There is a good chance that the Democrats will hold the Senate and an outside chance, against all odds, that they will hold the House. The Democrats have done quite well down ballot with the little bit of financial help we gave to the DLCC.
With only 51 senators at best, here would be little or no
chance in the next two years for the Democrats to pass progressive legislation,
even if they were by some miracle to hold onto the House. But there is a silver
lining.
Many of the provisions in the several pieces of large social
and economic legislation that the Democrats passed in the first two years of
Biden’s ministration only start to kick in January 1 or even later. Meanwhile,
there is reason to hope that in the next year and a half inflation will ease
significantly. So the Democrats should
be well positioned to win the 2024 election.
58 comments:
More good news. There is going to be a serious rupture in the Republican electorate, caused by a clash between Trump and De Santis, clearing the path for Joe Biden’s re-election.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/11/12/smr-conservative-media-comes-for-trump.cnn
This is nice: NBC just called the Nevada US senate seat for the Dems which means they still control the senate. Georgia will be gravy if Warnock wins.
Off topic.
Some experts believe that the Russian evacuation of Kherson is the turning point in Ukraine's war with Russian military forces.
However, there is a left wing American show on YouTube in which a retired American colonel believes in four weeks the Russians will orchestrate a massive counter offensive with thousands of new conscripts.
Taking a footnote out of the German winter offensive of 1944 (causing a bulge in the allied western front) Russia may invade again hoping the freezing weather, fresh troops, & EMP weapons will help them gain the initiative & turn the tide of the war.
Some who hear this may feel that anyone taking this theory seriously may have been playing too much of Chris Crawford's game Battle of the Bulge or watching too many movies.
But the truth is that Russian generals & politicians are also history readers & the top Russian general of the Russian war machine would most likely have no problem getting Putin to agree to a 2022 winter counter offensive in Ukraine.
And although the 101st Airborne Division can be sent in to defend Kiev (since it is nearby) just like it defended Bastogne in WW2, we have no Patton & his 3rd Army to turn the tide of such a conflict.
Let me further note that it would be easy for a Russian military advisor to flatter a dictator like Putin, since dictators are susceptible to being easily flattered--something Machiavelli talks about in The Prince--especially since a complete conquest of western Ukraine would be the best Christmas present Putin could ever get from one of his subordinates.
Hopefully, it won't come true & the tide has now truly turned against Putin.
For those of you who saw Dave Chappelle’s monologue on SNL last night, in which he discussed anti-Semitism, did you find it funny?
If you did not see the monologue, you can see it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-gO0HSCYk
@ Michael Llenos
If the Russian generals have read so much history and specifically military history, why did they line up their tanks in a single column on a road in the initial attack on Kiev?
Also, the 101st Airborne is not setting foot in Ukraine. Nor are any other U.S. or NATO soldiers.
@Mark Susselman in re: Dave Chappelle: watched it this morning. I'm a secular Jew, aware of Chappelle and some of his history but not especially familiar with his work (he arrived on the scene when my wife and I were trying to establish ourselves professionally and had two small children; I never caught up). On the whole I did find it funny, though I noticed that after stating that two words which should never be used together, in sequence, are "the" and "Jews", he violated his own rule more than once. It would have been better had he carefully observed this rule; he could have said "Jews" or "some Jews" or even "many Jews". "The Jews" has a very obnoxious odor, unless you want to make some statement about our history, e.g., "The Jews are associated with a particular religion though many do not practice it." Even this would sound better as "Jews are associated with a particular religion though many do not practice it."
Marcel,
I am going to wait to see if anyone else has an opinion about the monologue and I will respond to your, and other, comments later.
LFC said,
"why did they line up their tanks in a single column on a road in the initial attack on Kiev?"
Probably because it is the most efficient way to move vehicles from one point to another on a road. If they didn't move single file, it probably would of taken forever.
LFC said,
"Also, the 101st Airborne is not setting foot in Ukraine. Nor are any other U.S. or NATO soldiers."
If the Russians use a EMP weapon or a tactical nuke, or Kiev is assaulted by ground forces, the United States might very well send in their forces stationed at the border right now.
LFC said,
"why did they line up their tanks in a single column on a road in the initial attack on Kiev?"
The guided weapons used to destroy tanks, the ones used by Ukrainian infantry, I don't believe were ever used in past conflicts. The RPGs being the exception.
But the military botch happened not because the Russian generals didn't read history, but because Putin, I believe, was trying to direct the war in place of his generals.
Fools rush in, so a thought on Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue, after the disclaimers: Disc #1: I haven't watched an episode of SNL this century, including the one last night. Disc #2: I barely know who Kyrie Irving and Kanye/Ye are, though I think I got most of Chappelle's references. Disc #3: I've only seen a little of Chappelle's work. So: I thought the monologue was quite good--funny, intelligent, well-constructed, and serious. Granted, I'm a sucker for things that pillory the mental miasmas of centrist Democrats--here their self-serving box-checking moralizing, their lack of historical perspective, their hysteria at the mention of inconvenient truths, their contempt for the collective experience of oppressed peoples, their hatred of reflective inquiry in public. Since Chappelle knows that his SNL audience largely consists of such centrists who think terribly well of themselves, how can he proceed? He opens with a demonstration of what sort of mouthing of pieties counts nowadays as 'apologizing', then bookends the monologue with remarks on (at the beginning) or alluding to and exemplifying (at the end) Blacks noting, or attempting to note, something about 'the Jews'; but the core of the monologue, and the evidence of Chappelle's canny craftsmanship, is the account of the exchange on taxes during the Clinton/Trump 'debate'. Chappelle appropriates for himself something of the revelatory quality of Trump's unashamed admission of gaming the system, and the centrist audience can only gasp in recognition that their own responses are as feeble as those of Clinton and Obama. I was reminded of how both of the only contemporary comedians whose work I know well, Frankie Boyle and Stewart Lee, have insisted that their 'offensive' jokes must be seen in the context of the monologue in which they occur. Picking out 'offensive' jokes, or lines, or even words, is a major part of the liberal moralizing that they ridicule, while having to treat it as a mental habit, or at least temptation, of their audience. The monologue is of course topical (too topical for me to grasp fully), but the theme with developing variations is evidently the exploration of what crossed line does or doesn't get one 'dropped'.
Michael @2:23
I suppose that cd be the case.
Now that there have been two responses to my question regarding Dave Chappelle’s monologue on SNL last night, much of which was devoted to the issue of anti-Semitism, I will state, bluntly, what I thought. And anyone who has followed my remarks on this blog about Judaism and anti-Semitism, particularly my comment on the prior post regarding my experience in the military when I enlisted to serve in the Army Reserve, will know that I take the issue of anti-Semitism very seriously.
I suspect that Marcel, and especially John Rapko, will say that I am overly sensitive on the subject, and am over-reacting to the monologue, but I found the monologue flagrantly anti-Semitic, laced with repeated anti-Semitic tropes, and intended to give cover to Ye (formerly known as Kanye West) and Kyrie Irving for their anti-Semitic remarks. To begin with, the opening statement by Chappelle that he denounces anti-Semitism in all its forms and stands with his friends in the Jewish community, was followed by his advice to Ye, “That’s how you buy time.” Buy time? What was he saying other than the way to appease Jews is to placate them by mouthing the words opposing anti-Semitism, even if you don’t mean them. And, of course, since Jews value money more than anything else, you “buy” the approval. Sorry, John, he was not addressing centrist Democrats’ “lack of historical perspective, their hysteria at the mention of inconvenient truths, their contempt for the collective experience of oppressed peoples,” he was engaging in and endorsing anti-Semitic stereoteypes.
And it just kept getting worse after that. He knows not to use the words “the” and “Jews” consecutively, because, well, Jews don’t like it and just overreact to the expression. Anyone with any good sense knows that if you want to succeed in show business, you had best not offend “the Jews.” And then he says he has lots of Jewish friends (like I can’t be racist, because I have Black friends), but mocks the names of their holidays by asking, “What’s that holiday you call Sha-Na-Na?”
Regarding Kyrie Irving’s promotion of the movie “Hebrews To Negroes ” - a flagrantly anti-Semitic “documentary.” which includes such claims as that modern Jews are imposters who stole the religious heritage of Black people and have engaged in a “cover-up” to prevent Black people from knowing their “true” identity and amplifies longstanding anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish power, control and greed, including false claims that Jews control the media, and disputes the identity of modern Jews, claiming they are “religious converts” who descended from the Khazars and have no historical connection to the land of Israel – Chappelle defended Irving, saying “His black ass was nowhere near the Holocaust.” Well, that is not the issue. No one with any sense would claim that Blacks were responsible for the Holocaust. But Blacks who spout anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes are responsible for proliferating and endorsing the kind of hate speech which led up to and fueled the Holocaust, and Chappelle’s effort to give Irving cover, as if he has no control over what he says, is pure hogwash.
And Chappelle’s schtick is to then ridicule Herschel Walker, as if to say, “See, I am just as hard on my own people, I am an equal opportunity denigrator, so I can denigrate whatever minorities I want.” Well, No, if you want to say racist things about your fellow African-Americans, be my guest; but that does not give you a pass to denigrate other minorities – including members of the LGBQT community and transgenders whom he has mocked on his Netflix special.
So, no, John Rapko, I did not see any “canny craftsmanship” in his monologue. What I saw was a Black man getting laughs at the expense of Jews, and what I found most sickening was that the audience, among whom I would assume were some New York “woke” Jews. lapping it up, applauding and laughing. Yeah, Jews, their very funny people.
Marc,
I didn't watch the video because I have no idea who Dave Chappelle is nor what SNL stands for. I googled Chappelle and I imagine that he would refer to lots of people and events which I have no idea of and no opinion about, being totally out of touch with contemporary U.S. culture.
However, I appreciate your continued and persistent unmasking of anti-semitism in pop culture. That takes a certain intellectual courage.
I genuinely doubt that the kind of anti-semitism found in U.S. culture, as deplorable as it may be, could lead to another Holocaust, as you suggest it may.
Here's Nietzsche on German anti-semitism. Remember that Nietzsche styles himself "an anti-anti-semite":
"I have yet to meet a German who was well disposed towards Jews. And however unconditional the rejection of genuine anti-Semitism might be on the part of every prudent or political person, such prudence and politics are not really aimed at anti-Semitic sentiment in general, but instead at its dangerous excess, and especially at the outrageous and disgraceful expression of this excessive sentiment". (Beyond Good and Evil 251)
Not everyone in the U.S. is ill disposed towards Jews: some are and it's good that you, Marc, point that out.
s. wallerstein,
Thank you for your response.
Spouting anti-Semitic tropes on national television may not result in a repetition of the Holocaust. But it could inspire some resentful person, of whom there are a lot in the United States, to pick up a weapon, go to a synagogue or Jewish temple on the next Saturday morning, and open fire on its congregants, as has already happened twice in the United States in the last 5 years.
I haven't watched the monologue, but it occurs to me that doing stand-up (or sit-down) comedy now is perhaps more difficult than it has been in a while. By that I mean that several decades ago someone like Don Rickles, whose schtick was insulting everyone, including by referring to their ethnic and/or religious and/or racial background, iirc, cd go on the Tonight Show and do that and, as long as he didn't cross certain red lines (such as, say, using the N word or similar epithets for other groups), he got laughs (though I'm sure some people found him more wearing and predictable than funny).
I don't watch Saturday Night Live and don't know much of anything about Dave Chappelle and don't really follow the comedy scene, but it strikes me that the present atmosphere must be a difficult one for stand-up comics -- though the two mentioned by John R. are apparently managing to do stuff that pushes the boundaries. Stand-up always has to walk a fine line between needling and even sometimes shocking its audience, on one hand, and offending it on the other. Maybe I'll watch the monologue later this evening.
ML, just what would the 101st do in Ukraine to deal with Russian nukes likely fired from Russian territory? If Russia started using nukes, I would assume B-52s and B-2s,
https://nationalinterest.org/sites/default/files/styles/desktop__1260_/public/main_images/tavern_upload_large.jpg?itok=HLWT7NTa
https://i.insider.com/558aaa86eab8ea5b3d57802a?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp
would eliminate Russian assets in Ukraine and the Black Sea while US/NATO would be on DEFCON 2 worldwide. I'm sure that has been made clear to the relevant folks in Russia.
Prior to the war Ukraine had better operational security then Russia and had relocated many assets without the knowledge of either Russia or US/NATO intelligence. Meanwhile those nice Russians conveniently created a forty mile long shooting galley because Russia can't do logistics and tanks, etc. are high consumers of fuel, lubricants, and parts. Kill those fuel trucks and you have a parking lot. Did I mention Russia never had air superiority, can't do logistics, and sucks at organization and combined arms. It's not just Putin; there are serious problems with Russian military culture top to bottom.
Ukraine has had Javelins since 2018.
This may be of interest:
https://www.thebulwark.com/i-commanded-u-s-army-europe-heres-what-i-saw-in-the-russian-and-ukrainian-armies/
Having rushed in, the fool persists in his foolishness on Dave Chappelle's craftsmanship: Recently I re-read Bob Dylan's Chronicles: Volume One as preparation for reading the master's just-published Philosophy of Modern Song. As in the first reading, I was particularly interested by Dylan's account of how he developed his conception of a song: the identification with Guthrie + dissatisfaction with the 3-minute song + the encounter with and analysis of Brecht/Weill's 'Pirate Jenny' + Robert Johnson + Rimbaud. Part of what Dylan drew from 'Pirate Jenny' was a sharpened dissatisfaction with the short song as 'without memory', and how a longer song could create an incalculable richness through inducing the active memory of comparing and contrasting earlier and later verses, and the differing meanings and resonances among the repetitions of lines ('now ain't the time for your tears'; 'could this really be the end?'; 'how much longer? how much longer?'; 'when the night comes falling from the sky'; etc. etc.) I was reminded of this in watching and reflecting on Chappelle's monologue, and so tried to bring out his compositional structuring, and the effects it had in inducing memory and so in modulating the force of various jokes. Chappelle's structuring intelligence struck me as evident, with the center, theme, and aim that I indicated. Now of course one can think of it differently: ignore the large-scale structure, ignore the internal structure of the individual jokes, and just ask the question: is any aspect the jokes, taken one at a time and in isolation from their context, in some way, in any way whatsoever, of a piece with some anti-Semitic trope? If so, then (a) it's anti-Semitic and (b) is part of a context of action that leads to murderous attacks on Jews. Hmm.--One philosophical note: this latter way of taking it seems to me to partake of the familiar contemporary collapse of the use/mention distinction. But I really don't see how we can reflect in a sustained way on anything we can't mention.
LFC,
I had seen Don Rickles perform many times on TV, on the Johnny Carson and other late night shows. I do not recall him ever making ethnic or racial jokes. Was he insulting? Yes, but his insults were about personality traits, not, as I recall, ethnic or race jokes. Once in awhile he would poke fun at his being Jewish, but that was it.
Marc Susselman @ November 13, 2022 at 4:07 PM
My experience has been very different from yours, having lived most of my life (including most of my childhood) in and around academic communities. Had I served in the armed forces, given my age it would have been in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War: a very unattractive prospect (thought less so than a few years earlier!). So I think it likely that you have had a broader experience of Life in these United States (as the old Reader's Digest humor column put it). So do not take my comments as rejecting or denying your experience, or implying that you are overly sensitive.
My take on the opening statement (That's how you buy time) was that it was a crack at the hypocrisy of corporations. In another place and time, corporations wouldn't have given a shit about Ye or Kyrie because upper management would have judged that there would be no harm to profits or business if they ignored it (much less called attention to it). Nowadays, most of our society, certainly most of those with money to purchase the goods that advertisers for NBA games are selling would find anti-Semitism unseemly if not actually offensive (not sure who Ye's audience would be). So corporations prefer not to be associated with it. But it's not as if corporations are moral beings (legal persons though they may be, complete with religious beliefs); their management's just want to make money. I took this statement as a way of pointing that out. Perhaps too subtle.
Similarly, my take on his quip about the phrase "The Jews" was along the lines of "(waves hand at all the conspiracy theories that begin with 'the Jews')". You don't use that phrase because it makes you sound like a murderous loon (and rightly so).
As to His black ass was nowhere near the Holocaust, the next sentence was In fact, he's not even sure it exists. I thought the second line was a funny and effective dunk on Irving, but it needed a setup line, which the first sentence provided.
Other parts fell flat. I already mentioned his use of the Jews (also, less offensive "the Jewish people" though this is similar to Black people/Black folks: both are awkward coming from an outsider). You mentioned I have Jewish friends, and it is surprising hearing a Black man use that trope; I had thought it would have been retired, if not after the 50s and 60s, then after the end of All in the Family four decades ago. I didn't take Sha-na-na to be anti-Semitic; again, it struck me as an attempt to make fun of goyishe ignorance about Judaism, even one like him who grew up around Jews: but an attempt that could easily be misunderstood.
I suspect it is typical of many attempts at edgy humor; they need to be workshopped in private first before taking them on the road. I don't know anything about the current ethnic/racial makeup of the actors and writers on SNL. If Chappelle did indeed workshop much of the monologue on that crew, given that the show is shot in NYC, probably the most comfortable locale in the US for Jews both religious and secular, they likely told him "no problem". When you don't feel threatened by anti-Semitism, because you feel safe and secure, you are more tolerant of laughter along these lines.
This comment is getting pretty long; if I've said anything ignorant or offensive, I apologize. I think it was Wilde who said that a gentleman never gives offense unintentionally. This statement makes clear to me that I, along with many others, have some ways to go before that descriptor accurately applies to me.
LFC,
Correction - you were right, Rickles did make ethnic jokes. I checked on youtube.
Marc
Yes, that was my recollection, but I was too lazy to check on YouTube, so thank you for doing so.
aaall
I believe the conflict in western Ukraine could remain a 'hot war' even if the Russians invade again during the winter of 2022-2023. Meaning, if there is no nuclear exchange.
If that's the case, the U.S., U.N., & NATO could send in the 101st Airborne Division as a peacekeeping mission to defend Kiev against further Russian aggression & more Ukrainian genocide.
Does anyone not understand the importance of Kiev in European politics? Kiev for Zelenskyy is like Stalingrad for Stalin. If Kiev is taken there goes the government of Ukraine and also its last hope for control. Then the remainder of the Ukranian parliament will be exiled as well.
I believe there may be some truth in what a retired U.S. colonel said on YouTube around a week ago. That four or more weeks from now the Russians may bank on sending their 300,000 new conscripts into the fight against Ukraine. If many Russian army divisions head straight for Kiev, and if Putin states that he won't use nukes, Putin may take the rest of western Ukraine & regain face among his people.
I hope it doesn't happen.
And let us not forget Thomas Paine's Common Sense logic. The U.S. stockpile of anti-armor missiles is dwindling low. And the United States' defense industry cannot replace them at any time soon.
I just hope the Russians have been beaten bad enough that there is no talk of crossing the river again for a second invasion. As Machiavelli said in The Prince, a second invasion is always easier than the first one, since the invading nation knows what mistakes it has made & how to correct them.
LFC,
I never felt comfortable watching Rickles perform. I didn’t care for his brand of insulting humor, his constant interruptions while other guests were talking, as he jumped frenetically from subject to subject.
But, apparently, he was well liked in the entertainment world. One of his closest friends was Frank Sinatra, whom he used to like to kid. One of the stories about their friendship is that Rickles was at a nightclub in Vegas, wining and dining a woman he was trying to impress. Sinatra was also at the nightclub, so Rickles excused himself , walked over to Sinatra’s table, and told Sinatra he would like to introduce him to his new date. Sinatra said sure, and Rickles returned to his table. Sinatra approached Rickles’ table, and as he was about to speak, Rickles looked up, and said, “Excuse me Frank, can’t you see I’m talking to this young woman?”
Another story was about Sinatra’s terrible temper. He, Rickles and members of the Rat Pack were at a restaurant having dinner. Sinatra was in a sour mood. He kept trying to get the attention of the waitress to ask her to bring a bottle of ketchup to the table. The waitress left and did not come back for another 30 minutes, as Sinatra sat fuming. When the waitress came back with the bottle of ketchup, Sinatra took the bottle and threw it against the wall. The waitress, mortified, scurried away. Everybody at the table was stunned, and resumed eating in silence, as the ketchup ran down the wall. A few minutes passed, and Rickles piped up and said, “Frank, could you pass the ketchup?” Everybody at the table, including Sinatra, burst out laughing.
marcel proust @November 13, 2022 at 10:01 PM
Addendum to an already long comment ...
Apropos I have Jewish friends (aka Some of my best friends are Black): So did Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna in the 1890s, one of the founders of political anti-Semitism in 19thC Europe and perhaps best known today for an attributed quote I decide who is a Jew!
Marcel,
Thank you for the link to Karl Lueger’s biography. I had not heard of him. Yes, he apparently had many Jewish friends. Yet, “He succeeded in forging a party which channeled social discontent, depicting capitalism and Marxism alike as products of the Jewish mind and fusing these new themes with the centuries-old hatred of the Jews stemming from Church doctrine.” It takes a unique mind to come up with such a synthesis.
Reminds me of the scene in Katherine Ann Porter’s Ship of Fools, where Herr Rieber and his Jewish roommate are discussing Germany’s economic problems, and Rieber blames the problems on the Jews. His roommate says he blames the problem on the bicycle manufacturers (or something like that). Rieber asks, “Why the bicycle manufacturers?” His roommate responds, “Why the Jews?’
Out of curiosity, I checked Wikipedia to find out who played Herr Rieber’s (Jose Ferrer’s) Jewish roommate, Lowenthal, in Ship of Fools. It turns out that Lowenthal was played by a famous, non-Jewish German actor, named Heinz Rühmann.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about him:
“During the 1933-45 period, he acted in 37 films and directed four. After January 1933, Rühmann did not speak openly about German politics, but instead kept himself as neutral as possible. He never stated a word against or towards the Nazis in the press, although he had been a supporter of democracy. In 1938, he divorced his Jewish wife Maria, who then left Germany and travelled to Stockholm where she married a Swedish actor. The divorce caused Rühmann to be accused by some of wanting to secure his career; however, the marriage had probably already fallen apart, and some sources say that he wanted to protect his wife with the divorce.[2] After 1945, Bernheim defended her ex-husband against accusations of opportunism.[3] His second wife, Hertha Feiler, whom he married shortly after, had a Jewish grandfather, a fact that caused Rühmann problems with the Nazi cultural authorities. Rühmann retained his reputation as an apolitical star during the entire Nazi era.”
Quite an amazing interview being broadcast on ABC News by David Muir of Mike Pence. Pence states that he did not speak to Trump until 5 days after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Trump asked him if he was scared that day. Pence told him, No, I was angry. Trump never verbally apologized to Pence, but expressed the view that things would have been better had the rally never occurred. At a subsequent meeting, when Pence told Trump he was praying for him, Trump replied, “Don’t’ bother.” When, after that meeting, Trump resumed his lies about a stolen election, Pence cut all ties with him.
Correction:
January 5th insurrection
Why the correction?.... wasn't it Jan 6?
David,
You are correct. I keep getting my dates confused.
Perhaps relevant to some of discussion further up thread? Anyway . . .
https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/the-cudgel-of-antisemitism/
PS It's also relevant to some long ago thread since it's primarily about things British
Anonymous,
I've read that previously. I don't know enough about British politics to comment on the content, but it seems that one issue that should be talked about frankly and isn't is anti-semitism.
The accusation of anti-semitism is often used in politics to discredit political opponents who are not anti-semitic in the sense that Nazis are.
For example, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which I had had a high opinon of, named Daniel Jadue, Communist mayor of Recolecta (what is called "Santiago" on your map is made up of numerous comunas, one of which is Recolecta) of Palestinian origin, as one of the 10 biggest anti-semites in the world in 2020.
Interesting because Jadue was then pre-candidate for the 2021 presidential elections and that was obviously a blow to his political ambitions. Although Jadue is a vehement partisan of the Palestianian struggle, there is no evidence that he is anti-semitic: he has never made public statements that are anti-semitic and no one has any idea what he says to his fellow Palestinians after a few beers.
The Chilean Jewish community tends to be quite rightwing and there is little doubt that they wanted Jadue out of the way. I voted for Boric (our current president) in the leftwing primary against Jadue, not because I found Jadue to be anti-semitic but because Jadue seems to have some anger control issues and other personality problem which disqualify him to be president, although not to be a mayor.
In any case, what constitutes anti-semitism today seems to me to be an issue that needs to be faced in honest and open public dialogue and that is not happening.
Anonymous,
Thank you for that link to the ZNet article, which is quite long (15 pp.) and I have only had time to scan it, rather than read it in depth, which I intend to do after I have attended to some pressing professional responsibilities. I will say, based on my brief scan of the article, although I do not agree entirely with all of the Jewish author’s assertions, it does appear that he is making an effort to be objective. After I have had a chance to read it more thoroughly, I make take up the ZNet’s invitation to file a response.
That said, s. wallerstein’s point that the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism is very complex, and often takes subtle, but nonetheless distinct forms, many of which are discussed in David Badiel’s recently published book, “Jews Don’t Count.” Badiel, who is Jewish and British, describes himself as an atheist who is politically liberal, but who finds what he sees as a double standard when it comes to anti-Semitism as very disturbing. He writes, for example, on pp. 98-102:
“I perceive … in the recent stronger-than-ever reaction to the conflict in the Middle East, a weakening of this always weak border between the ‘acceptability’ of anti-Zionism versus the unacceptability of antisemitism. One of the singular features of this particular racism, including the way it is viewed by avowed antiracists, is an underlying suspicion that antisemitism does not arise, like all other racisms, spontaneously from the hatred and scapegoating of the majority culture, but from something perpetrated by the minority itself: what the left in other contexts, but not in this one, calls victim-blaming. Hence when bad things happen to Jews, Jews are always, in some way, responsible. The activist Tariq Ali, speaking during the same march that the Jesus placard was seen at, said: ‘Stop the occupation, stop the bombing and casual antisemitism will soon disappear.’ I’m not entirely sure if by casual, Ali is including, as happened in London in the same period, a convoy of men in cars calling through bullhorns, virtually in earshot of my house, for the rape of Jewish wives and daughters. Either way, the notion that the wellspring for antisemitism is simply the actions of the Israeli government is ahistorical in the extreme. Some fairly big antisemitic events did in fact happen before 1948 – in fact, in one quite notable case, very recently before then.
“For a long time, antisemitism has been downgraded as not a real or proper racism by progressives. Now in the social media-inspired frenzy, which demands villains, who must have justice meted out to them immediately, things have moved beyond that. The idea that collective responsibility is racist has got lost in the righteous fury. Any Jew is fair game. As I was writing this, a British-Lebanese blogger told her 11k followers to come and harass me on my stand-up tour, because the proceeds from my book are no doubt going to fund illegal settlements and Israeli Defense Forces killing. In L.A., diners at a Sushi restaurant were interrupted by protesters demanding to know which ones were Jewish. The news in the U.K. showed pictures of two activists who went to Golders Green – a Jewish area of north London – then put up screens depicting Holocaust images, and holding microphones aggressively approached Jewish passers-by insisting they renounce Israel (despite the fact that many Orthodox Jews refuse to believe in the state of Israel anyway).
(Continued)
“If something similar had been perpetrated in a Muslim area of London, this action would’ve been shut down immediately and widely condemned by progressives. But there is a sense now that antisemitism is understandable. In a documentary I made for BBC 2 called ‘Confronting Holocaust Denial,’ Professor Gilbert Achcar of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London told me that prevalence of Holocaust denial in Gaza and the West Bank – about 80 percent of people there subscribe to the conspiracy theory – needs to e understood as a reaction to their circumstances, an irrational fighting back against something held to be sacred by the enemy, Which is fine as a piece of analysis, but it’s complicated if you take understandable to mean, as it often does, excusable. Huge increases in attacks on Jews – 600 percent in incidents in the U.K. alone over this period – seem to be met with a shrugging sense that there’s something appropriate about that. Something in the hive mind, certainly as you an hear it buzzing on Twitter, is a sense that Jews experiencing violent push back, whereever they are, and whatever their views about this conflict with which they may have no connection, is fitting. This is bad for Jews, obviously, but it is also bad for the many, many people who support the Palestinians while wanting to have no truck with racism against Jews.
. . .
“To put it another way: Jews are not in the sacred circle. They aren’t quire worth protecting. The same silly slip, whether it is Freudian or otherwise, was made in 1980 by the French prime minister at the time, Raymond Barre. Following an attempted terrorist bombing of a synagogue in Paris, Barre described it as ‘a hateful attack which wanted to strike at the Jews who were at that synagogue, and which struck innocent French people who were crossing the street.’ Which means that somewhere in Barre’s subconscious those Jews who were the target of the attack were not innocent; and also, not French.” (Footnotes omitted.)
In the case which I filed in federal court in order to obtain an injunction placing reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the conduct of group of protesters, several of whom were avowed Holocaust deniers - who had been picketing a synagogue in Ann Arbor every Saturday morning for then 17 – now 18 – years, using signs bearing such messages as “Resist Jewish Power”; “Jewish Power Courrupts”; and “No More Holocaust Movies,” after the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that their conduct was protected by the free speech provision of the First Amendment prohibiting even a limited injunction, the protesters were emboldened to erect a new sign, stating, “Israel Attached The U.S. – September 11, 2020.”
Correction:
a new sign stating, "Israel Attacked the U.S. - September 11, 2020."
“To put it another way: Jews are not in the sacred circle"
There's a kind of oppression olympics on the left. You win points if you belong to a group which is more oppressed than others. Jews these days are not as oppressed and discriminated against as group X or group Y and thus, you can get away with trashing Jews but not by trashing group X or group Y. Jews tend to be well educated and fairly well off economically as a result of their education and that's no crime, although in some circles it makes one suspect.
One should try to not trash or stereotype any group, at least not any ethnic or religious group. Probably one should reserve trashing for group that people voluntarily enter or join, for example, the KKK or the Trump wing of the Republican party. No one voluntarily is born a Jew.
In addition, there is what Bertrand Russell refers to as "the fallacy of the superior virtue of the oppressed". In the real world oppressed people are not necessarily more virtuous or better human beings than groups which are seen as oppressors.
I'm not denying that some human beings actively engage in oppression and that is in no way a virtue, but not all members of groups which are seen as oppressors actively in engage in oppression: for example, the children generally don't, no matter what their parents do, etc.
This is all fairly complicated and I doubt that the left is ever going to sit down and discuss it rationally and intelligently (and still less the right). It would be better, however, if such things could be discussed.
The opinion of the great-grand-daughter of a Hollywood pioneer, Sol Wurtzel, on Dave Chappelle’s SNL (Saturday Night Live) monologue:
forward.com/culture/524853/dave-chappelle-antisemitism-snl-monologue-open-letter-hollywood/?utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=afternoonedition_5530079
Regarding Chappelle’s comment that, “There are a lot of Jews in Hollywood,” she writes. “Yes, there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood – because discrimination shut them out of other careers in the early 1900’s. … I take pride in the Jewish invention of an industry that gave voice and unprecedented global reach to legions of creative people, including you.”
"...there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood..."
Actually the Valley and west of Hollywood. Also established country clubs wouldn't let Jews (among others) join so they formed another country club (lots of land on the west side and they had the bucks). Until the late 1940s restrictive covenants were common on the west coast and restricted where Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, and Asians could live.
The school district for the last small town in which I lived in the coastal L.A. area was formed in the early part of the last century. A Japanese family was farming on the east side of the city. They drew the district to exclude that family. Today that farm land is industrial/commercial and the school district wishes it had that tax base.
My mother was in the business side of show for years and I grew up on the west side of L.A. so the presence was obvious and NBD. Of course, "Jews in Hollywood" might well have different connotations in Mississippi then in Sherman Oaks.
aaall,
Yes, quite a different interpretation in Mississippi than in Sherman Oaks. A different interpretation in Fort Sills, Ok., where I was almost killed simply for waking up a Kansan farm boy, as well.
A big step forward in disminishing anti-semitism was when the Catholic Church in the early 60's finally decided that the Jews were not collectively and eternally responsable for murdering Jesus.
I recall, as a child growing up in the 50's, Catholic kids telling me, with a look and voice of blind hatred, that "you killed our Lord Jesus Christ". We were all fairly polite middle class kids, but my father, who grew up in a tougher neighborhood, made worse by the presence of Catholics of German descent, told me that in his youth those words inevitably led to vicious fight.
Those sentiments that the Jews are somehow different, and inferior, to those of the Catholic faith are still there. Earlier this year, the husband of one of my former clients, who is Catholic, passed away, and I attended the funeral service. I sat respectfully in the rear of the church; I stood when all of the congregants stood; I joined in singing the more secular songs, e.g., Amazing Grace, a song I am particularly fond of. During the service, the priest gave a sermon about the Prodigal Son, which is supposed to demonstrate the virtue of forgiveness in Catholicism. As he related the parable, he said something to the effect that Jews don’t understand the moral of the parable of the Prodigal Son, wherein the father forgives his son for all of his selfish deeds, something Jews would be unable to do. I sat there, shocked and mortified.
The next day, I wrote a letter to the priest, pointing out to him that from a Jewish perspective, the prodigal son does not deserve forgiveness, because he has done nothing to earn it. In the parable, the selfish, profligate younger son, who squanders his inheritance, does not sincerely and authentically repent. Rather, he appears to repent, and says to his father, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your servants.” But he only says this because he has concluded that, having squandered his inheritance, and being impoverished, he would be better off if he were treated as one of his father’s servants, since his father treats his servants very well. His father accepts the son’s false confession, and bestows him with a fattened calf, the best robe, a ring on his finger and new shoes on his feet. The older son justifiably feels unappreciated and neglected. In Judaism, such a confession would not be deemed acceptable unless it was followed by a demonstration of a genuine change in behavior.
The priest sent me a letter in response, apologizing if he gave any offense. He said it was not his intention to denigrate the Jewish religion, for which he has a lot of respect. I, of course, accepted his apology, but what of the members of his congregation who were left with the impression that Jews are a harsh and unforgiving people? And I thought, in how many churches around the country are priests and ministers delivering similar sermons to their flock, telling them that Jews are an inferior , harsh and unforgiving people?
Wow!!
In the New Testament, as I recall from my New Testament college course many years ago, that's a parable, not a moral lesson. The parable is about God forgiving the sinner (the prodigal son) who asks for forgiveness as well as God forgives the just person.
That is, the Catholic priest needs to brush up on his New Testament studies. How fucking ignorant can you get!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
My impression, as a (secular) Jew with some casual interest in Catholicism, is that there's a fairly wide range of political and religious approaches in the Catholic church today. The conservative and/or traditional wing is strong, but there are more liberal (in the contemporary U.S. sense of that word) and ecumenical currents as well. (Talking mainly about the U.S. here. 'Liberation theology' was mostly a Latin American phenomenon, and it's probably not as much in evidence now since the Vatican made clear quite a long time ago that it was officially unacceptable.)
As s.w. already mentioned, the Church's official attitude toward Jews and Judaism was changed by Vatican II.
LFC,
The Chilean Church ranges from Jesuits, very progressive on almost all issues except probably abortion, to Opus Dei, ultra-rightwing on all issues.
I once tutored a group of monks in English (I don't recall the name of the order) who ran a school in a very poor neighborhood. During the first class I went through the standard disclaimer about how while a non-believer myself, I respect all religious beliefs and was told that they had no interest in that and wanted to talk politics. This was 1999 and they all supported Gladys Marin, the Communist presidential candidate (I voted for her myself in the first round and she did not make it into the run-off).
Re the monks: interesting.
The story of the monks has the usual ending.
After a while, I started thinking that these guys just use their status as monks to do social work in a slum neighborhood.
So I began to ask them questions about what they really believe.
Do you guys really believe that in the mass the wine is converted into Jesus's blood?
No, not really, it's a metaphor.
Ok. I never know when to stop. So well, what about this virgin birth stuff? Do you really believe that Jesus was born to a virgin?
No, the story is symbolic.
At that the classes were cancelled. I never got to ask them about their sex lives.
May be of interest for the Georgia runoff:
https://balloon-juice.com/2022/11/16/within-the-margin-of-effort-27-pairs-of-boots-on-the-ground-in-ga/
With the Rethugs taking the House having a majority in the Senate will be important for confirmations and organization.
"I respect all religious beliefs"
You are a much more liberal man than me, SW, since I only respect most religious beliefs.
There is one thing I cannot stand in religion, no matter in what religion, including Catholicism in which I categorize myself, & that is graven images. I used to venerate religious statues, but not after reading The Koran in 2005.
I believe "more liberal" also means "more generous".
Some may ask why didn't the Decalogue instruct me in not praying towards and kissing Catholic statues? The Catholic arguments are post Torah, meaning they came after the Torah. So did the teachings of Jesus & St. Paul. However, during the time of Jesus & St. Paul, Judaism wasn't plagued with any kind of physical idolatry, so Jesus & St. Paul had little to say on the matter. Jesus speaks of the Rock who will become the first Bishop of the Church of Rome & how its laws bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven--thereby making Roman Church teachings infallible. When Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire, a lot of silversmiths & goldsmiths etc, who were out of a job producing idols, decided to keep lucrative livelihoods by making statues of saints etc out of gold, silver, wood, & etc. And since the Church believes in religious symbology & also believes that you are praying to the saint behind the statue & not to the statue itself (since they believe in the communion of saints)--a blind eye is turned to such practices by the laity & clergy, especially in the case of sacred statues of Mary & Jesus. And the reason they don't believe that The Koran should be hearkened to or obeyed, is because they don't take The Koran seriously like I do--despite CCC# 841.
BTW, I believe St. Paul did speak against the physical idolatry of paganism, but there was no physical idolatry of the Jews & Christians of the New Testament times.
"they don't take The Koran seriously like I do--despite CCC# 841"
Of course, there is no reason for a Catholic to take the Koran seriously since it is not part of the Catholic scriptures. However, Vatican II made an effort to reach out to the Muslim world for mutual understanding.
Although some may say there are many things contradictory between The Catholic Bible & The Koran & Hadith concerning dogmas between the two religions, there are many ideas held in common between the two faiths, including the ideas of the religion of Judaism. Enlightened members of all three faiths consider all three faiths to be shared Abrahamic Religions. Meaning, Abraham is the Patriarch of all three Religions.
What is CCC#841?
Catechism of the Catholic Church # 841. You can google it.
Thks
You're welcome.
Post a Comment