 |
New Civilization News: Prejudice |
Category: Liberty, Sovereignty 12 comments 27 Nov 2005 @ 11:01 by swanny : What about...What about Anti-Gaiaism or Anti-Earthism That effects "all" not just one race. See the Confere.... 27 Nov 2005 @ 11:41 by jazzolog : Anti-Omissionism Yeah sir swan, I've just been sitting here thinking of any groups I left out---as Lenny Bruce used to say at some point each evening. (He was apologizing to any groups he possibly hadn't insulted.) I didn't mention the vast homosexual community in whose midst I've learned so much. I feel ashamed. Anyway, is that comment spam? The link to The Confrerie is www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v288/ . Happy Earth Sunday, man! 27 Nov 2005 @ 13:05 by jerryvest : Thanks, Jazz...a very good history lesson and reminder of my times as well. 27 Nov 2005 @ 13:16 by swanny : No Spam No its not spam .... Spam is pork right... I think its turkey.... or a turkey.... hee hee spam is as spam does.... duh what was the question or or what was the insult? Ah excuse me sir could you insult me again I think I missed it the first time.... sorry.... ah so many insults... so little time.... 27 Nov 2005 @ 14:04 by jazzolog : Turkey Spam, Tofu Spam, Kosher Spam {link:http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/14521/edition_id/282/format/html/displaystory.html} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPAM and of course we have descriptions and variations, as described in Spam Haiku~~~ http://mit.edu/jync/www/spam/ingredients.html Interesting that both Jewish and Muslim dietary laws forbid Spam~~~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halaal Perhaps this blessed sharing of traditions will end all the wars. Spam to the rescue! 27 Nov 2005 @ 14:29 by swanny : TMI... TMI... T o M uch I nfo ..... Pigs eyes? Lasts 10 years....? well "we" digress.... 27 Nov 2005 @ 21:25 by Quinty @68.230.135.75 : Captivating milestones of growing up in the twentieth century. When I worked in San Francisco I had many gay friends and colleagues in the library. And I'm glad you haven't' forgotten the gays. Gay marriage will come about sooner or later. At least I hope it does. What's wrong with it? I certainly know that at one time I would have opposed the idea, thought it laughable. Like a woman being a cop. But gay people are not a passing fancy, nor do they "choose" to be gay, the way some far rightwingers seem to believe. They are with us and always will be. And if marriage will make some of them happy is there anything wrong with that? I'm sure you don't think so, Dick. What's more, I know something about gay suffering. I grew up in New York’s Greenwich Village, on 8th Street, in the heart of it all, and my friends in high school, way back in the fifties, and I were often disgusted by the brutality with which "toughs from New Jersey*" would treat gays. And recall once seeing a tough spit into the face of a drag queen thinking this was all very funny. And, of course, punching a "fag" would be fine too. This does not mean my friends and I approved of gays: we kept our distance. And in high school I would not have associated with any gay man. And, way back then, "bull dykes" were "bull dykes" and an object of scorn. I can see now why some of them may have had their hackles raised approaching me on the street from reading my face. Now I may understand. But even then I knew sexual preference really didn't matter. That what people did in bed, among consenting adults, privately, was only their business. And that no one really had a choice over the issue. But there was no such thing at that time as "gay pride." And gays remained very much within the closet. If a woman went above Fourteenth Street in the fifties wearing pants she could have been arrested for "impersonating a man." We have come a long way, and I hope we forget our mean and unimportant scruples regarding "saving the family." And allow this bit of happiness - gay marriage - to take place. Did anyone see the photos of Elton John and his partner who married a day or two ago? Case closed. Regarding "liberal anti semites" and "self hating Jews" there is Tikkun, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Haaretz for news and information on the atrocities the Sharon government have brought on the Palestinians. And Netanyahu is even worse. There is, after all, a progressive left in Israel which believes in Palestinian rights and the two state solution. That some American Jews employ anti semitism as a tool to defend rapacious activities in the Middle East, considering their history, is despicable. We seem to be slipping backward in regard to minority rights in this country. Through benign neglect, an approach I believe President Nixon first advocated. Of course, the problems of the poor have been almost entirely forgotten. Has there been any great outcry at the deep cuts the Congress recently made in social spending? Food stamps? Medicare? etc. Only the reviled left has squawked, while mainstream Democrats have remained mostly quiet. Even the middleclass is falling behind, this being the natural falling out when great power and wealth are allowed to concentrate. I think this is the true objective of the Bush administration. With an added touch of Christian fundamentalism to keep us on the moral straight and narrow. (Though they may lies us into a war they will protect us from gay marriage.) On the Iraq front have you heard that the UK and the US are negotiating with the Iraqi government to allow Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell to run the oil production show there? Naw, that's just an aside in our selfless, humanitarian efforts to bring democracy to the long suffering Iraqis. And how blessed they should feel considering we haven't even imposed democracy on those allies of ours who set them free. I think you're right. Open debate can be scouring, but it's necessary. I know the burning feeling too. *"Toughs from New Jersey?" Could that too have been a prejudice on our part? With age I hope we grow, and tolerance based upon understanding is something we should strive for. 28 Nov 2005 @ 03:43 by judih : prejudice This is my response without going through your links, jazz: it takes a wide opened mind to notice when the goosebumps start to bristle and when an unknown inner voice of suspicion begins to be heard. What makes me fear the unknown? Why do I react so strongly to those who see the world from an entirely different perspective? What is prejudice, anyway? Is it the self-made borders of "This, I won't listen to" or "that person is entirely wrong"? Is it an objective recognition that whatever that person, nation or philosophy says is utter nonsense? Is prejudice present when a group of people are judged by their customs? Example: We have Thai workers on our kibbutz. They come here to earn money and send it home. They build hothouses or work the tractors in our fields (alongside Israelis) and choose to live separately. This group of people has no intention of assimilating into kibbutz society. They cook separately, live separately and stick together. They've been here barely 2 years. Well, what's it gonna be? Can earthy, political communal Israelis open their houses to those who live as males separated from their wives and children? Can a relatively homogeneous community embrace an entirely different culture? What stops most of our community from interacting except during work hours? We live different mindsets. We're very separate. These factors create division. Yet is there prejudice? Is there a pre-conceived decision to avoid interaction? Is there fear? Some are mixing. Musicians are playing together. Art always tends to speak when language can't. Heal prejudice by art. A new project? Very interesting post, Jazz. Fascinating bio, as well. I quite identify even though my fill-in-the-blanks are different. But still, all of us have been raised within a culture of some sort. We're all faced with a need to clean out inbred bias. It's part of this lab-work called life. 28 Nov 2005 @ 10:04 by jazzolog : Shifting Gears not that we were just coasting with our little diversion into Spam and all that. I'm glad things started out on a lighthearted note with such a topic. Paul's comments about gays are appreciated. Of course the suffering that was endured...and sometimes not survived...got even worse. Until recently nearly everyone I know had been touched by the death of a friend from AIDS, sometimes contracted in homosexual relationship. Here was and continues prejudice at its worst. Reagan refused to acknowledge this plague because he thought it was a gay disease (and what if that were true? do nothing?), refused to listen to contrary arguments...and 2 of my closest friends, a couple in relationship 20 years, had to die because of his delay. Getting back to Paul, if you're looking for a calendar or 2 for 2006, Quinty is offering a couple at his site featuring his father's extraordinary art http://www.lqart.org/ . Just scroll down briefly there for more information. And speaking of the honor of receiving such great comments yesterday, I want to refer you to this beautiful description of Judih at one of the many sites where you can bask in her splendid poetry~~~ "poet & artist judih haggai lives in kibbutz nir oz in israel. i first became aware of her wonderous work on the action-poetry forum that is a such an integral part of the web site www.litkicks.com. judih's poems are by turns playful, spiritual, humorous, erotic & surreal, characterized by sweet puns & dueling wordplay, his and her's psychic sacrifice, & dominated by a cosmic feminine goddess instinct. judih is spontaneous light, god-mother & angel overseer to many of the poets that post on litkicks. i'm pleased to share with you this collection of 25 poems from her voluminous body of work." Which MarkK then does here http://www.deepcleveland.com/chap-judih.html . Finally, I'd like to share a couple of email replies I got about this essay. One was from an activist friend here in Athens and an alumna of Harvard, who identified herself as Jewish---which is a connection I hadn't thought about or made regarding her up to now. She seemed to take issue with the "troubled mind" paragraph, which I thought might draw some fire. I tried to clarify for her but she has not replied. More on the prejudiced statements contained there if she responds...or if another comment comes along about them. The other comment came from an online friend I thought still was in London, but he says he's moved to Cape Town. (Watch out Ashanti!) I've written about Lionel Snell before...and how he originally popped up, through the marvel of Google, at an article I wrote 3 years ago http://www.upsaid.com/jazzolog/index.php?action=viewcom&id=26 . He writes occasionally, and even sometimes sends astonishing books. Here's (edited) what he had to say yesterday~~~ "Your piece on prejudice reminded me of something I published a while back. I append it here. Also a short extract from my more recent Little Book of Demons because it relates to the anti-Semitism bit. "PREJUDICE "Another big topic of this year concerns the rise of neo-nazi racist gangs as a symptom of a more general upsurge of softer forms of racism. "After all the previous talk of morality I feel like suggesting we give morality a rest and talk tactics for a while. "Imagine that you were Prime Minister of England and that you really wanted to declare war on France - how would you bring public opinion onto your side? "I suggest that the easy, but dangerous, way would be to start a big anti 'European' campaign. It would be easy to trade on current fears about losing our identity in Europe, and recent anti Common Market feelings, and all this could be turned towards mobilising the country for a war on France. "The danger in this easy approach is that naming 'Europe' as the initial enemy could in fact invoke the whole of Europe against us. Although it might be a bit harder to focus public rage on the land of claret, Boursin and Peugeot cars, at least it might be possible not to estrange other potential allies in the process. By naming 'France', instead of Europe, as the enemy we might even get the rest of Europe onto our side. "Here is my analogy. I feel upset when I hear about violent racial attacks and I want to declare war on this activity. The temptation is to name the enemy as 'prejudice' because everyone hates prejudice and will be quick to rally to the call. But I suspect that prejudice is actually a natural state, it is an almost universal quality.... "The demon effectively bought Bush by offering mutually advantageous terms. He, in return, boosted Al Quaeda by recruiting most of the world’s population into its ranks with the words 'if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists'. Take myself as example: I had not voted for Bush because I am not American, I live in Britain and had no interest in his politics. So in no sense was I with him. He then insists that I am therefore his enemy and a supporter of Al Quaeda, and I resent that. Unfortunately I’ve no contact with bin Laden, so have not been in a position to hand in my resignation from his organisation, nor do I know what the status is of people like me who have been volunteered into Al Quaeda’s ranks by President Bush - I’ve not received any further instructions or official papers. The example is growing tedious, but it illustrates the way that demons grow stronger when attacked according to their own terms. "There is another recent example that harks back to the Hitler demon. I heard a woman on BBC radio speaking angrily about the resurgence of anti-semitism in Europe. It turned out that she was not referring to skinhead gangs so much as to media pundits diasapproving of the policies and activities of Sharon’s government against the Palestinians. Now antisemitism is a powerful demon in the West, and her invoking the support of this demon to her cause had got her onto prime time radio and was certainly triggering debate – but at what cost? "The price she was paying was to make antisemitism respectable by association. Whereas for people of my generation antisemitism evokes images of neo-nazis, skinhead thugs and violence on the streets leading to the horrors of Hitler’s final solution, her message was that antisemitism simply means disagreeing with the policies of the present government of Israel. As with Bush’s declaration on Al Quaeda, myself and a majority of reasonable people including many Jews and even citizens of Israel had thereby been re-labelled as anti-semitic and were thereby forced to re-evaluate the word. The label ceases to describe a demon to be feared as it becomes more a mark of tolerance and decency uniting a vaste swathe of human classes and persuasions. "The only good thing to be said for that woman’s efforts is that they have not been very successful." The following is a rather sensible piece of biodata on Mr. Snell~~~ "Lionel Snell is a communications consultant who also maintains a lifelong interest in occultism and the relationship between rationalism and magic. He was plucked from an obscure corner of the Cotswolds by a series of scholarships that led to studying pure maths at Emmanuel College Cambridge, then teaching at Eton. He has also been a civil servant, an aircraft stress analyst, technical author, Waldorf class teacher, publisher and copywriter." http://www.conts.com/Astrology%20and%20MB.htm 29 Nov 2005 @ 16:55 by Quinty @68.230.135.75 : The charge of anti-semitism is merely a way of enforcing conformity and quieting dissent. For no decent person, following the holocaust, wants to be described as an anti-semite by a Jew. This has been a most effective and successful tactic here in the United States, and for those who are Jews there is the even more absurd tar of being "a self hating Jew." Here's something from Israel. There is a progressive left there which doesn't agree with Likud or the fundamentalist. And from a progressive point of view the following is an analysis of the current situation there. (For anyone interested.) Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). "Optimism of the Will" Peretz or Bust? By JEFF HALPER Until November 10, my prognosis of the progress of apartheid in Israel/Palestine was right on track. Sharon was on a tight time- table. With a stable government that would last until the elections in November 2006, he would move quickly to nail down the last elements of his life's work: determining Israel's final borders (marked by the settlements and the route of the "Separation Barrier" to the west and by the Jordan River and Dead Sea to the east) and confining the Palestinians to a truncated mini-state comprised of five or so cantons with no unsupervised borders. This would have to be done unilaterally, since Israel has absolutely nothing to offer the Palestinians that they could conceivably accept. Sharon had completed his 28-year project of establishing irreversible "facts on the ground" in the West Bank and "greater" Jerusalem. He enjoyed the support of the Bush administration and, even more important, of both parties of both houses of Congress which, in June, 2004, endorsed almost unanimously the Bush- Sharon exchange of letters that recognized Israel's de facto annexation of its major settlement blocs. The Road Map, the only diplomatic initiative that could have salvaged the two-state solution, had become a dead letter. Within six months, I predicted, apartheid would be a done deal. Israel would officially expand to 85-90% of the country west of the Jordan, the Palestinians would be granted their cantonized (Sharon's term) state on the remaining 10-15% and Israel's version of the "two-state solution," shared by Likud and Labour alike, would come to fruition. Sharon could retire to his farm, having no more reason to run for a third term. The election of Amir Peretz to head to the Labour Party changed the time-table; it remains to be seen whether it will really alter the prognosis. Not because of Peretz himself. I have no doubt that he understands the importance of a just peace for everyone concerned, the working classes of Israel first and foremost. His stated desire to resolve the conflict stems not only from a commitment to peace with the Palestinians, but arises from an understanding that the resources, distorted priorities and social polarization demanded by the Occupation cannot be reconciled with social and economic justice. "I have no intention," he stated in an interview for the Hebrew newspaper Yediot Akhronot on November 18, "of continuing the mad and fanciful campaign of massive investment in the settlements, of constructing thousands of housing units that will remain empty and highways that no one travels on, only later to have to invest additional billions to demolish them as happened with the disengagement. For years the fanciful dream of the Greater Land of Israel drained all the budgets that could have been used to close the social gaps, for health, for education, for welfare, for culture, for infrastructure. I will tell the residents of Yeruham and Kiryat Shmonei [two depressed towns in the Israeli "periphery"] that the heart-rendering drama they witnessed in Gush Katif [in Gaza, during the disengagement] when the bulldozers demolished the villas with their red-tile roofs that buried their educational and health budgets ended the era of the settlements." This is a message the Israeli peace camp has long tried to convey to the working classes. Coming from Peretz it might actually be received and make a difference. Peretz's election has generated great hope among many Israelis of all persuasions who have had to hunker down in sullenness over the past decade. One overriding question is, however, if Peretz is too good to be true. He is a breath of fresh air but in a party reeking of putrification. Labour has long ceased to be an alternative to the Likud; Peretz had to pry the Labour ministers out of their ministerial chairs by personally presenting them with letters of resignation they had only to sign. Peres may yet join Sharon's party, as has another senior Labour MP, Haim Ramon, (although Peres' family seems to be prevailing upon him not to). Top-heavy with "centrist" generals, Labour could still do to Peretz what it did to one of their own, Amram Mitzna: leave him isolated so that he loses the election and "returns" the party to them. Already one of the so-called "peace generals," Ami Ayalon, has taken upon himself the task of fashioning an "acceptable" Peretz: shedding the image of a "leftist" and avoiding complimentary comments on the Oslo process or the Geneva Accord ("I am not Geneva!" Peretz shouted repeatedly from the platform at a recent Labour meeting). In a depressing appearance on TV, Ayalon said that Labour- Peretz would insist on Israel retaining the West Bank and East Jerusalem settlement blocs and would never agree to "a single Palestinian returning to Israel proper." Whether he can retain the integrity of his ideas within his own party remains to be seen. The up-coming election in late March is presented as a three way one pitting the left (Peretz) against the center (Sharon) and the right (Netanyahu). But it is actually a two-way race. Peretz, who can truly be called a candidate of the left in both his progressive social views and his commitment to a just peace with Palestinians, is pitted unevenly against an array of three right-wing forces: Netanyahu's Likud which rejects any Palestinian state whatsoever; Sharon's new "center" party which appears to favor a two-state solution but which in fact is heading for unilateral apartheid; and a Labour Party more or less in step with Sharon. Even if Peretz prevails in the election (which is possible, despite initial polls which give Sharon a 37% to 22% lead), he faces daunting challenges. He has many fewer coalition partners than does the right. So even if he increases Labour's share of the seats of Parliament from the present 22 to 30 (or even 35, out of 120), he is left with only tiny Meretz (maybe 5-6 seats) as a partner and perhaps an Arab party or two, making it doubtful if he can put together a government. (Rabin's government, we should recall, suffered delegitimization because it lacked a "Jewish majority.") Sharon and Netanyahu, by contrast, will likely garner more seats separately than the Likud has today (up to 45: 30 for Sharon and 15 for the Likud), and their coalition partners extend from the secular middle-class party Shinui through the ultra-orthodox Sephardi party Shas and into coalition of extreme right-wing factions. Thus with some fence-mending and finessing between secular and religious parties, the right could probably form a government. In fact, Peretz is already under pressure from his Labour colleagues not to close the door on future coalitions with the right - a bad sign. It's hard to decide if the biggest threat to Peretz is the right-wing or his own erstwhile Labour Party. The danger exists that a "packaged" Peretz would lose the charm, spontaneity, sometimes brutal honesty and grassroots instincts that make him - and potentially his message and program - so attractive and different. Today's political cartoon in Ha'aretz shows Sharon, Netanyahu and Peretz all pushing against each other to be in "the center." Can he prevail over the system? It is doubtful, if only because of Israel's proportional system of elections which disenfranchises voters and empowers political parties to form coalition governments that frustrate, at times even defy, the public will. Prognosis? Gramsci speaks of "the pessimism of the intellect, the optimism of the will." If Peretz wins - a not totally impossible proposition - then the forces of peace still have a fighting chance to stave off apartheid and reach an acceptable, if not wholly just, two- state solution with the Palestinians. If Peretz loses or fails to form a stable government, Sharon's march to apartheid will have suffered only a minor snag. Sharon might even return with an enhanced mandate to impose a unilateral "peace." Just today he is quoted in Ha'aretz as telling the first meeting of his new party that his main goal would be "to lay the foundation for a peace in which we set the permanent borders of the state, while insisting on the dismantling of the terror organizations." He would offer the Palestinians "independence" while rejecting the fundamental principle of the two-state solution since 1967: land for peace. What does this mean? An expanded Israel incorporating the settlement blocs and a "greater" Jerusalem; the Palestinians locked into a truncated, non-viable, semi-sovereign Bantustan. The two-state solution will, in my view, have been dealt a death blow. At that stage the international civil society will have to reevaluate the nature of its struggle for a just peace in Israel/Palestine, shifting its efforts from a campaign to end the Occupation (which Sharon will claim he has ended by granting the Palestinians independence) to an anti-apartheid campaign. Since we have defeated one apartheid regime, the "optimism of the will" should sustain us in the dark times we may be about to enter. Peretz, indeed, or bust. Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD). He can be reached at icahd@zahav.net.il. ||||||||||||||||||| Here's the link to the Halper article~~~ http://counterpunch.org/halper11252005.html ---jazz 29 Nov 2005 @ 17:02 by rayon : Post something era for Israel for there many other diasporas these days, people evicted from their countries. The reason is not important, as potential refugees they become the same. To my mind Israelis are fighting becoming yet another diaspora. I say this because it could be that forcing countries to destablise (moving their money etc) is another way like war and bad health to increase the gross national product, increases the amount of money in circulation etc. So I believe it is wrong to cry out from the heart for the reason of AntiSemitism, this is playing into the hands of the organisations wanting to wipe out and start again, buying more items to replace the ones ground down. Zimbabwe, Israel, Kosovo. AntiSemitism places the argument elsewhere other than where the real fire burns, it is a accidental diversion tactic. But there is no discussion about forced Disapora, because the victims by definition are isolated from each other and in no mood to form social groups etc. It is another weapon aimed at bringing down - and Israel herself, has fallen for it by wiping out their own neighbourhoods for the multinationals. Does anyone else see this point? Again because of other disaporas Israel no longer gets the sympathy it had before, particularly because they cry out, well practiced over centuries, it no longer looks so good. I took my partner's Jewish name in support. I am Catholic by long heritage. I am not against Jewish people. My family were horrified. Apologies for writing so utterly badly. Can only do this in bits and pieces during the time available. I am simply trying to add new light by another perspective towards an understanding 29 Nov 2005 @ 17:08 by jazzolog : So Little Time I know the feeling Nraye, I'm on my lunchbreak myself. I wanted to add to your excellent comment however the US also squandered the sympathy and support of the world after 9/11, purely through vengeful and aggressive military action. Within a year the administration had alienated almost everybody. Now Bush visits Mongolia to thank them for the 100 soldiers they've contributed to his great alliance. I love Mongolia and its amazing culture, but Bush really looks stupid. Other entries in Liberty, Sovereignty 1 Oct 2015 @ 17:58: Anarchy vs. Psychopaths in Control 10 Apr 2008 @ 01:20: Be Peace: A Call to Awareness 30 Oct 2007 @ 05:54: Collapse of USA 27 Jul 2007 @ 21:32: New Civilizations Visions 28 Jun 2007 @ 17:25: Commonsense, Fascist Regimes and the Ego 18 Jun 2007 @ 20:37: What would Jane Eyre do? 20 Jun 2006 @ 11:12: American ??? 8 Jun 2005 @ 19:17: The Liberal Bias 14 Mar 2005 @ 10:59: U.S. Human Rights Report ... by China 21 Jul 2004 @ 23:48: FORD THEATER AND ME: Smithsonian Part 1
|
27 Nov 2005 @ 10:48, by Richard Carlson