Anti-Semitism at US Universities and elsewhere

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And those who attack Jews have limited themselves to practicing Jews?

I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

49 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BR,

Why didn't the activists at Oberlin call out Prof. Karega for her Rothschild comment?  That seems, to me, like something they'd be waiting to pounce upon.  It is blatantly anti-Jewish and has nothing to do with Israel.  It is literally the "Jewish Global Conspiracy".

This is from the "Daily Beast" article I linked a bit earlier:

 

 

Can self described anti-Zionist Jews be anti-Semitic? It's like saying anti-BLM African Americans are racist. 

I can only assume the group believes the meme is not directed at Rothschild as being Jewish, but as him being a 1%er. I don't see any other way you defend the meme as being not anti-Semitic if there is a line being drawn to his being Jewish and / or his connection to the Israeli govt.

I thought the comment by one of the Jewish(?) students, Jenny, was interesting that she recognises that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism aren't the same thing, but that people use language to voice their anti-Zionism that very much crosses over into anti-Semitism. She was identified as one of the students who is sympathetic to Israel and feels the need to self-censor.

[Datepalm]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Good gods, I had no idea @Inigima was Jewish. I just thought he worshipped knives and being in chat.

He starts a Happy New Year thread every year! 

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, Datepalm said:

He starts a Happy New Year thread every year! 

I thought he just liked celebrating things

[James Arryn]

14 hours ago, BloodRider said:

Benjamin Gladstone is an admitted hardcore Zionist.  That's his choice, but my point is he ties far too much in his bundle there.  I am not sure where the line is, but he is IMO certainly trying to pack opposing Zionism with antisemitism, and I think that's bullshit.

I agree, it was front-loaded with that.

 

For example, it suggests that Nasser and Hezbollah can be reduced to 'anti-Semitic' and moves on from there as though that's a given. This argument is often used by lazy thinkers, or those so committed they truly do believe it's that sophomoric, like reducing opposing HRC to sexism or Obama to racism. As in those cases, I'm sure many who oppose Israel's policies/actions are in fact anti-Semitic, but there are also a great many who, rightly or wrongly, oppose those without any racial prejudice whatsoever. Conflating them does neither side in the argument any favours.

[Datepalm]

I get that. I have to stop myself from starting a Happy Day of the Soviet Missile Forces and Artillery thread every year. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I'm pretty sure that isnt even a real quote from Rothschild, the antisemites have made a cottage industry over claiming the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are real, when they are an unfortunate hoax that got propagated so often that the antisemites latched onto it,  you'll find skinhead types that believe the forgery is real to this day.

What that Professor posted is totally tasteless and worthy of criticism (And I say that as a unabashed critic of the occupation of Palestine), yet i'm not convinced the Oberlin students were even defending the meme? The meme isnt even alluded to by the students, is it realistic to criticize the students over what they didnt say or what they may not have said yet? We cant even be sure that some of the Oberlin activists havent called out the Professor, I dont think we have the full record of everything they may or may not have said do we?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I'm pretty sure that isnt even a real quote from Rothschild, the antisemites have made a cottage industry over claiming the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are real, when they are an unfortunate hoax that got propagated so often that the antisemites latched onto it,  you'll find skinhead types that believe the forgery is real to this day.

What that Professor posted is totally tasteless and worthy of criticism (And I say that as a unabashed critic of the occupation of Palestine), yet i'm not convinced the Oberlin students were even defending the meme? The meme isnt even alluded to by the students, is it realistic to criticize the students over what they didnt say or what they may not have said yet? We cant even be sure that some of the Oberlin activists havent called out the Professor, I dont think we have the full record of everything they may or may not have said do we?

DWS,

Oberlin is noted as a place that cares deeply about providing safe spaces for oppressed minorities and yet when Prof. Karega throws out the Rothschild meme that literally offers the "Global Jewish Conspiracy" in its text they are not up in arms about the demonization and sterotype offered of Jews but about defending Prof. Karega's right to free speech.  

I believe in free speech but the activists at Oberlin have gone so far as to want art that has been in place for years or decades painted over to end "cultural appropriation".  They were not noted for their dedication to free expression until Prof. Karega was attacked for offering a blatantly anti-Jewish meme.  They're selectivity in who they defend is rather telling.  And yes, their choice to defend Prof. Karega on free speech grounds (see the Beast article I post up thread) is quite out of character.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DWS,

Oberlin is noted as a place that cares deeply about providing safe spaces for oppressed minorities and yet when Prof. Karega throws out the Rothschild meme that literally offers the "Global Jewish Conspiracy" in its text they are not up in arms about the demonization and sterotype offered of Jews but about defending Prof. Karega's right to free speech.  

I believe in free speech but the activists at Oberlin have gone so far as to want art that has been in place for years or decades painted over to end "cultural appropriation".  They were not noted for their dedication to free expression until Prof. Karega was attacked for offering a blatantly anti-Jewish meme.  They're selectivity in who they defend is rather telling.  And yes, their choice to defend Prof. Karega on free speech grounds (see the Beast article I post up thread) is quite out of character.

So Oberlin activists are a monolith? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

So Oberlin activists are a monolith? 

LtI,

The one's defending Karega appear to be.  Inconsistent ones.

From the Daily Beast article I link up thread:

“We believe that ‘never again for anyone’ means that anti-Jewish oppression must be fought alongside anti-Black racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia and other forms of oppression,” they wrote in the school newspaper, the Oberlin Review. “In this spirit, we are troubled by the implicit and explicit currents of anti-Black racism prevalent in the mass defamation of Professor Karega.”

This defense of Karega from students suggests an uncomfortable double standard within a school community that has a reputation from being a progressive, crunchy-granola utopia, a standout even among the “safe space”-friendly environs of small liberal arts colleges.

According to some Oberlin students, like Jenny, who don’t subscribe to all of more pervasive political views on campus, that commendable embrace of diversity and acceptance of all may have a big exception: Jews, and especially those who voice (even mildly) favorable views of Israel.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LtI,

The defense of Prof. Karega is coming from a group, not from individuals.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LtI,

The defense of Prof. Karega is coming from a group, not from individuals.

The only group listed was the Anti-Zionist Jews as providing a defense.

In their full letter they did address the Rothschild meme and stated in it is Anti-Semetic and used as a divisive tactic.  I do think it would of been good if that part was included in the article.

I personally think something as the Rothschild should he a more demonstrative line as related to Anti-Semitism.  I also think the articles shows the issues Anti-Zionist Jews can feel in being forceful when the articles did a lot to tie being Pro-Jewish to being Pro-Zionist.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TKG,

Then they are very inconsistent regarding who they will heap with social opprobrium.

[Kelli Fury]

I think I can provide partial explanation about it. It has seemed to me that the only types of bigotry that most of American society can identify are bigotry against black people, bigotry against Latinx people, and bigotry against the gay community. If it's anyone else, people don't often have enough knowledge of what it is to recognize it. And if you point it out, the knee jerk defensive BUT IM NOT RACIST will keep anything said from sinking in. If you are Jewish or Native or Asian or transgender- forget it, most people don't think you experience any bigotry. I don't understand why this is the case, but it allows it to continue by denying its existence in the first place.

[Datepalm]

1 hour ago, Kelli Fury said:

I think I can provide partial explanation about it. It has seemed to me that the only types of bigotry that most of American society can identify are bigotry against black people, bigotry against Latinx people, and bigotry against the gay community. If it's anyone else, people don't often have enough knowledge of what it is to recognize it. And if you point it out, the knee jerk defensive BUT IM NOT RACIST will keep anything said from sinking in. If you are Jewish or Native or Asian or transgender- forget it, most people don't think you experience any bigotry. I don't understand why this is the case, but it allows it to continue by denying its existence in the first place.

That's an interesting analysis - and harsh, though maybe appropriately so. (I really don't have a personal position on the broader topic. America is far away.) It's as if anti-discrimination, anti-racism, is failing to rise to the level of a behaviour rooted in any kind of ethical code or ideological worldview here, but is simply a list of bulletpoints of oppression that people have learned by rote?

Several times in this thread people have characterized a type of 'well, anti-semitism is complicated, and old news as well, so its hard.' It doesn't occur to someone to take an equal - and equally complex and nuanced - and consistent stance against, say, homophobia and anti-semitism, because they've been well educated the former but not the latter. The former is a current issue with media presence and relatively consensual codes of what you're supposed to say and not say, do and not do, so it's good, the latter isn't, so it's not?

Like, trans visibility and discourse is relatively newer, and the language around it, the perception of the groups needs and desires to the general (or activist) public, the control of the narrative and the history are still evolving (for example, I would not have guessed if you'd stopped me on the street ten years ago that bathrooms would become emblematic flashpoints of trans rights. I probably wouldn't have found, say, a joke on the topic terribly offensive, if it had been on my radar for some reason. Today I would probably find it transphobic and disgusting, because the issue has become loaded and a specific arena of resistance to trans rights and denial of trans identity. And so on.) A decade or two ago islamophobia was less on the radar, (Is it ok to ask a woman wearing a hijab if she doesn't get, like, really hot? Of course it isn't - because it's become a flashpoint around Muslim identity and rights in public spaces. In a parallell universe, its not more loaded than asking how you keep a kippa pinned on and something weirdly different is at the locust of anti/islamophobic identity issues. The number of minarets in a city skyline, maybe. Oh wait that happened too.) Anti-Semitism is - or has become - also poorly defined, and so that's just fine?

There are some basic moral underpinnings of to the liberal, pro-diversity position. Not conflating individuals with groups while also, dialectically, not dismissing the significance of an individuals group identity. Tracing back and being aware of historical processes and assessing them critically, while also not being entirely let off the hook if faux-pas are made in unawareness. Allowing that the culture and lived experience of an identity cannot be replicated or even entirely explained to another, and that their appropriation or denial is inappropriate. Etc. Holding these as principle is supposed, as a generalization, to prevent any kind of anti- or -phobia a priori within a society where everyone, theoretically, holds to this. Any situation is to be assessed with these tools, with such a worldview - including the questionable presentation of an ethnicity one known nothing about previously - not a collection of specific phrases about specific groups that need to be censored, and viola, the job is done. I don't entirely agree with all the multiculturalism positions (and I'm not touching anti semitism/zionism with a ten foot lulav. I've fought my trench wars on the board on that one. I'm too old for that shit,) but 'well, it's like too complicated to not be anti-semitic' seems to accept a very fundamental moral and intellectual failing in the whole thing, and do these same activists a disservice in allowing that they're just that stupid, and lazy. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 hours ago, Inigima said:

As a Jew, I have found it necessary to reckon with this truth: others cannot be relied upon to protect us from antisemitism. Even in this thread, not everyone is able or cares to distinguish Jewish people from the state of Israel.

American Jews are among the most progressive blocs in American politics, and many of us have problems with Israeli policy -- over which we have virtually no say -- but it matters little. Israel provides a convenient fig leaf for antisemites to hide behind. If it did not, they would find another. There is no magic bullet to solve this problem, there is only the continuous, unending fight to confront antisemitism, every time it appears.

This is so on point. Very well said, Ini. 

6 hours ago, Kelli Fury said:

I think I can provide partial explanation about it. It has seemed to me that the only types of bigotry that most of American society can identify are bigotry against black people, bigotry against Latinx people, and bigotry against the gay community. If it's anyone else, people don't often have enough knowledge of what it is to recognize it. And if you point it out, the knee jerk defensive BUT IM NOT RACIST will keep anything said from sinking in. If you are Jewish or Native or Asian or transgender- forget it, most people don't think you experience any bigotry. I don't understand why this is the case, but it allows it to continue by denying its existence in the first place.

Yup. I've experienced antisemitism my entire life, and when I've tried to explain it to people I'm often told that I'm exaggerating it and it's effects or that it's not a big deal followed by the stereotype that Jewish people are wealthy and have it good so they don't really experience bigotry. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What I cannot fathom is why anti-Jewish sentiment is minimized and dismissed by people who claim to care about the oppression of minorities.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LtI,

The one's defending Karega appear to be.  Inconsistent ones.

From the Daily Beast article I link up thread:

 

10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

“We believe that ‘never again for anyone’ means that anti-Jewish oppression must be fought alongside anti-Black racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia and other forms of oppression,” they wrote in the school newspaper, the Oberlin Review. “In this spirit, we are troubled by the implicit and explicit currents of anti-Black racism prevalent in the mass defamation of Professor Karega.”

This defense of Karega from students suggests an uncomfortable double standard within a school community that has a reputation from being a progressive, crunchy-granola utopia, a standout even among the “safe space”-friendly environs of small liberal arts colleges.

According to some Oberlin students, like Jenny, who don’t subscribe to all of more pervasive political views on campus, that commendable embrace of diversity and acceptance of all may have a big exception: Jews, and especially those who voice (even mildly) favorable views of Israel.

 

 

It's interesting that the article accuses the students of having a "Jewish exception" soon after quoting a statement from a student group which says "anti-Jewish oppression must be fought alongside anti-Black racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia and other forms of oppression,". It seems that on the surface the students do regard anti-Semitism as a bad thing and something to be eliminated. But there will always be major arguments around what action/statements are anti-Zionist and thus politically and ethically fair game, and what is anti-Semitic.

The anti-Zionist activists' arguments will always be that what they do and say is in opposition to Israel as being a theocratic state oppressor and not at all anti-Semitic. That may be their intent, but lots of racist things are said without the intent of being racist, and so the same would apply here. The waters are more muddied in this situation because of the fine line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and in some people's minds they are one and the same.

The issue with people like Jenny is that she is at least sympathetic to Israel, which puts her at odds with vehement critics of Israel. Who think that people who are sympathetic or supportive of Israel are in fact the ones who are applying a "Jewish exception" double standard, being that Israel's oppression of Palestinians is acceptable in defence of the Zionism. This makes her feel uncomfortable and isolated and disliked or even hated. But she is not left out in the cold because she's Jewish or because of anti-Semitism, she's left out in the cold because of her political views. Shunning people for their political views is de rigueur these days especially at the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

40 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

It's interesting that the article accuses the students of having a "Jewish exception" soon after quoting a statement from a student group which says "anti-Jewish oppression must be fought alongside anti-Black racism, anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia and other forms of oppression,". It seems that on the surface the students do regard anti-Semitism as a bad thing and something to be eliminated. But there will always be major arguments around what action/statements are anti-Zionist and thus politically and ethically fair game, and what is anti-Semitic.

The anti-Zionist activists' arguments will always be that what they do and say is in opposition to Israel as being a theocratic state oppressor and not at all anti-Semitic. That may be their intent, but lots of racist things are said without the intent of being racist, and so the same would apply here. The waters are more muddied in this situation because of the fine line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and in some people's minds they are one and the same.

The issue with people like Jenny is that she is at least sympathetic to Israel, which puts her at odds with vehement critics of Israel. Who think that people who are sympathetic or supportive of Israel are in fact the ones who are applying a "Jewish exception" double standard, being that Israel's oppression of Palestinians is acceptable in defence of the Zionism. This makes her feel uncomfortable and isolated and disliked or even hated. But she is not left out in the cold because she's Jewish or because of anti-Semitism, she's left out in the cold because of her political views. Shunning people for their political views is de rigueur these days especially at the more extreme ends of the political spectrum.

TAT,

But they said "anti-Jewish" sentiment must be fought while defending Prof. Karega.  Isn't that contradictory?

[Kelli Fury]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What I cannot fathom is why anti-Jewish sentiment is minimized and dismissed by people who claim to care about the oppression of minorities.

This is because most people in the majority (even the very liberal) have a mindset that if they have not observed it personally and/or it doesn't make sense to them, it's not real. I have had people tell me they don't see racism against native people, but they are just so isolated from them in general that they don't have much opportunity to. Which is fine, there are all kinds of different experiences, but just because you don't see it doesn't mean it happen. And the parts that are part of popular culture they can be exposed to, they don't understand why it's problematic and do not want to hear it when you explain. Just picture pop culture portrayals of Jewish people or Natives or Asian people or Trans people (often, even black and Latinx people and gay people too) and it's very rarely a character who their particular flavor isn't central to their role on what they are in. If the actor is one of these things, it's addressed in a way it wouldn't be if the character was supposed to be Catholic or Canadian or something. These groups are all highly fetishized when not ignored and if you try to explain why that is a problem for real people (a losing battle I've fought many times on this board), everyone rolls their eyes. People think if their intentions aren't specifically bad, then it harms no one. But that isn't how it works and there's no help for it when you're dealing with people who think we killed antisemitism with WWII and racism with the civil rights movement. 

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

TAT,

But they said "anti-Jewish" sentiment must be fought while defending Prof. Karega.  Isn't that contradictory?

To you and me perhaps. But I give the group enough intelligence to think that they saw the defence as non-contradictory. Although the quote in the DB article does not actually defend what Karega posted, but talked of the allegedly (as I've not read any backlash comments) racist content of some of the backlash against her. While all sorts of valid criticisms of Karega can be brought to bear, responding to racism with racism is not valid and not defensible and should be criticised.