Negative stereotypes about Blacks in the U.S. have declined dramatically since the 1930s -- practically no White person to will say that Blacks are lazy, or superstitious, or many other stereotypes, when these views were common 80 years ago.
Yet huge racial disparities still exist infant mortality, unemployment, and poverty are found more than twice as often among Blacks than Whites, and these numbers haven't changed since the 1960s.
In John Dovidio's talk, "Racism Among the Well-Intentioned, he argued that most Whites who say they're not biased, believe they are not biased. Yet at the same time, they do develop negative feelings towards Blacks and other people of color.
-- More --
This applies to all sorts of "-ism's" and probably shares some of the same psychological basis as Silent Racism.
I think too much effort has been made to create a positive spin on War. War in its basic definition (1), which is what I'm going to talk about, is a disease much like other diseases such as Famine, Pestilence and Death. And like them it is an antithesis of morality.
Morality attempts to define rules of conduct; there are no rules in war. Morality distinguishes between good and bad, war like an out of control forest fire equally consumes the good and the bad. Morality attempts to create a meaningful order, war is chaos. Morality is an expression of humanity; war is an expression of inhumanity. Morality has a conscious, War has no conscious. Morality has changed throughout time, war has not. War like any destructive force has no morality and thus is amoral.
Unlike forest fires or bacterial contagium, war is a pure function of man in that it represents man's ability to destroy himself by harnassing the destructive powers of the universe upon himself. It is only when you judge the man, their motivation for bringing about and going to war and the actions (and inactions) they take while at war can any determination of morality be made.
This is why I say the actors and their actions are more important.
The vast majority of men who fought in WWII were good men who felt they were defending their own homes. For the most part a man going to war to defend home and hearth is generally viewed as being morally superior to the man who fights for conquest, an act which is viewed with general contempt here in the US. This is why much of the question w/r to Iraq falls back to Bush's motivations for lying to the US public to further his administration's personal agenda (PNAC, Halliburton, oil, vendetta, etc.) and in allowing this naked ambition to serve as a foil for Bin Laden's own ambitions to take out Sada'am.
(1) As opposed to the corrupted definitions now used in such expressions as "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs", etc.
On Edit: Flipped paragraphs.
However, there is always a bit of confusion about what Zionism is and what it takes to reconcile such a notion. I also think Herzl's motives are a bit misunderstood where the means is assumed to be the goal. Rather, I agree completely with the ideas Walter Lacquer has entered into what Zionism is which, namely that it is about respect.
As such, the founding of Israel is not the end all/be all of Zionism. The proof is that such an idea existed well before Herzl as it was frequently proposed by several prominent Christians in the 1840's. But it didn't take off because it was a lot like today's Christian Zionism where Jews are considered at best part of a plan. Zionism was born at a time when Jews were being relegated to second/tertiary class citizenship because they were of Jewish heritage (as opposed to the medieval standards where conversion brought some social respect) and a new form of anti-Semitism was on the rise.
The primary spark was the horrible issues raised by the Dreyfus affair which Herzl covered as a journalist. It affected him greatly. From this and from the issues raised, Zionism arose as part of a desire to gain equality - respect if you will - for Jews with everyone else. Herzl drew upon much of the core beliefs during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, that having a nation state was considered by many as the only means an ethnic group could achieve such respect (paralleling the rhetoric of Bismarck and Garibaldi) and in the case of Jews help end anti-Semitism. And like Bismarck and Garibaldi, Herzl felt once the state was established, Jewish powerlessness would cease and everything else would fall into place.
Others such as Martin Buber felt that respect was only obtained culturally and as such pushed for a Jewish cultural renaissance. Ideas were more important.
At this point, almost 60 years after the foundation of Israel, I think Zionists should wonder if having a state is sufficient or only part of the requisites to achieve the real goals of Zionism which is respect? At this point anti-Semitism is still prevelent even though Israel is militarily one of the strongest states in the world what with it's own armed forces and the support of many of the world's strongest powers. Is there some other identity and understanding which must also accompany the physical State in order to achieve the desired goals?
The goal is to restore the Caliphate and return Islam to some proper course.
To answer your specific questions, the facts portion is pure fantasy. It's made up. It's nothing more than a rhetorical vehicle to convey sociological intent.
Here, I've highlighted a few pertinant sections.
Arabic: Creating a Social Experience
The socio-historical forces that influenced the role of Arabic for the Arabs include the Arabic language''s role as an art form, as religious phenomenon, and as tool of Arab nationalism. These forces appear to have shaped a view of language that is entirely different from the Western view. Rather than viewing language as a means for transferring information with a stress on factual accuracy, language appears to be a social conduit in which emotional resonance is stressed.
First is the role of the Arabic language itself as an artistic form. As an early scholar noted, the "magical sounds of the words" combined with the images, have a powerful effect on the psychology of the Arab.(42) Hitti perhaps summed it up best when he stated,
Hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence as Arabic . . The rhythm, the rhyme, the music produce on them the effect of what they call 'lawful magic' (sihr halal).(43)
The melodious sounds of the phonetic combinations and plays on words in the recitation of Arabic prose and poetry has been likened to music.(44) Indeed, as one Arab colleague once remarked, recitation of the Koran may be the Western equivalent of classical music. Because of their talent with words, poets throughout Arab history have been held in high esteem. As Chenje noted, "there had been hardly any scholar of consequence in Arab-Muslim society who did not try his hand at poetry."(45) With the stress always on style in Arabic, eloquence and effectiveness were equated.(46)
The power of the Arabic language for Arabs is also derived from its religious association through the Prophet Mohammed and the Koran. For the believer, the majesty of the language of the Koran is considered a miracle from God for the Moslem prophet was illiterate and unschooled. "It was the Koran -- the Revealed Book -- that was conceived to represent the highest linguistic achievement of the Arabic language.(47) The Koran was not only revealed in Arabic, but Arabic is the language used in prayer by Moslems throughout the world.
Finally, Arabic is associated with contemporary nationalism. Many throughout the Arab world have defined "an Arab" as anyone who speaks Arabic.(48) Language not only served to define, but to distinguish as well. Chejne explained the complementary role between Arabic and the growth of Arab nationalism: ". . . the language became the driving force behind Arab aspirations toward national and cultural ascendancy. As such, both Arabic and the nationalist movement have complemented each other to such a degree that they could hardly be separated."(49)
When looking at the three major socio-historical forces associated with the Arabic language -- art, religion, and nationalism -- one can see that symbolism is embedded in the very essence of the language use. Each are also participatory, subjective social experiences; the communicator cannot be truly disengaged from either the message or the audience. This contrasts dramatically with the very function of the written word -- to record, preserve and transmit -- which presupposes that the speaker may be physically separated from his audience. Similarly, whereas oratory or public speaking, by nature, is a group experience, reading and writing tend to be a singular experience. In fact, many have claimed that creativity in writing is best achieved in solitude.(50)
Thus, for the Arab culture, language appears to serve as a social conduit. As Cohen observed, "(Arabic) language is a social instrument -- a device for promoting social ends as much as a means for transmitting information."(51) In many Arabic expressions, the social function is stressed to the exclusion of any informational function. Further, language appears to be primarily used to affect people's feelings.
The contrast between language as a means of information transfer versus social conduit is reflected in the following chart.
I wish to state that I'm not implying Arabic can't be used to state facts in the same way as English or there is a cultural inability to do so, but that in a forensic sense, particularly when dealing with nationalism/religion/culturalism, it's fairly common for the social aspects to be the message, not the facts.
The topic has become extremely inflammatory in the misuse of a loaded word. Please note the following:
There are many types of Zionism out there. Zionism really means a return to Zion (Jerusalem). But this can and does mean many things including just cultural rebirth not linked to any nationalism (a return to roots culture), a religious rebirth, a physical return of Jews to Jerusalem, and for some the establishment of a Jewish country. Even Neturei Karta, the fringe extremist group are Zionists, contrary to what many here incorrectly try and portray them as. They fully support the idea of a Jewish country, they differ over how such a thing occurs. There are other groups which are labeled Zionist because they advocate for some of these elements.
There are also Jews who do not advocate for such things or who feel that such "renaissance" is passe and/or obsolete and would prefer not be labeled as Zionists.
The discussion of Zionism was and remains a hot topic inside the Jewish community. One thing which is very true is that Zionist is not equivalent to a Jew even though many try to conflate the two terms often in a derrogatory sense.
It also should NOT be used to assume a singular meaning which is a common mistake.
Why these two distinctions are important is that there is a form of anti-Semitism where bigots use a stereotypical form of the term Zionist as a way to attack Jews. Zionism carries at some level a notion of struggle in much the same way as the real definition of jihad which is a word which also is abused and often serving as part of a code word for bigots.
Context and preciseness of use are extremely important.
I am seeing several different ideas being discussed in your post. The first appears to be about how Muslims seem to be made the scapegoats for 9/11 and are somehow involved in a way comparable to how Jews have historically been treated. The second is about dialogue. I am not going to talk about this last one.
There is a bit of a misnomer about what a conspiracy theory is. In a way the phrase assumes a meaning different from the sum total of the words. A conspiracy theory is usually defined not as a theory about a conspiracy which is how it is often used here in the 9/11 forum (note: theory about a conspiracy carries an assumption a conspiracy happened), but rather a conspiracy theory is an irrational (unknowable) theory whose limits and circumscription (boundaries of definition) are extremely vague and often undefined to the point that it is impossible to create an adequate proof test. Conspiracy theories frequently assign hidden motivation to a group or individual in a way which cannot be debunked or irrefuted and are frequently (as in the case of anti-Semitism thru the years), a psychological salve used to "explain" events or "justify" a situation to force fit into a specific world view. Some people do this not because they necessarily believe it, but because it makes a good tool to mislead others in a way which benefits the misleader.
The reason why I will disagree with you about equivalenting post 9/11's bigotry with the multi-millenia of anti-Semitism has to do with the complicated nature of bigotry against Jews versus the highly simplistic one in the mainstream against Muslims.
Ignoring your statement about whether or not the 19 hijackers were not those men frequently attributed to the deed, the main conspiracy against Muslims at this time is one fueled by a simplistic understanding of the RW meme of "Clash of civilizations" which was often spread by the talking heads post 9/11 coupled with repeated graphic details of Taliban justice, speeches by Bin Laden, and the suicide bombers in Israel to generate an image where Muslims were unstable and likely to suicide themselves at a moment's notice in attempt to destroy the West. All poppycock of course, but also a very simple one which is likely to pass thru fairly quickly. Yes, there will be those who will spin off and create more virulent forms of this, but they will likely not have the same weight.
In contrast, Jews have had several thousand years of officially sponsored bigotry aimed at them. First there were many official programs against the Jewish religion by the Romans, Persians and the Muslims where they were blamed and accused of fomenting rebellion and deicide. Later with the rise of nation states along ethnic lines, Jews being ubiquitous and for the most part culturally distinct from the host population were accused first of being un-patriotic and seditious to ultimately masterminds of a great cabal ala the International Jew and Protocols. There is now a debate whether or not another wrinkle of anti-Semitism has arisen now following the foundation of Israel as a nation state and concerns itself with the notion that new forms of bigotry have been assigned to the ideas of Zionism and Israeli (such as being in a genocide against the Palestinians) or whether these expressions are just intentional conflations of the term "Jew" with more publicly palatable stereotypes of Israel and Zionist. All of this is still in play at the moment.
The other point I wish to highlight concerns the slight suggestion I'm reading into your post about exclusivity between anti-Semititic conspiracy theories and anti-Muslim. I draw this mostly because you only provided one line of thought in your post. I totally agree that 9/11 fueled the spread of many tailored answers designed to provide simple easily to digest answers to an extremely complicated reality and that this included a rise in anti-Muslim fear, but I also think that there are many examples out now where it fueled a rise in anti-Semitism.
Larissa's accusation against the media and their treatment of Mel Gibson is a rather straight up example of a conspiracy theory as it attempts to assign a motivation to MSM which is ill-defined and thus unprovable.
Anti-Semitism is a term to be careful in use. The person here is not attacking the Jewish religion and is not in any way promoting the harm of the Israeli nation. It is a rather narrow criticism of the use of of the military by Israel in it's policy decisions.
Are you familiar with the old adage that if the only tool you have at hand is a hammer, almost every problem you come across resembles a nail when in fact it might be a bolt? One problem that Israel has always had is a lack of resources, this includes political resources to affect policy and opinion. Given that their limited tool set includes a very strong and efficient military, it is not surprising they tend to rely on it when perhaps they shouldn't. This article was a discussion of the surrounding culture of usage.
Posted by Lithos in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Jun 02nd 2006, 12:55 AM
Or rather, to me that is not the singular cause. It was much more than that. Saddam had already made a deal to Bush which would have given essentially full access to the oil for Bush's friends without the uncertainty and risks associated with waging war.
Rather, I think it had to do with an ultra-nationalistic (ego-centric) view of the US which they felt placed it above all other countries. "We're the super power and we should get the respect we need." Iraq was the weak kid on the block and essentially considered lacking in sovereignty because it has consistently shown an inability to defend its borders and thus should be controlled by the US who because we're the most powerful are thus the most deserving. The conquest of Iraq is nothing more than an outgrowth of the same sense of entitlement that this administration has shown in domestic politics.
So, yes, oil is one part of it, access to markets in the Middle East is another, but power and control are the primary motivators. The other items were really selling points to the primary focus of establishing US dominance and are the bones thrown to the corporations to obtain their support. The Bush Administration (and the PNAC/Neo-Con groups) feel there is some additional sense of economic value gained by the US due to fear (they call it prestige) of the US military prowess though given China's and India's growing success at the expense of the US which is being drained by these small wars shows such a strategy is illusionary and short sighted. Essentially the world has for the most part moved on past such overt examples of nationalistic sovereignty and do not judge the value of the US by the same standards the PNAC members do.
On Edit: Essentially the Bush administration and the neo-Cons in general takes an old-fashioned Westphalian view point of the world, as evidenced by their disdain of the UN and other shared global instruments of discussion and cooperation.
Posted by Lithos in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Jun 02nd 2006, 12:24 AM
But this is nothing new to say.
There are many, many war crimes such as Malmedy done thruout war. Yes, there are criminals such as Peiper, who should be called for their actions, but the real lesson is that because these things happen, it should only remind those that war is not something to blindly rush into which is exactly what happened in Iraq. Iraq is not another World War II for the US as it is not a great liberation - Saddam represented no threat to hearth, home or civilization which is what the war on Fascism represented. Any historian could have predicted Haditha, maybe not the time or place, but the fact such an event would occur given the very real nature of war. The sad fact is that this is also not the first time, several attacks in Afghanistan appear to have been done without proper need as well as crimes at Abu Ghraib.
Given that the Bush Administration took this as the sole option when the evidence at the time decisively indicated that a military intervention would destabilize the region and require long term committment of US troops the blame rests squarely on them. It becomes not only tragic, but an ongoing crime against humanity because they conspired to lie to the US public about the need to go to war and because they did so for reasons which had nothing to do with the best interests of the US, but with the interests of a monied few.
This is the only one to discuss what was said in a way which is constructive.
To answer your question.
Fatah remained in power and Arafat/Abbas was elected PM only because they were felt to be the ONLY possible option for achieving peace. Remember that Arafat and Fatah were elevated by Israel and the Western Powers and given the mantle as being the voice of the Palestinian people in order to provide a basis for Peace discussions. They were not elevated for being good administrators, but for other reasons which center mainly on being secular and convenient. It turns out they were pretty poor at running a government, completely lacking in vision, corrupt and they have obviously failed in the peace process.
Hamas was elected not because it is a terrorist organization, but because they were the only alternative to the highly corrupt Fatah party capable of governing. Fatah was not moving forward in terms of creating a viable country and infrastructure. Hamas while they have a terroristic wing also has vast knowledge in actually running things like hospitals and schools plus have excellent street credibility with the Palestinian people as fighting corruption.
At this point I think the Palestinians, while they desperately want peace, believe the peace process has stagnated and are wanting to move on. Their focus is now internal to themselves and not external to things such as Israel and as such Hamas could offer them some expectation of getting things working again. This is what President Carter is talking about when he says despair has forced them to move on. Had there been a secular alternative not tied to Fatah capable of handling the internal administrative challenges, they would likely have taken it.
As it stands, the external pressure that is being applied to them via sanctions is likely to create a stronger and more ideological enemy than existed a few years ago. A people without hope are a dangerous enemy. Prior to this past election, the Palestinians had hope.
On Edit: Grammar
Vietnam-era G.I. "Pirate" Radio First Termer pops up again
For the surviving airchecks from January 1971 (contains extreme profanity):
For the basic story of DJ Dave Rabbit's reemergence from the fog of
legend this February:
And intellectually dishonest if it does not honestly address issues such as those raised by Mr. Salvorhardin. I disagree with him when he seemingly implies the whole of 9/11 skepticism is bigoted. (Correct me if I've read incorrectly).
The lack of self-honesty and consistant application of standards is extremely appalling. The comment in the DU rules about speculative theories specifically addresses the fact of these shortcomings and how they are viewed by the majority of membership. From my understanding and observation, the rule was a case of Vox Populi. It also is a matter of consistency. If people here object to threads about "Chemtrails" and "Weather Manipulation" constantly being thrown down here, then why do they also not object to using sources which are usually no more than one recommended link away from sites which espouse such things?
Also, do I think people here are bigots? For the vast majority, no. What I see for the most part are people who are genuinely disaffected with government and people who disagree as to the nature of the story the government is not telling. Oh yes, it has been definitely shown the government has lied about 9/11 to further it's agenda and the personal fortunes of several of it's membership. There is definitely a story not being told. The issue of course here in the forum is if it is theft after the fact, gross incompetence (either criminal or negligent), LIHOP or MIHOP.
That said, it is also a fact there are groups of people who are preying upon the 9/11 issue with "easy" answers, consisting mostly of rehashed memes of one sort or another repurposed to take advantage of 9/11, in order to further their agendas and/or enrich their pocket books. Many of these groups are bigoted. I can guarantee you that this is not the story and due diligence must be taken to avoid enriching or legitimatizing these people who are definitely not progressive and are not our allies. The real story lies elsewhere.
As for the deletion, it was honest. I had hoped to re-focus and salvage the original thread from being strongly unilateral and accusatory to bilateral and open in its questioning, but it was deleted before I could do that.
If Jews, Zionism, and Israel are coming up in 911 over and over it's sure not the conspiracy theorists that are looking to make connections where there are not.
So, if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes true? Isn't that the issue behind Bush's claims of WMD? Isn't this the primary complaint by the 9/11 truth side the government and media are repeating a lie? Your comment is absurd given your basis of assumption.
What was Goebbel's quote?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
The focus on AIPAC and Israel has always been interesting in that people place such singular focus on AIPAC as being an influential lobbying group, but make no mention of other groups with far more influence on US foreign policy, namely the energy and defense concerns? Why the focus when the ties, corruption and conspiracies to Iraq, Afghanistan, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Bin Ladin have far more to do with these groups than with Israel or AIPAC? If you want interesting connections, google Jack Philby, Aramco (or most any oil company), Allen Dulles, George Bush Sr. and the CIA. Note: You will NOT find AIPAC in there.
If you look at the money and power connections between the US and the rest of the Middle East, you will find it dwarfs that given to Israel. 1953 - you've got an Iranian coup. Saddam was the child of the defense and energy powers and brought down by the same when he threatened one of their allies (Saudi Arabia); Afghanistan - the Taliban went down for the oil pipeline ("carpets of bombs"). About all Israel seems to be guaranteed by US policy is an existance which results not from Jewish influence, but rather that of the Millineal Dispensationalist crowd.
Also, you find no issue that the original sources claiming Israeli involvement came from sites and operation well known and heavily associated with holocaust denial activities and the proponents of it? This singularity and commonality by these groups leads to my second Goebbel's quote:
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
Apropos given their fascination to Nazism.
These points are heart and soul to the discussion at hand. If the 9/11 truth movement wishes to be honest, then it needs to be honest with itself else it will look extremely foolish and become nothing more than a tool for others.
Or George "W"ayne Bush...
(Extra credit for those who understand where the Wayne comes from.)
Is closer to the far right than it is to the left in general, as like space, politics warps back amongst itself. Though what you call far-left here is generally not as far left as they think they are.
As for sources, curiously, most of what is not allowed here for these types of biased thinking such as anti-Semitism sites are usually paleo-Libertarian and generally Far Right in bent. Yes, a few sites are not allowed here in I/P which are leftist in nature, but mostly because they lack gravitas (ie, are vanity), than biased reasons.
Of the Libertarian (where most of the anti-Semitic sites seem to be associated), the main reason they've garnered any coin among the left is that they are jealous/in competition with the Neo-Cons for control of the Right and leftists are sometimes over-eager to believe "an enemy of my enemy is my ally" without realizing this other group is also an enemy.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Fewer people getting married.
By No Elephants
I'm sorry to hear things have been so bad over here, and here's why --
By Leopolds Ghost
Happy Fathers' Day to all the Dads.
By No Elephants
Deleted. Triple post.
By No Elephants
Deleted. Triple post.
By No Elephants
NSA vs Snowden -- Follow the Money
Jeb Bush : 'Immigrants create more businesses than do US citizens' and "are more fertile..."
By Leopolds Ghost
Enthusiast, did you get a pm from me this morning?
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums