . The final paragraph begins >If I were a Jew I would be concerned about my insatiable appetite for war and killing in defense of myself.

yyyk 5y ago

>called out Israel for its violent tendencies. Compare Israel to its close neighbourhood, the US or even France and the UK. Israel exists in the ME, what's the West's excuse for fighting in different continents? And his text goes much further than that. >If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today? It would be grossly inaccurate, but saying dumb stuff wouldn't be enough to get people to call for his removal. >Israel themselves have fostered the narrative that Israel represents the Jewish people by constantly conflating an attack on Israel as an attack on the Jewish people. It's not a particular surprise that people who are drawn to attack Jews attack Israel too. Maybe if critics of Israel took pains to separate themselves from the antisemites rather than excusing them, more people would see a difference between critics and actual antisemites. If instead their only resort would be to argue bad faith, well, people would see that too.

Rebelgecko 5y ago

>If that blogpost was the same, but said Israel, instead of the Jewish people; would there be any issue with it today? The whole problem with the blog post is that he did was stereotyping millions of people (the majority of whom don't even live in Israel) as being bloodthirsty killers based on the actions of the Israeli government. Imagine how wrong it would be to write a blog post about Idi Amin and coming to the conclusion that African-Americans are inherently violent.