tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (11/23/85)
In article <614@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <360@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) maintains >that Zioinism is racist in that the government takes special interest >in ensuring that Jews remain a voting majority. My question is this: > > Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what > does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_? > >Frank Silbermann Nothing. Frank misunderstood me. I don't think Zionism is racist at all. But I also don't restrict racism to color differences. To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally be checked. Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal ones. People are racist if they belong to a more powerful group and regularly engage in racist relationships. A state is racist if it makes racist laws a major basis of its legitimacy. Anyone's invited to try to improve on this if they want to. Given this definition (which I support), to call Zionism racist is wrong because it was an escape for the Jews from the racism of Europe. Jews were never in a more powerful position, as far as states were concerned, so they could never institute a racist relationship in the first place. They were victims, not leaders, in politics. Anti-semites might point to Rothschilds as an exception, but they haven't read their history, I'd submit. In Israel, Jews are leaders, not victims. There they have to face claims and charges that they could be racist towards Arabs, with the understanding that their leadership positions make it possible for them to become racists. I don't think immigration policies constitute sufficient evidence, or even a major indication, of racism. Expulsion policies do. Racist laws do. Laws that define Jews on the West Bank as citizens and Arabs on the West Bank as Jordanians, while Israel rules the West Bank, are racist laws. But these are just some laws and some practices. I still don't think that racist laws are the major basis for the legitimacy of the state of Israel. Its legitimacy is still based on an anti-racist Zionist movement dispersed throughout the world, on the Jewish diaspora. What worries me is that as Israel gets its own identity and moves on its own political track, as it's starting to do today, that track will be based on the Likud right-wing resentment-based scapegoating racist dynamic. If that movement takes over, Israel will be Zionist no more. And it will be racist. And what it might become is being foreshadowed by what is happening on the West Bank today. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
mwm@ucbopal.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) (11/28/85)
In article <366@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological >relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group >and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group >needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she >is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group >assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. > >The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group >blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an >individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where >knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally >be checked. > >Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal ones. >People are racist if they belong to a more powerful group and regularly >engage in racist relationships. A state is racist if it makes racist >laws a major basis of its legitimacy. > >Anyone's invited to try to improve on this if they want to. No sooner said, than done. You tie to much to the racist being a member of a powerful group. For instance, if a white refuses to do business with blacks because "they'll cheat you every time," then your definition would make that white racist. On the other hand, if a black refused to do business with blacks for the same reason, then this black isn't racist; at least not by your definitions. Your second paragraph nailed down what a racist relationship is almost exactly, if you rephrase it assuming that there's no first paragraph: A racist relationship is a relationship where a person's membership in one or another group blots out one's checking out anything that might make that person an individual, etc... The obvious change to the second paragraph yields: People are racist if they regularly engage in racist relationships. I also have problems with the first sentence (Laws are racist if they make racist relationships the only legal one.), but I'm not sure how to rephrase it. Seems to strict, somehow; there are laws I would call racist that this doesn't catch. <mike
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (11/29/85)
>To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological >relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group >and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group >needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she >is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group >assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. >The pathology is in letting a person's membership in one or another group >blot out one's checking out anything that might make that person an >individual, with special valuable qualities, in situations where >knowledge of the presence or absence of these qualities would normally >be checked. So what I can know there is something wrong with Nazism without getting to know individual Nazis. The situation is similar with Islam. >Given this definition (which I support), to call Zionism racist is wrong >because it was an escape for the Jews from the racism of Europe. Jews >were never in a more powerful position, as far as states were concerned, >so they could never institute a racist relationship in the first place. >They were victims, not leaders, in politics. Anti-semites might point >to Rothschilds as an exception, but they haven't read their history, I'd >submit. And as such zionism was one of the biggest failures in history, since it did not save the Jews of Europe. Zionism's main success was willy-nilly getting Sefardic and oriental Jews away from Muslims. >In Israel, Jews are leaders, not victims. There they have to face >claims and charges that they could be racist towards Arabs, with the >understanding that their leadership positions make it possible for >them to become racists. I don't think immigration policies constitute >sufficient evidence, or even a major indication, of racism. Expulsion >policies do. Racist laws do. Laws that define Jews on the West Bank >as citizens and Arabs on the West Bank as Jordanians, while Israel rules >the West Bank, are racist laws. Since the West Bank is not part of Israel, I see no reason why the Muslims there should have Israeli citizenship. The Jews of Sidon did not become Israeli citizens when Israel occupied Sidon. Likewise Samaritans in Nablus have had to specifically request Israeli citizenship. They did not automatically become citizens. >But these are just some laws and some practices. I still don't think >that racist laws are the major basis for the legitimacy of the state >of Israel. Its legitimacy is still based on an anti-racist Zionist movement >dispersed throughout the world, on the Jewish diaspora. What worries >me is that as Israel gets its own identity and moves on its own >political track, as it's starting to do today, that track will be >based on the Likud right-wing resentment-based scapegoating racist >dynamic. >If that movement takes over, Israel will be Zionist no more. And >it will be racist. And what it might become is being foreshadowed by >what is happening on the West Bank today. Personally, you still have not explained to me why Israelis should worry about the feelings or political rights of former persecutors who explicitly state a desire to become current persecutors.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (11/30/85)
>You tie too much to the racist being a member of a >powerful group. For instance, if a white refuses to do business with blacks >because "they'll cheat you every time," then your definition would make that >white racist. On the other hand, if a black refused to do business with >blacks for the same reason, then this black isn't racist; at least not by >your definitions. I think we spoil a useful term if we blur the distinction between racism and prejudice or bigotry. Some time ago I posted a number of definitions of racism from dictionaries and encyclopedias, and the general idea seemed to be that racism is an ideology or belief-system which holds that an ethnic group is innately inferior, intellectually and/or morally, to one's own, and which has the function of justifying keeping this group in a subordinate position in society. Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites in their [subordinate] place." Prejudice is perhaps a universal phenomenon in human history, but racism is perhaps a phenomenon of modern history. It arose as a result of the domination of black peoples through enslavement and colonialism. We tend to forget that racist views were considered respectable (among whites) in the 19th century and before. How else could such an enlightened man as Jefferson have been a slaveowner? Racism, then, is not just a disposition to prejudge people by their color or ethnicity -- it also includes an ideological component (the supposed innate inferiority of the group, their having smaller brains, a "backward" culture, etc.) to lend intellectual and moral respectability to domination. Suggested reading: the article on "Racism" in the *Encylopedia of Philosophy*. About anti-Semitism: Blacks are looked down on because they are supposedly inferior, but they are tolerated or even liked as long as they "stay in their place." Jews are hated because they are *different*. Jews have a strong group identity and resist assimilation into the prevailing culture, and this strong and opposed identity is perceived as a threat by a person whose own sense of identity and integration is weak and who derives security from having everyone else think like himself (a certain individual, no longer posting to net.politics, is a good example). The extreme response to this is to try to get rid of the Jews, and I think this psychological dynamic may be the root of the persecution of Jews, at least in modern Europe. The Arab-Israeli conflict, however, seems to have different origins. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (12/02/85)
In article <260@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't >trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is >prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because >his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites >in their [subordinate] place." I am not so sure that it is clear cut who is in the subordinate place here. The Whites may have economic superiority, but I know Blacks who claim spiritual/moral superiority. I know what you mean, but I am not all that sure that the distinction you are trying to make is a useful distinction. The one that *I* make is that racism is organised prejudice. Bigots who sit at home are prejudiced, but bigots who get together with other bigots to promote bigotry are racist. I have my own theory (which probably is not original with me, but I have no idea where I got it) on racism and prejudice. People walk around with a great load of frustration and hatred. We are singularily untaught how to deal with this. The general view seems to be the one of the ostrich -- we are all supposed to be sweetness and light and reason, so let us ignore any way in which we are not. This is hardly useful. There are, however, a few socially condoned ways to vent your spleen, and one of them is through prejudice. It is astonishing to notice how many people who ``ought to know better'' who use this same release. You get Blacks who are as prejudiced against Whites as they claim Whites have been to them, and feminists who are thoroughly anti-men, and Gays who are utterly intolerant of bisexuals. You would think that these people would have developed compassion though their suffering, but no ... what they have is an unbareable load of anger and frustration -- and they dump it in the way that they claim to have been dumped upon. I'm not so sure what can be done about it. Admitting that there is a lot of hatred and anger around, and that we need to do something about it cannot hurt. I would be interested in what any Jewish people have to say about it. I have lived in a great many Jewish neighbourhoods and have heard stories that would curl your hair about centuries of oppression. Ihave known a good many jerks who were Jews, but wherever I go I find Jewish people working in their communities and being very, very good neighbours. Somehow, amidst all the anti-semitism, a lot of Jews have managed to avoid hating others as we have been hated (or at least are very specific about who they hate and don't spread it around indiscriminately) I suspect that if I had been an Arab I would not have as good a set of memories about Jewish neighbourhoods. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (12/03/85)
>> Since the Jews are not a racially defined group, then what >> does this kind of discrimination have to do with _RACISM_? Tony Wuersch writes: >But I also don't restrict racism to color differences. >To my sense (ignoring the corrupted rhetoric), racism is a pathological >relationship between members of a powerful ethnic (or religious) group >and members of a less powerful group, such that all the powerful ethnic group >needs to know about a member of that minority group is that he or she >is a member of that group, AND the member of the powerful ethnic group >assumes that the member of the less powerful group is an inferior. What you describe is NOT RACISM, but a rather ETHNOCENTRISM, a more general catagory containing racism as merely one special case. Racial discrimination is that form of ethnocentrism that is based upon inheritable PHYSICAL characteristics (either real or imagined). Ethnocentrism can take many NON-racist (but also objectionble) forms, such as religious discrimination, discrimination based on language or national origin, etc. Racism is merely one special case of ethnocentrism. We trace the ancestry of both Jews and Arabs to the patriarch Abraham. Zionists consider Jews and Arabs are to be racially identical. The differences between Jews and Arabs stem not from race, but rather from religious, linguistic, and cultural differences -- especially religious. Even if we were to imagine that Kahane's radical anti-arabism were representative of Zionism (and it is not), Zionism STILL would NOT be a racist movement. Those who claim that "Zionism is racism" demonstrate at best a confusion of the issues, and at worst, a willingness to lie shamelessly. In either case, their words have no credibility, and may be ignored as ignorant rabble rousing. Frank Silbermann
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (12/12/85)
In article <298@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >In article <260@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >>Thus if an American black says, "All honkies are alike. You can't >>trust them -- they'll get you every time," his statement is >>prejudiced and bigoted, but not racist, properly speaking, because >>his views are not part of an ideology which justifies "keeping whites >>in their [subordinate] place." > >I am not so sure that it is clear cut who is in the subordinate place >here. The Whites may have economic superiority, but I know Blacks who >claim spiritual/moral superiority. I'm not sure I understand Laura here. In general, it's not valid to go from "I'm better on this scale and you're better on that scale" to the inference "Well therefore we must be equal." To me, racism is mostly restricted to a political and economic (organizational if you want to call it that, since that combines both) domain. Unless we really want to get picky about cultural-religious connections, I'd rather leave spiritual/moral superiority out of it. Especially since "racism" as it's commonly used happens to be an almost entirely Christian disease. In Christian eschatology, spiritual/moral superiority usually goes to the politically and economically poor, so it's no argument against the presence of a racist relationship that the victims happen to be Christian. (this is just a logical inference, no offense meant) >I know what you mean, but I am >not all that sure that the distinction you are trying to make is a >useful distinction. The one that *I* make is that racism is organised >prejudice. Bigots who sit at home are prejudiced, but bigots who get >together with other bigots to promote bigotry are racist. Not enough. Organizations have to plug into other organizations or a political system. If an organized prejudicial organization plugs into a set of favorable environmental relationships with a state or with other groups, then it deserves the word racist. If it doesn't, I'd just keep the word prejudiced. An academic example of a group that might fit Laura's definition but not mine would be a group that organizes prejudice towards eye color (blue-eyes or brown-eyes). I think it's this sense of being "plugged in" and the possibility of being plugged in, and the knowledge of how to plug in, that constitutes ideology. At least that would be my definition of ideology -- I prefer avoid the word. >I have my own theory (which probably is not original with me, but I >have no idea where I got it) on racism and prejudice. People walk >around with a great load of frustration and hatred. We are singularily >untaught how to deal with this. The general view seems to be the one of >the ostrich -- we are all supposed to be sweetness and light and reason, >so let us ignore any way in which we are not. This is hardly useful. > >There are, however, a few socially condoned ways to vent your spleen, and >one of them is through prejudice. Maybe Laura is saying you need your prejudices socially condoned, which is much closer to what I'm claiming (her "socially condoned" is my "plugging in" -- but not quite). But the social condonence of prejudice widely varys between different cultural environments. In my experience, for instance: I grew up in a strongly Portuguese city where expressing even vaguely anti-Portuguese sentiments in a public arena (like high school) could get you beaten up fast. No social condonance for prejudice against Portuguese there. Another example: in German-speaking Switzerland, expressing a liking for Wagner gets a barrage of questions demanding that one clarify that one's not a Nazi. The usual "solution" to racism in these cases is to place fire breaks around prejudice, so that a flame cannot become a fire. With an awareness that were those fire breaks not there, the flame might become a fire. For me that means stopping organized prejudice from catching on, which is not the same as suppressing organized prejudice. And I wholly approve of this. I think that's a pragmatic and effective solution. >It is astonishing to notice how many >people who ``ought to know better'' who use this same release. You get >Blacks who are as prejudiced against Whites as they claim Whites have >been to them, and feminists who are thoroughly anti-men, and Gays who >are utterly intolerant of bisexuals. You would think that these people >would have developed compassion though their suffering, but no ... what >they have is an unbareable load of anger and frustration -- and they >dump it in the way that they claim to have been dumped upon. What does compassion have to do with it? And why, if you do, do you reach out and have compassion for them? Maybe because this society values personal understanding above social harmony and justice. The problem with that is it lets people with less compassion use people who have more. Seeing THAT leads to a decline in the compassion of the rest of us. Anger and frustration become unbearable because people with it may be able to find forums where they can let it out and use it for their own vengeful or emotional purposes. If those forums didn't exist or weren't permitted to exist, or if they existed weren't permitted to spread beyond a certain size, and if others didn't express sympathy or empathy for such anger and frustration, people wouldn't store it up, because there'd be no opportunity to vent it effectively. It would just go away and people would go on to new things. Unfortunately, this society again is one which encourages people to dream they can do anything they want. It encourages anomic, disconnected people to actively search for places where their worst dreams can be realized. And it says those places should be available in the name of freedom of choice. And it has very few resources for stopping the spread of organized prejudice. And organized prejudice in the form of slavery was a big part of its history. Then flames are bound to become fires. Often, with unpredictable, sometimes uncontrollable consequences. >I'm not so sure what can be done about it. Admitting that there is a >lot of hatred and anger around, and that we need to do something about it >cannot hurt. I would be interested in what any Jewish people have to >say about it. As I've said, although I appreciate and admire people with great compassion, compassion is not what this issue calls for. Quite the contrary. Substituting "realism", a sense that the world is real and changing it works in strange ways and takes work to achieve, for "compassion" might be better. It's useful to know what someone feels to the extent that one can respond to it, without letting a compassionate attempt to understand it cloud one's judgment. Withholding compassion when you normally give it out freely is a very powerful way to express your beliefs about an issue. Compassion should be a gift, not a reflex. I know that's very tough for some of us who depend on positive communication with others on a regular basis. Me, for instance. >I have lived in a great many Jewish neighbourhoods and >have heard stories that would curl your hair about centuries of oppression. >Ihave known a good many jerks who were Jews, but wherever I go I find >Jewish people working in their communities and being very, very good >neighbours. Somehow, amidst all the anti-semitism, a lot of Jews have >managed to avoid hating others as we have been hated (or at least are >very specific about who they hate and don't spread it around indiscriminately) >I suspect that if I had been an Arab I would not have as good a set of >memories about Jewish neighbourhoods. > >-- >Laura Creighton >sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) >l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw