Is vocabulary important?

[Eric]

The use of vocabulary can be controversial. Whether you are writing poetry, novels or works of non-fiction, you may run up against resistance from certain publishers if you use certain words. These words are regarded as discriminatory.

Well-meaning people in the West often list slavery, homophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, etc., as principal evils, and maybe think that the first thing they should do is ban words, so that the thoughts behind them will ultimately wither.

This form of vocabulary limitation is not uncontroversial. See:

https://www.policypress.org.uk/author/policypress_author_guidelines.pdf

and

The phrase Old Masters is sexist, authors and students are told - Telegraph

Is there not a risk that by banning the usage of certain words and phrases you prevent people from having the vocabulary to discuss the problem? Is there not a risk that we end up speaking in constantly updated euphemisms, therefore always gliding away from the problem, by never calling a spade a spade?

Towards the end of the first website referred to above (Appendix B - Sensitive Language), there are lists of what are regarded as discriminatory words. My problem with the lists is that there are two types of words: a) clearly discriminatory ones that are insulting, and have been accepted as such for decades; b) somewhat arbitrary interpretations of words and expressions such as "old master", "West Indian", "minorities", "American", "ethnic", etc., where the list-makers are creating problems where there are none.

How do we tackle the problem of discriminatory vocabulary without turning journalists, novelists and article-writers into neurotics, fearful of being sexist, homophobic, racist, etc., whatever they write? Common sense?

For instance, if you can't say "Third World" and "Developing Nations" because it is discriminatory, and you have to call them "Southern Countries", what about the Inuit, the Saame, the Finno-Ugrian peoples of northern Siberia? By being non-discriminatory, you make a nonsense of the geography involved. "Non-industrial" is one alternative, I suppose, but the list-makers don't like that, either. You are left with a quandary.

[Sybarite]

Yes. So is a certain quality of reportage.

As in writing: "Publishers and universities ..." at the beginning of the article – and then only naming one publisher.

And as for the assertion that phrases have been "banned" (opening paragraph two of the Telegraph piece), then the later comments from educational establishments that the guide "may provide a good starting point" and is an "appropriate source of reference and advice" and is "well worth looking at" – these are not the same as 'banning'. But clearly such semantics wouldn't make for such fabulously knee-jerking copy.

Whilst there should never be any right to not be offended, it's a balancing act. Perhaps the author would like us to go back to using such words as 'nigger', 'WOG' and 'yid' whenever we want?

[Eric]

Sybarite: please note that I have added the word "certain" to limit the publishers implied. It's a good thing that we can amend things we've written here, even after publication. I only usually use the service to get rid of typos.

"Banned" may also be a bit too dramatic. But there is a tendency in academe to discourage the use of all manner of vocabulary. I am rather worried that this will start to to spread to novels, so that editors feel it is part of their brief to correct an author who uses a discriminatory word, unless s/he can prove it is part of something said by a character that the readers are not meant to like. That would lead to the British brand of Socialist Realism.

Regarding your comments about starting points rather than cast-iron rules, I know the thin edge of the wedge when I see it. This is how anti-Semitism works: first you start kicking Israelis off your publishing team, as happened with a British periodical a year or so ago. Then you ban Israeli academics from Britain. If you don't stem this kind of anti-academic activity, "Israeli" will soon become "Jewish". Oy vey! Never mind calling them "yids". The language is, after all, called Yiddish...

As for the use of words for negroes, Westernised oriental gentlemen (the female version should be: WOL), and so on, the consensus of good people in the Western world has slowly pushed out these words from acceptable usage and print. But again, this is reform, rather than revolution. A gradual realisation that using, say, male chauvinist pig, a little too often should also lead to the realisation that some men may be offended. Strangely enough, the term "female chauviniste sow" has never caught on.

I'm the first to admit that the whole business is a balancing act. I just don't like the way that Policy Press is moving in the direction of prohibition. Guidelines they may be, but editors wield a good deal of power. Jimmy Connolly, Frankie Boyle and a few other comedians would never survive, were their jokes to conform to good taste. But they can use the excuse that they, like the present prime-minister, belong to the persecuted minority of Scotsmen...

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Eric

Sybarite: please note that I have added the word "certain" to limit the publishers implied. It's a good thing that we can amend things we've written here, even after publication. I only usually use the service to get rid of typos...

"Certain publishers" still means more than one. One is cited in the article.

Originally Posted by Eric

"Banned" may also be a bit too dramatic...

It's inaccurate. It's wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric

... Regarding your comments about starting points rather than cast-iron rules, I know the thin edge of the wedge when I see it. This is how anti-Semitism works: first you start kicking Israelis off your publishing team, as happened with a British periodical a year or so ago...

Being opposed to the actions of the state of Israel is not being anti-semitic any more than being opposed to the actions of the state of North Korea is being racist. Attempting to organise a boycott of Israel is no more anti-semitic than boycotting Zimbabwean good is racist.

Originally Posted by Eric

... Then you ban Israeli academics from Britain...

And when did this happen? Would it be like when the UK banned all white South Africans from the UK during apartheid? In other words, never?

Originally Posted by Eric

... If you don't stem this kind of anti-academic activity, "Israeli" will soon become "Jewish". Oy vey! Never mind calling them "yids". The language is, after all, called Yiddish...

Another swerve, then.

Originally Posted by Eric

... As for the use of words for negroes, Westernised oriental gentlemen (the female version should be: WOL)...

You really do beggar belief, Eric. I'm beginning to think that you must be a troll, because no sane person would post this with a straight face.

Originally Posted by Eric

... and so on, the consensus of good people in the Western world has slowly pushed out these words from acceptable usage and print. But again, this is reform, rather than revolution. A gradual realisation that using, say, male chauvinist pig, a little too often should also lead to the realisation that some men may be offended. Strangely enough, the term "female chauviniste sow" has never caught on...

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Eric

... Jimmy Connolly...

Who?

[fausto]

I'm getting sick of the rants and counter-rants on here. This is a world literature forum, not an exercice in neo-conservative & liberal dialectics. It's getting so tedious I'm going to stop visiting this place if it goes on any longer. Enough!

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by fausto

I'm getting sick of the rants and counter-rants on here. This is a world literature forum, not an exercice in neo-conservative & liberal dialectics...

Are you saying that, within the context of a 'general chat' part of this forum, this is not a legitimate question to raise or just that nobody should reply to the original post or that the realms of politics and books are never connected and should never meet?

[fausto]

None of the above? Are you actually implying that your tiresome exchanges with your nemesis are limited to this part of the forum? Look, I'm really interested in politics, I really am. I even used to be a moderator for a big political forum. Thing is I'd rather discuss this sort of things with people who know that suicide bombings were not invented nor perfected by Muslims or with people that have a better idea of Chilean history.

Do as you please, go on with your counter-rants, whatever... but being the most sensible of the two, I would have thought you'd have understood by know to ignore your pal. Don't feed the troll as they say, and he will starve. I for one prefer reading your opinions on the books you've read. I'm tired of coming on here to see that half of the new posts have been taken by yet another bout between the both of you.

[spooooool]

i'm new, i rarely post at length nor am i likely to here because i cannot be arsed to counter the stupidity at work.

Sybarite, it's akin to tug of war, if you leave go your end of the rope, Eric will have nothing to pull on. You'll wear yourself out, and for what, to counter the idiocies of someone who clearly enjoys playing the role of demented court jester?

[Sybarite]

Okey dokey.

[Eric]

Sometimes I don't post things with a straight face - I have a crooked manic leer.

But I think I'm right about Israel. In New York there are also plenty of left-wing Jews that don't like Israel, and they share this belief with some ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel itself. But I was referring to Europe and anti-Semitism. I think that it is clear where the rise of anti-Semitism on that continent is coming from.

White SA academics may never have been banned from Britain during apartheid. But there was plenty of keenness to ban a great number of South African goods, including books. And the campaign to ban Israeli academics from Britain keeps periodically being revived by academic trade unions at British universities. See: Mona Baker - The Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions

I meant: Billy Connolly.

People could present counter-arguments, rather than quoting and shaming. I'm "inaccurate", "wrong", "beggar belief" and a devious swerver, who slithers from one non-sequitur to the other. However, a little more dry and logical countering of my arguments would help the spirit of the debate. I like my little joke about female chauviniste sows.

This "rant" is specifically about acceptable vocabulary in publications. I am claiming that some people are using a similar tactic to the one others use with spelling. While everyone ridicules too much nannying with regard to making spelling conform to sound, people at Policy Press and not only there, appear to also want to weed out some perfectly neutral words.

Like Sybarite, I'm interested in politics. But she is not my pal; we have never met. The problem is that I often have diametrically opposed views, so we end up at loggerheads. That's the problem with these forums (or: fora) where you never meet the person behind the persona. When you see a three-dimensional person, you tend to be more accommodating. Here, we let ourselves go. I think both Sybarite and myself enjoy slagging one another off. Good therapy.. That's how the Argument Sketch was created on Monty Python. ("No it wasn't!" "Yes, it was!")

The art, which I am not very good at, is to strike a balance between being all smiley-cringy-insincere, and being a bull in a cyber-china shop, alienating others. But the over-use of expletives also belies an inability to structure ones thoughts. I over-react when drunk, but can formulate myself more elegantly when sober. If your only register is the written equivalent of shouting, you soon become hoarse.

As this is the general chat section, it can function as a letting-off-steam section for those who like a periodic bitch and a bit of verbal happy-slapping. Too much bile elsewhere does indeed frighten people away, which is why Stewart foreclosed the very bitchy debate we were having on my beautiful cycling & translation thread.

But as was said on Newsnight last night about a famous artists' pub in London, people will slag one another off one evening, and be back the next. Ditto here. If we avoid gross insults and racist, homophobic or other nasty talk in this chat section, I cannot see that a little bad temper can do any harm. But I will try to keep the slagging off out of the more specific threads in other sections of this forum.

[Mirabell]

Originally Posted by Sybarite

Being opposed to the actions of the state of Israel is not being anti-semitic any more than being opposed to the actions of the state of North Korea is being racist. Attempting to organise a boycott of Israel is no more anti-semitic than boycotting Zimbabwean good is racist.

oh god I hate to say this, but I have to agree w/ that other guy here.
there is a clear, well known, and often pretty obvious tendency to channel antisemitism through antizionism. in some countries heavier than in others. usually, studies tend to show that the lower a country's "common" antisemitism is, the higher its "hidden" antisemitism is. Britain and Germany are among those countries which are commonly said to be rife w/ the second kind. I can personally affirm this for Germany.

we are here, after all, in a thread about (yes I change the point of the thread from something uninteresting to something else) whether words matter. which is the point, really. it's how do you phrase it. in what way are you being selective. why. "legitimate criticism" often hides either plain antisemitism or antisemitically informed motivation.

[spooooool]

Originally Posted by Mirabell

oh god I hate to say this, but I have to agree w/ that other guy here.
there is a clear, well known, and often pretty obvious tendency to channel antisemitism through antizionism. in some countries heavier than in others. usually, studies tend to show that the lower a country's "common" antisemitism is, the higher its "hidden" antisemitism is. Britain and Germany are among those countries which are commonly said to be rife w/ the second kind. I can personally affirm this for Germany.

we are here, after all, in a thread about (yes I change the point of the thread from something uninteresting to something else) whether words matter. which is the point, really. it's how do you phrase it. in what way are you being selective. why. "legitimate criticism" often hides either plain antisemitism or antisemitically informed motivation.

yes, i've said as much too, but it also occurs to me that as a refrain it presumes to make very light of another's sense of self and inner resources,parenthesizes them before setting off in its own tracks.

[Sybarite]

Perhaps there is "hidden" anti-semitism involved in criticism of the state of Israel.

But then again, perhaps there's "hidden" racism in criticism of Zimbabwe?

Or even South Africa. How many people, for instance, have enjoyed criticising Thabo Mbeki for his stance on HIV/Aids for reasons other than its utter ridiculousness, but because it tallies with a idea of backwards, superstitious, uneducated Africa?

Words are powerful things and, as we're saying here, have to be used carefully. A response to any criticism of the state of Israel as being 'anti-semitic'* does nothing but potentially increase the "hidden" problem. In any other area, it would be called 'political correctness'. It has also inspired, in my opinion, a similar defensive approach from other groups. Versions of it are heard, for instance, quite frequently in the UK amongst Muslims and amongst Christians, if a criticism/joke is made about their religion/religious traditions/religious beliefs.

There is a growth (in the UK, certainly) in an apparent attitude that nobody should be offended – this is particularly so in terms of religion; we have bumbled legislation now in place that was expected/hoped by many non-Christians would extend the outdated and ridiculous blasphemy laws to their belief systems – instead nobody really knows what it does, except give confidence to those who will brook no criticism and confuse many who wish to say something about religion.

Do we stop criticising aspects of Islam or extremist Islamists because some people may do so through straightforward Islamophobia and racism?

Do we stop criticising aspects of Christianity (in the UK, for instance, attempts by the Catholic church to blackmail the government over aspects of equality legislation) because it makes them upset and they don't think it's fair?

Do we stop criticising Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe because some people will use it as a cover for racism?

Do we stop criticising the actions of the state of Israel because some people doing so will use it as a cover for anti-semitism?

I think that the answer is pretty obvious.



* And then the labeling of any Jewish person who criticises the state of Israel as 'self-hating'.


Note: it's also worth noting, since this is also a discussion about vocabulary, that Zionism is not a synonym for Israel or for Judaism. It's a political, largely secular movement, that is extremely nationalistic in character and can be analysed as a form of neo-fascism. It pre-dates the Holocaust and WWII by some decades, being founded primarily in the US by extremely wealthy individuals in the late 19th century. There are Christian Zionists too, although that is less secular, as it tends to do with ideas of the 'End Times' and the 'Rapture'.

It's also worth noting that Balfour – he of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which gave such promises for a state of Israel – was almost certainly anti-semitic himself, having made anti-semitic speeches in Parliament less than two years previously. For many, the whole idea of a state of Israel was anti-semitic in itself – a way of stopping the diaspora and getting rid of Jews from Europe. Indeed, in the wake of WWII, the western European nations took in fewer Jewish refugees than they took in ethnic German refugees. They wanted to get rid of Jews – and let's face it, who cared about a few sand niggers in the Middle East, eh?

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by Sybarite

There is a growth (in the UK, certainly) in an apparent attitude that nobody should be offended – this is particularly so in terms of religion; we have bumbled legislation now in place that was expected/hoped by many non-Christians would extend the outdated and ridiculous blasphemy laws to their belief systems – instead nobody really knows what it does, except give confidence to those who will brook no criticism and confuse many who wish to say something about religion.

That's why I like to trot out the old Stephen Fry line on religious objections to free speech: "So you're offended. So fucking what?"

[Mirabell]

Do we stop criticising the actions of the state of Israel because some people doing so will use it as a cover for anti-semitism?

Not 'cover'. Many many tropes of criticism of Israel, mainstream criticism mind you. Again, I don't read so much english press but -to use a German reference- the Spiegel's coverage of Israel is largely suspect, so it's THAT level of mainstream I talk about. If you read Paul Gilroy about blackness...that extends to jews as well, of course. It's not talking about a few nutjobs. It's about the mainstream press.

Second, that applies of course to Islam, too.

Third, it doesn't apply to christians, at leat not in Europe. The point is, after all, not criticism of religion, but a racializing of religious criticism. How you segued from clearly non-religious criticism of Israel to the point of religious criticism is remarkable and disturbing at the same time. Yes, Islam, religion blabla. BUt the point is that "Islam" has been racialized. If you look at the discourse, and this includes images, a certain ethnic provenience has become synonymous with "Islam". This is what racializing means. Using a non-racial concept such as "islam" in a way that clearly connotes race. It's insidious but common. And yes, on the surface you can keep on talking about religion all you like. Usually the way you frame it gives you away.

That's why "oh but what about christians" is bull. They are not racialized. We here know full well that there are loads of different kinds of christians. There are certain subgroups which are, indeed, racialized but that's not interesting for the main point.

And no one called for a complete "Stop" in criticism of Israel. No one I ever heard, or read did that. stopping a certain kind of criticism, yes. a complete stop of criticism of the way the current or past governments act? Possibly a few nutjobs, but there are always those. So what rhetorical purpose does that quoted question of yours serve? That's for me to know and for you to find out. God am I didactic today. Ugh.

and yes, talking about africa, not just zimbabwe, is often loaded with racism. Look at you-know-who's posts in that other thread. yuck.

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Stewart

That's why I like to trot out the old Stephen Fry line on religious objections to free speech: "So you're offended. So fucking what?"

Nice one. ~~LOL~~

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... Third, it doesn't apply to christians, at leat not in Europe. The point is, after all, not criticism of religion, but a racializing of religious criticism. How you segued from clearly non-religious criticism of Israel to the point of religious criticism is remarkable and disturbing at the same time...

Um. I also "segued" into mentioning racism, since we're talking about the roots of some criticism, but you have chosen to be selective about what I posted. In the UK, criticism of religion has led to complaints. It's led to death threats – actual death threats – from Christians (against BBC directors). It's led to court cases charging people with blasphemy. The 'threat' of being expected to abide by a law that everyone else will be expected to abide by (equality legislation pertaining to sexuality) had senior Catholic clerics in the UK threatening to close down children's homes – that's blackmail, simple as). The same church has threatened to withdraw communion from any members who are MPs, who do not vote against abortion at any opportunity – sod what the constitutents that they've been elected to represent want. I know of a case in the north west where an evangelical church is attempting to have a local shop that sells 'New Age' stuff and talks about witchcraft and such nonsense closed down by the council. This is the UK – how 'radical' do you think we should wait for before raising these things?

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... Yes, Islam, religion blabla. BUt the point is that "Islam" has been racialized. If you look at the discourse, and this includes images, a certain ethnic provenience has become synonymous with "Islam". This is what racializing means. Using a non-racial concept such as "islam" in a way that clearly connotes race. It's insidious but common. And yes, on the surface you can keep on talking about religion all you like. Usually the way you frame it gives you away...

Eh? This is political correctness, Mirabell. You're apparently accusing me of something that you don't even spell out properly. It very much seems that you're looking for things to take umbrage at – hence you're accusing me of 'segueing' into one thing without observing that I'd also 'segued' into something else too. I don't know – perhaps that's because you live in a country where public breast beating over the crimes of history is expected, even demanded?

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... That's why "oh but what abiut christians" is bull. They are not racialized. We here know full well that there are loads of different kinds of christians. There are certain subgroups which are, indeed, racialized but thatÄs not interesting for the main point.

So they're not radicalised but some are radicalised.

Yup, that makes sense. Particularly as you're now effectively falling for the line that all Muslims – that Islam per se – has been radicalised. That's as crass as asserting that all Irish Catholics were in or supported the IRA. There are real issues with Islam, but I'm amused about your implied assertion that all Muslims see themselves as one racial group. I promise you, the Muslims where I live in the east of London do not all see themselves in that way. The Turkish Muslims do not see themselves as the same as the Pakistani Muslims. There is a crossing over into the racial issue amongst some – the idea that 'Muslim brothers' are being persecuted etc – but it is not a universal.

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... And no one called for a complete "Stop" in criticism of Israel. No one I ever heard, or read did that. stopping a certain kind of criticism, yes. a complete stop of criticism of the way the current or past governments act? Possibly a few nutjobs, but there are always those. So what rhetorical purpose does that quoted question of yours serve? That's for me to know and for you to find out. God am I didactic today. Ugh...

I pointed out, in response to a number of posts (I didn't raise the subject) that criticism of the state of Israel is not synonymous with anti-semitism. Now I'm being subjected to a form of inquisition, from which there is, apparently, no escape. The way in which much of this is framed is that my 'motives' need to be explored. My 'segueing' indicates things. My 'record' gives me away. It's funny, it's Orwellian – and it's insidious.* And the implied suggestion that only criticism of the state of Israel that has dubious motives has been subject to the accusation of anti-semitism is naive at best. But you and others here are showing that it works.


* That is not to say that I object to having this discussion, BTW.


Note: as a very slight aside, but for the sake of a bit of context, I live and work very near to where the 7/7 bombs were detonated. Colleagues helped those from the bus bomb around the corner. And before that, the windows of my home have been rattled by IRA bombs. A number of incidents have been far too close for comfort. As such, I don't take terrorism lightly – whatever the motives.

[Mirabell]

Originally Posted by Sybarite

So they're not radicalised but some are radicalised.

Yup, that makes sense. Particularly as you're now effectively falling for the line that all Muslims – that Islam per se – has been radicalised. That's as crass as asserting that all Irish Catholics were in or supported the IRA. There are real issues with Islam, but I'm amused about your implied assertion that all Muslims see themselves as one racial group. I promise you, the Muslims where I live in the east of London do not all see themselves in that way. The Turkish Muslims do not see themselves as the same as the Pakistani Muslims. There is a crossing over into the racial issue amongst some – the idea that 'Muslim brothers' are being persecuted etc – but it is not a universal.

are you mad, man? I did not even use the word "radicalized" nor the concept denoted by it. please do read closely. additionally, I never talked about self-images of muslims. have you been talking too long with eric? suddenly responding to things I never said, implied or mentioned?

My 'record' gives me away. It's funny, it's Orwellian

ahem. by orwellian I take it you mean "1984"-orwell. and, ahem. had I said this, it would've been. Of course I didn't. What I did say was Orwellian in the way that he points out in his essays that words matter. How I frame a certain point rhetorically matters. How that is a bad or even insidious thing is beyond me. It's like Sarah Palin suggesting that the actual "verbiage" is not important. it's important what's "meant". But the meaning does reside in the verbiage, not in your intentions. the how is a large part of the what.

And the implied suggestion that only criticism of the state of Israel that has dubious motives has been subject to the accusation of anti-semitism is naive at best.

...aaaaand neither did I imply or suggest this. and you may be putting too much of a stress on intentional antisemitism here, just a suggestion. intentional antisemitism by people who consider themselves antisemites is a fraction of the actual antisemitism around.

perhaps that's because you live in a country where public breast beating over the crimes of history is expected, even demanded?

well, you see. we learned, and are currently un-learbing again, that what happened, did not happen because a gang of whackos took over and forced everyone to do their bidding. what happened came from the midst of our society which wasn't very different from ours today. so we learned to be aware. looking back at our past, we could see what led to Auschwitz and we saw how blind even many perspicacious Germans were to those tendencies or noticed them too late. We learned that we might have blind spots, too, and to be aware and careful about what we do or say. As I said, that "we" does not apply to all or even most Germans. Which is sad.

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Mirabell

are you mad, man? I did not even use the word "radicalized" nor the concept denoted by it. please do read closely. additionally, I never talked about self-images of muslims. have you been talking too long with eric? suddenly responding to things I never said, implied or mentioned?

Then someone has nicked your password and is logging in as you:

Originally Posted by Mirabell

[in post #15 on this thread] ... Third, it doesn't apply to christians, at leat not in Europe. The point is, after all, not criticism of religion, but a racializing of religious criticism. How you segued from clearly non-religious criticism of Israel to the point of religious criticism is remarkable and disturbing at the same time. Yes, Islam, religion blabla. BUt the point is that "Islam" has been racialized. If you look at the discourse, and this includes images, a certain ethnic provenience has become synonymous with "Islam". This is what racializing means. Using a non-racial concept such as "islam" in a way that clearly connotes race. It's insidious but common. And yes, on the surface you can keep on talking about religion all you like. Usually the way you frame it gives you away.

That's why "oh but what about christians" is bull. They are not racialized. We here know full well that there are loads of different kinds of christians. There are certain subgroups which are, indeed, racialized but that's not interesting for the main point...

Oh ... and it's not "man", man.

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... ahem. by orwellian I take it you mean "1984"-orwell. and, ahem. had I said this, it would've been. Of course I didn't. What I did say was Orwellian in the way that he points out in his essays that words matter. How I frame a certain point rhetorically matters. How that is a bad or even insidious thing is beyond me...

What I saw as insidious is the implication that, for instance, in 'segueing' from one thing to another, this is 'interesting'. And the way that I 'frame things' (quote="usually the way you frame it gives you away") 'giving things away'. What does all this imply? That even the entirely factual statement that 'criticism of the state of Israel is not synonymous with anti-semitism' is suspect? That's risable. And insidious.

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... It's like Sarah Palin suggesting that the actual "verbiage" is not important. it's important what's "meant". But the meaning does reside in the verbiage, not in your intentions. the how is a large part of the what.

So what is "meant" by such concern over the factual statement that 'criticism of the state of Israel is not synonymous with anti-semitism'?

Originally Posted by Mirabell

...aaaaand neither did I imply or suggest this. and you may be putting too much of a stress on intentional antisemitism here, just a suggestion. intentional antisemitism by people who consider themselves antisemites is a fraction of the actual antisemitism around...

On the latter point, I'd completely agree. But I remain concerned, just as with the issues of racism or sexism, for instance, that the idea that displays of unintentional 'isms' means that someone is playing judge of other people's motives. Who gets to say whether my – or anyone else's – comments are a result of an unintentional 'ism'? We're into the realms of political correctness here. It's perfectly reasonable to tackle racism and sexism and homophobia and anti-semitism etc. But is that best done by asserting that everyone that isn't a male, for instance, is automatically sexist? As a woman, I don't think it does that at all. In fact, I'd suggest that it boosts the 'authority' and the influence of extremists (we've seen this in the US and Canada in terms of extremist feminism, and it exists in the UK too; although not yet openly assertive, it is influencing political decisions). To take the idea of the unintentional 'ism' to its logical conclusion, in terms of sexism for example, it reminds me of the old extremist feminist idea that 'every man is a rapist'.

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... well, you see. we learned...

Did you? Or did you just learn to say what was expected? Is it a coincidence that the far right has made its presence felt far more in the east of Germany, post the end of the Cold War – despite the intensity of the DDR anti-nazification programmes?

Originally Posted by Mirabell

... and are currently un-learbing again, that what happened, did not happen because a gang of whackos took over and forced everyone to do their bidding. what happened came from the midst of our society which wasn't very different from ours today. so we learned to be aware. looking back at our past, we could see what led to Auschwitz and we saw how blind even many perspicacious Germans were to those tendencies or noticed them too late. We learned that we might have blind spots, too, and to be aware and careful about what we do or say. As I said, that "we" does not apply to all or even most Germans. Which is sad.

You'd be astonished how similar things can be said of people from many, many other nations too. There are vast amounts of British people that don't even know that we were the first country to use concentration camps – never mind that we even used them after WWII. How many Brits who babble on about how brilliant it was when we had an empire do you think actually want to consider that it was built on the foundations of the transatlantic slave trade?

Playing pick and mix with one's history, or refusing to learn the lessons of the past is not unique to Germany. Look around you – have they 'learnt' not to be anti-semitic in Russia? Have they 'learnt' not to homophobic in Poland? How do you reckon the Roma are treated in, say, Italy these days?

You do not change attitudes and end bigotry by getting people to repeat some sort of a mantra ad nauseum. Indeed, you almost certainly help to reinforce it.

[Sybarite]

By the way ... I'll be disappearing (to Stewartland for a wedding) in a few minutes. So I'll return to this debate in a couple of days.

Have fun.

[Mirabell]

Originally Posted by Sybarite

Then someone has nicked your password and is logging in as you:

ok. since you highlighed them. teh word you said I used was

R A D I C A L I Z E D

The words you highlighted were

R A C I A L I Z E D


How bad are your troubles w/ eyesight?


really. it's too dumb to continue this way.
I will not repeat everythiong 5 times until you deign it worthy reading it closely. one eric is enough

but just cuz I like you

So what is "meant" by such concern over the factual statement that 'criticism of the state of Israel is not synonymous with anti-semitism'?

I did say "the actual verbiage". you supplied a paraphrase. so. why is your question as just quoted irrelevant to what I said? it is. the answer's easy.

Is it a coincidence that the far right has made its presence felt far more in the east of Germany, post the end of the Cold War – despite the intensity of the DDR anti-nazification programmes?

mebbe read something on the topic before pontificating, eh? there are at least three reasons. one, racism is usually, and this applies to france, germany and russia and many other countries in equal measures, worse where less foreigners live. In germany more foreigners live in the richer states. or to formulatre it differently: the states with the most foreigners are the richest. the states in the east of germany used to be and largely still are, although saxony is edging out, among the poorest states. those states in the west which are pretty poor, too, have higher rates of far right wing 'activists' as well. the rule that generally the states with the highest unemployment and the lowest per capita income are the ones most afflicted by that, holds true for all of germany. you don't need to include an east germany" exception into that. it's a socioeconomic fact that holds equally true for many other countries. two the "intensity" of the gdr's "anti-nazification programmes" was only "intense" during the first two decades and eased up later on. string right wing tendencies only developed in the 1970s and were hidden from the public eye by the state-controlled media. they were there all along, outspoken, aggressive, but nobody knew. three the nazi thing developed in the 1990s largely as a youth problem. youths w/ nothing to do (which was tough since the GDR had always something to do for the youths, that was generally experienced as a shock and is still causing problems) and wanting to shock their parents decided to go down that road. i personally had a few friends who turned neo-nazi in their late teens. which means its not relevant to the point

Did you? Or did you just learn to say what was expected?

I see you ignored my caveat at the end of my statement. seeing as you have trouble reading that was to be expected. But yes, much was saying the right things. But on the other hand, even though it often did not translate into deep convictions, the shock of losing the war and being confronted with the concentration camps and the like made people here accept the importance of behaving in a decent manner. But as I said, currently it's sort of slipping out of shape. We tended, as a culture, to punish (yes, that isn't very appetizing) those who expressed opinions which showed that the person expressing it had not learned certain lessons. Martin Walser's speech, or Botho Strauss' Bocksgesang-essay are such examples, but expecially the latter text is getting good press again recently, and the brief outrage at Walser's explicitly antisemitic novel Tod eines Kritikers was over pretty soon. Yes, largely ritualistic outrage but it used to last longer. Soon there won't be any outrage any more. And it#s the left who, to no small extent is responsible through its work in channeling things like antisemitism in more acceptable channels. Anti-American sentiments, anti-zionism, and anti-capitalism. urgh.