| Subject: Re: fundamentalism is scary |
Author:
Raisinmom
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 16:56:16 07/15/02 Mon
In reply to:
Astrid
's message, "Re: fundamentalism is scary" on 13:03:08 07/15/02 Mon
Have we driven everyone away, Astrid?
> There is a theory that the more SUCCESSFUL women are
>in the public sphere, the more ridiculous their
>fashion becomes (higher heels, shorter skirts, etc.)
Hm, that's very interesting. Perhaps an attempt to disguise the success in a traditionally male sphere ("No, really, I'm a woman") or make that success more palatable to men? I'm not sure whether I agree, but it's interesting to ponder. Do you know any books on the subject?
>Interesting--so you see the primary objection of
>anti-Semites to be both a sameness and a differentness
>that causes people to view Jews as interlopers of
>sorts in society. So while other ethnic groups are
>mistreated because of a sense of "otherness" (as well
>as all the hatred that fuels bigotry), Jews have that
>but also the concern that they are actually
>infiltrating dominant culture without the knowledge of
>the dominant people.
Well put. The Nazis were very freaked out about the infiltration aspect in particular, as were Southern whites who passed laws prohibiting intermarriage between blacks and whites. It's an interesting parallel. I would also add that there seems to be some sort of conspiracy-theory stuff that goes along with a lot of anti-Semitism (you know, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Freemasons, etc.) that I think is probably related to the infiltration/"passing" aspect.
>Does Arab hatred stem from other than the conflict in
>Israel? I had once thought it was an ancient
>conflict, but apparently Muslims and Jews coexisted
>quite well in the past (and it was the Christians who
>caused most of the conflict in the region).
Sigh, I don't know. I don't think Arabs, or anyone else, are programmed to hate, nor do I think Jews are inherently despicable. So there must be a root to all this animosity (on both sides). I don't know enough about Islam to know whether Jews are burdened with the same sort of baggage as in Christianity (ie, viewed as having killed Jesus), but my admittedly vague sense of the Koran is that it does not single out Jews. I'm trying to look into the history of this right now. I welcome your thoughts.
>So would you say then that there are two different
>anti-Semitic movements in Europe? One fueled by the
>traditional skinhead racist groups (perhaps being
>opportunistic because of recent events) and the other
>fueled by Arab anti-Israeli sentiment?
At least two; there may be others with their own agendas. But yes, and I don't think the two you've mentioned mingle much. Your basic racist skinhead doesn't subscribe to the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory, and would not particularly welcome Arab comrades.
>I don't presume that Malkovich is representative of
>Jewish thought (I am not even sure if he himself is
>Jewish, I hadn't assumed that he was because it
>doesn't matter--plenty of WASPs have expressed similar
>distaste for Fisk, too).
Thanks for the link -- I will check it out. Seems like an odd choice of who to fight to the death...is Malkovich living in the UK or something? Anyway, I thank you and will look at it.
> I just find the idea that
>someone wants to SHOOT a journalist for printing his
>views (which again, I feel are objectively NOT
>racially motivated) horrifying.
I completely agree.
> And an indicator that
>this issue is highly charged, obviously. I've been
>slogging through rantings on both sides of the issue
>for months now, and it's the most depressing issue
>imagineable, because I don't see a glimmer of hope
>that I'll live to see any sane resolution.
Sadly, I agree here too.
>I'm not trying to imply that all pro-Israelis are
>foaming at the mouth. I just see this as a
>tremendously volatile issue where it can be dangerous
>to present even legitimate criticism. And I think
>that the mood is such where even legitimate criticism
>is being viewed with suspicion. I'm not condemning
>this, I am trying to understand it.
I am sorry for misunderstanding. I agree that in such a climate, having debate -- real, opinion-changing debate -- is very tricky.
>No, and most people in the world live under the thumb
>of dictators and corrupt government. I have sympathy
>for all of these people. I disagree strongly with the
>entire idea of suicide bombing, just as I do with any
>form of terrorism, but when I put myself in their
>shoes, I find myself understanding it (just as I can
>understand how Israelis can support a Sharon in
>dealing with such terrorism).
Well, I was with you up until the end. I cannot understand suicide bombing, even with all the factors you list. I could understand hard negotiation; refusal to trade; leverage of international pressure; or military action by the Palestinians. But I cannot, cannot, "understand" targeting civilians. I just do not agree that the Palestinians are so otherwise powerless, so completely without alternatives, that this is in any way an acceptable or even comprehensible tactic.
>I believe they are oppressed by Israel, absolutely.
>They are not allowed to move freely or even progress
>freely beyond checkpoints, they are mistreated by
>soldiers and even murdered in some cases (to what
>extent I do not know because one side says it's
>rampant and the other says it's isolated incidents),
>and then you have Israelis building settlements in the
>occupied territories with the blessing of the
>government.
Yes, all of these things occur. But there is a war on, which makes none of it good or wise but much of it (save the settlements, which I'll return to) "understandable." Now as for the settlements, that is a sticky point. I think the only solution is for the occupied territories to go back to Palestine; I truly see no other way to even approach peace. It was folly on the part of the settlers and government to try to stake that claim through the ever-expanding settlements. (In fairness, Israel won that land after a war it did not start, and there is a grain of reason in saying that Israel should be able to keep it as spoils of war. But I think this is not an acceptable rule for the world today; borders should not be changed by conquest any more.)
>Now, you can argue that some of this is of their own
>making, but to be fair, the Palestinians were
>dispossessed because they didn't want to share a land
>they saw as theirs. It isn't like they invaded a
>country and tried to displace the Jews--they saw the
>increasing Jewish population as threatening to their
>way of life and fought back. So you have two
>populations fighting over one small country, and one
>group emerges victorious over the other, and dominates
>the other. So of course the victorious group is
>oppressing the dominated group--you can't argue that
>they are sharing power.
I don't really think this is an accurate portrayal of what happened in the late 1940s. First, it's not as if the Jews came and displaced the Palestinians either: the land belonged to Britain, and the Jews were made welcome there by a guilty England. As the number of Jews in the area increased, so did the tensions, and Britain threw up its hands and begged the UN to decide what to do. It was the UN that created Israel with the intention of it coexisting with Palestine. And it was the Arabs who refused this plan completely, irrationally, and instead massed for attack (and a great many fled their homes in Israel). Second, you have no criticism of the Palestinians seeing increasing numbers of Jews as a threat to their way of life and thus "fighting back" (despite the fact that the Jews there were busily engaged in making the arid land fertile and starting kibbutzes)? Sorry, but I do not find this to be an acceptable way of dealing with xenophobia or whatever.
>Ok, I don't see him as anti-Israel, which to me would
>indicate that Fisk thinks Israel has no right to
>exist.
Maybe we have a definitional problem, then -- I think the article was reflexively critical of Israel while ignoring worthy counterarguments. That, to me, is anti-Israel. I don't think one needs to think Israel has no right to exist to qualify as anti-Israel for me. So perhaps we are just talking about two different definitions.
>The fact is, the
>mainstream media tends to be biased in favour of
>Israel's position. Perhaps this is because it is the
>most legitimate position. But when we hear those
>dominant voices we don't get the opportunity to
>consider other POVs.
I assume you mean Western media? (Again, I urge you to check out memri.org for a window onto the Arab press.) I think that the American media tends to support Israel; not so sure I agree about European media, and of course Arab media is strongly biased against Israel. I haven't any idea about the Asian media -- do you know anything about this? It would be interesting to hear what the Japanese make of the situation.
>I see Fisk as almost playing the role of devil's
>advocate. I would suggest that ultimately he just
>wants to see peaceful coexistance the same way most
>people do.
Well, I agree someone needs to ask the hard questions and play devil's advocate.
>Here in Canada, where we are truly free, we feel
>resentment toward the influence and domination of the
>US. Maybe that also makes us sympathetic to some
>extent with the Palestinian cause--if we can feel
>oppressed culturally when we are in reality as free as
>a nation has ever been, how difficult must it be to
>have no political voice, no self-determination, etc?
That is a very interesting comment, and I think you're probably absolutely right. I have a feeling the French may feel the same way, especially given their longstanding love-hate relationship with US culture. Can you expand on how Canada feels culturally oppressed, btw? I am sorry if it's an idiotic question (which I guess illustrates the oppressors' blindness, anyway). I'm piqued by this. Is it more than the usual insidious spread of McDonald's and Brittney Spears? And you said you thought the link to anti-Americanism would be different in Europe; how do you think it's different?
BTW, a little levity (I hope): Canadians are doing an excellent job of "infiltrating," to use the term we were using above, the US entertainment industry, no? Peter Jennings, Mike Myers, Alanis Morissette...there are lots and lots, aren't there? What is it about Canada that leads to that exquisitely dry wit?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 