| Subject: Re: fundamentalism is scary |
Author:
Astrid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 00:31:12 07/16/02 Tue
In reply to:
Raisinmom
's message, "Re: fundamentalism is scary" on 16:56:16 07/15/02 Mon
>Have we driven everyone away, Astrid?
It would appear so!
>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?
Not specifically. I first came across the idea in my evolutionary psych courses (and it was something my prof presented--he did work on anorexia, and he rejected the idea of blaming it on fashion magazines or the patriarchy, and this was part of his argument). But I just read about it again in a book I'm reading called _Breasts: The Women's Perspective on an American Obsession_.
>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.
Well, as I say, all I've read (admittedly not a ton) indicates that typically Islamic rule was very inclusive of other faiths (in stark contrast to bin Laden's viewpoint). But I haven't read any history of Palestine prior to this century.
>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.
This is my thinking, too. So predominantly, then, the increase in intolerance in Europe is being blamed on anti-Israeli demonstrations that usually are rooted in support for Palestinians? Or people just don't know?
>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 doubt he's living there--I gather that his "death threat" could cause him to be barred from entering England in the future.
>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 don't equate understanding with support or condoning.
To use an analogy, black men in the US are in crisis, particularly those in the inner cities. They have little hope of succeeding in America, given the conditions many are raised in (by single parents or extended family, in poverty, without adequate education, experiencing racism constantly, etc.) It is little wonder that so many turn to gangs as microcosms in which to "succeed". I understand that. I don't support gangs, however. I think that those who commit gang crimes should be dealth with by the justice system. Etcetera.
But I understand it.
And I do think that Palestinians have other options, but when a child is raised with hatred, raised to curse an entire people, raised to believe that their family home is worth fighting for (and I understand that many of these families still dream of returning to their properties, fifty years later), raised to believe that their god commands them to fight... I don't agree with the result, but I understand it.
I think that until each side understands the other (not condones, not even necessarily forgives, but comprehends the anger of the other), we'll get nowhere.
>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."
Sure, it's understandable also. But it's also clearly oppression. :-)
>I don't really think this is an accurate portrayal of
>what happened in the late 1940s.
I was actually describing the tensions that arose prior to the creation of the state of Israel--the origins of the conflict seem to really ferment in the 1930s as Europeans escaped persecution.
First, it's not as
>if the Jews came and displaced the Palestinians
>either
No, but they changed the makeup of the population simply by coming. The Palestinians felt that their way of life was threatened (as does any dominant group as it begins to see its own numbers apparently shrinking--this is the root of most white supremacy talk, or at least what they claim is their motivation.)
>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).
I understand this. I think more were displaced in 1967, but I could be wrong.
But that doesn't change my point--that Palestinians saw themselves defending their way of life much like Israel currently seeks to defend itself. The difference, as you would point out, is that Jews weren't arming themselves against Palestinian citizens.
>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.
I would criticise this--but it's a bit more than just xenophobia. It's the right of a people to self-determination. And you are quite right to suggest that ultimately it was France and Britain that were responsible for the tensions that arose in the Middle East after the war (France in Lebanon, for example).
>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.
Well, he was condemning others for being reflexively pro-Israel, so perhaps that why you got that sense. ;-)
Truthfully, wasn't he criticising different power structures which are manufacturing truth rather than trying to accurately present it in the media?
>I assume you mean Western media?
Yes, sorry... actually, more specifically, our media.
>>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.
No, although I would guess that Japanese people would be supportive of Israel.
>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).
Well, let me see if I can give some examples. Growing up, I knew as much (or more) about New York City as I did about Vancouver (a city in my own province). Sesame Street was the prototype for what a city was, to me.
I knew who the first American president was before I knew who the first Canadian prime minister was.
I knew more about the US prairie (as in Little House) than I did about the Canadian prairie.
It's just a sense of being immersed in American culture without the benefit of having an American identity.
Then there are the additional oppressions--economic (see softwood lumber as a recent example), political (I believe, for example, that Canada hasn't decriminalised marijuana solely because the US won't "allow" us to), etc.
There is a sense that the US is a bully--rightly or wrongly. And probably part of it all is that the US seems so insular. A very well educated, intelligent person in the US probably can't typically name the first prime minister of Canada (nor should they be able to, come to think of it--but how about the CURRENT PM? ;-) It's funny to watch how smart people who end up Jeopardy are whizzes at everything but world geography and politics.
I don't really condemn this--I tend to focus on that which affects me, too. But I think that along with being a dominant force you're going to get resentment.
>And you said you thought the link to
>anti-Americanism would be different in Europe; how do
>you think it's different?
Well, on two fronts. One, we have a hard time distinguishing ourselves from you--our entertainment is primarily American (we get your networks here), we share your language (down to the accent more or less), we share your common interests, and we even ARE you to large extent (with so much intermingling and crossing of borders historically and now that the populations have much in common). And two, we do share those common interests, so while we might love to hate you, we still love you and want you to love us.
>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?
I don't know, there have been many theories, mostly having to do with unseasonably cold weather and not much else to do but make fun of ourselves.
There are lots of comics from Canada (Siannach could help me out here if I were to try to name them)... I think to some extent we get it from our British roots (Mike Myers's parents were Scottish for example), where they also have a strange, dry sense of humour. Have you seen The League of Gentlemen?? They closely resemble Kids in the Hall, only they're even worse. ;-)
Astrid
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 